A8etoº
W99 |
com/, //, /, //, 7./
Cºcism of Azisfoſ/e's
AV/comac/eazz /ī//ºcs
ING RAM BY WATER
FELLOW OF EXETER COLLEGE
Oxford.
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1892




THE
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
OF
THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS
20mbon
H E N RY FRO W D E
OXFORI) UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE
AMEN CORNER, E.C.
sº
.*
º-
#
E=
-3
EFT
º
.
Sº-
--~~
É.
:
-----
-:
->
~
==
(ſlew 9orá
I 12 FOURTH AVENUE












Contributions to the 7extua/
Criticism of Aristof/e's
AWicomachean AEthics
BY
INGRAM BY WATER, , , qo-
FELI.OW OF EXETER COLLEGE
Oxfor 8
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1892
Öxforo
PRINTED AT THE CLAR END ON PRESS
BY HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
*,
*
\
92.8
A-2 c :
+ an
*
ERRA TU M.
Page 66, last two lines, for pixwu read kaków
Zºe.rtual Criticism of the Æthics.
P R E F A C E
THESE notes are designed to serve as a supplement
to the edition of the Nicomachean Ethics published at
Oxford a year ago. I found it impossible, within the
limits of the book itself, to give an account of the reasons,
some of principle and some of detail, which led me to
diverge in a great many passages from the text of other
editions, the most recent one (that of Susemihl) not ex-
cepted. There are emendations in it which cannot be
supposed to tell their own tale; and in sundry places
I reverted to the reading of the best MSS., or to one
which seems directly implied in it, instead of adopting
Some generally approved conjecture, or accepting a read-
ing with inferior credentials from one of the later MSS.
I say ‘the best MSS.’ because, though emphatically
agreeing with those who assign the premier place to Kb,
I cannot think it right to neglect, as one is constantly
tempted to do, the evidence of Lo and T. The text in Lb
and T, in spite of the various modifications it may have
undergone, represents in its primitive elements a manu-
script tradition as old as that in Ko: one has to admit
that it is nearer the original form of text in many passages;
and in other cases, where there is no obvious right or
wrong on either side, a reading in Lb or T may very well
333.4 . .
tºº
*a S = Y, "J
vi ARASFA CAE.
be an old alternative, and thus claim to be considered
along with the other alternative which happens to have
found its way into Kb . It is clear that the Kb text has
had a history, and that accident has played a very large
part in its growth and formation.
In the following statement on the subject of the MSS.
I have naturally devoted more space to Kb than to the
rest: owing to the value and prestige of this our oldest
MS., it is, I conceive, of paramount importance for us to
have clear ideas as to the kind of errors which we may
antecedently expect to find in its text. The classification
of errors, which is on the basis of the scheme in Madvig's
Adversaria, cannot pretend to completeness, but I hope
that it may have its use as a study of the pathology of Kb,
and may perhaps induce some one with more command of
leisure to institute an examination on the same lines of
the textual phenomena of Lb and T.
There is one kind of critical difficulty which I have
ignored, or all but ignored “, in these pages, that con-
nected with the traces of duplicate readings, interpolations,
and dislocations recognizable in the existing text of the
Nicomachean Ethics. It must be borne in mind that the
book in its present form goes back in all probability as far as
the age of Andronicus, and furthermore, that the primitive
form and structure of the book is a matter of speculation,
not of positive knowledge. The restoration of the book
as it was in the days of Nicomachus and Eudemus is
assuredly a very legitimate object of enquiry; but it seems
to me that an edition of the actual text is hardly the place
* Compare Susemihl, Neue Jahrb. f. Phil. u. Pád. 1883, p. 617.
* A duplicate reading is recognized in Io98* 12, because without this
assumption the grammar, as well as the logic, of the passage is at fault.
$
AAEA FA CAE. vii
for one's preliminary experiments, and that, by adopting
into the text the various excisions and transpositions
which have been, or might be, suggested to correct struc-
tural anomalies, we run some risk of marring what we
have without recovering anything really better or more
authentic. If I have ventured here and there to trans-
pose a few words, it is merely in order to rectify a scribe's
error, which I suppose to have originated in some MS. in
the usual way, after the book had been made up and
assumed its present form.
It may be as well to say, as regards the readings of Kº
quoted in these notes, that when they are not to be found
in Bekker's apparatus, they are generally taken from
Schoell's collation, printed in Susemihl's Epistula Critica
at the end of Ramsauer's edition.
INGRAM BY WATER.
Oxford, 5 Nov. 1891.
H^
Kb —
Lb
Mb =
cod. Marcianus 2I 4
cod. Laurentianus I.XXXI. I I
= cod. Parisiensis 1854
cod. Marcianus 2I3
= cod. Marcianus append. iv. 53
= cod. Riccardianus 46
antiqua traductio (ed. Paris. I 497)
Contributions to the Textual Criticism of
Aristotle's AVicomachean Ethics.
THE CHIEF Sources For THE TExt.
I. The Commentary of Aspasius.—Among our subsidia for
the critical study of the Nicomachean Ethics, we are now,
thanks to Heylbut’s edition, able to include the Commentary of
Aspasius, which, so far as it extends, often throws a wholly
new light on the criticism of the text. In general, however,
what we learn from him is that the text of the second cent.
was very like what it is now, with little or no difference, for
instance, of order or arrangement, and with readings identical
for the most part with those preserved in one or other of our
best MSS. In dealing with this text Aspasius himself is hard
pressed occasionally to explain the difficulties it presents: he
is once or twice driven to emendation, and he has to note also
the existence of variants—which shows that there was some
element of uncertainty as to the text even in this comparatively
early stage in the history of the book.
Aspasius has a twofold use for us; he gives us sundry new
readings and he also constantly testifies to the antiquity of
the readings now found in the MSS. of Aristotle. In using him,
however, for critical purposes, we have to bear in mind two
circumstances, which limit and impair to some extent the value
of the evidence in his Commentary.
(1) We must remember, in the first place, that the Commen-
B
2 7A/E CAN/A2F SOURCES FOR THE 7TEXT.
tary, as we now have it, from MSS. of very late date, has
suffered sadly in the process of transmission to us; and that
even in the Berlin edition, notwithstanding the care and
learning brought to bear on it by Heylbut and Diels, the text
is not always free from difficulties". The Aristotelian quotations
more especially seem to have been exposed to a very perplexing
and insidious form of corruption, owing to a tendency to assimi-
late them to the readings in the MSS. of Aristotle–a falsifica-
tion which it is hardly possible to detect except in the rare
instances in which the language of the quotation is distinctly
seen to be inconsistent with what Aspasius says in the context.
The following readings, which figure in the existing text of
Aspasius, are due to a corruption of this kind :—
#6eoruv (p. 9, 3I = Io95° 4): Aspasius, however, as his comment
shows (p. Io, 2), read #6eorw.
8tatov (p. II, 2=Io96*6): Heylbut has rightly observed that
the explanation which follows implies 8atóv.
€ri rôv Šamavmuárov (p. IOT, 26= II23* Io): the explanation
implies énel rôv Šaravmudrov.
£xdorº (p. 176, 29-1158° 18): the repetition of this in p. 177,
22 has exdorrow (the reading in Kb).
It is clear that for the recovery of the text, as Aspasius had
it before him, our best evidence is that in his explanations, and
in the latent quotations and references embodied in these,
rather than that in the direct and avowed quotations in the
Commentary. -
(2) In the second place, the Commentary is really more of
the nature of a paraphrase, with quotations from the original in-
terspersed or incidentally worked into the text. Hence it is that
in his restatements of Aristotle Aspasius often allows himself a
pretty free hand; he substitutes, for instance, his own connect-
ing particles; he inserts what he thinks conducive to clearness,
and ignores what he deems trivial or unimportant for the
* The following are some of the emendations that have occurred to
me —p. 18, 23 read trpoo riðeptévov; p. 30, 6 &tuxmudrov (comp. 30, 23):
p. 93, 13 £6topioi : p. 136, 3 &Koratikoſ (comp. 137, 6): p. 179, 23 Örö 6&
ºrów elbárov : p. 185, 31 row 56vra. In p. 63, 9 the parenthesis ends with
övéparos, and a full stop should be marked after ékovaiov.
A.S.PA.SYU.S. 3
general meaning. His mode of quotation is often like that we
see in his statement of the opening words of the Ethics, which
he gives in p. 3, 30 in this form :—
trāora öé, bmari, Téxvn kai rāora piéðoãos kai Tpāśis kai trpoaipeg is
dyaéoù ruvos éqiteral,
—though he immediately afterwards (p. 4, 12) quotes them accu-
rately enough, in the form which the passage has in Kº L". In
cases like this it is obvious that his deviation from the ordinary
Aristotelian text does not imply a difference of reading.
After this preliminary caution, which readers of Aspasius
will not find so unnecessary as it may seem at first, I may pro-
ceed to note some of the characteristics of the text which
underlies his Commentary.
(1) There were already alternative readings competing for a
place in the text. Aspasius expressly mentions two readings,
Téxvas and 8.6%as in III2" 7, 800Asvaruv and BoöAmoruv in III.3” I2,
dyabóv and rô dya&ów (comp. Asp. p. 142, I5 and I43, Io) in
II52" 9, rms éportrijs and rols éportko's in II.56°3, raûrm yūp duovot
and raûrm 8é àuota in 1156922. We may suppose the second
reading in these instances to have been recorded in the margin
of his MS. ; but in one passage, that in IIII* 14, it would seem
that they were both of them actually in the text itself, the para-
phrase being in fact an attempt to cover the ground of émi
orornpig trioras (or toria as), and émi oormpiq traigas (the reading in
our MSS.):-
Ös à tê (báppiakov čovs éiri orormpia, dyvoñoras 3rt 6aváortuov #v. kai
éiri orornpiq pºèv ématore rôv čearnkóra éavrot, tva dvavāvm, Aage 8'
dirokretvas, oùk émi rooro raioras.
(2) The text was not free from errors of transcription. Thus
in Io96*6 it had 3al6s (for 8tatos), in III.7°2 intô röv kūk\ov (for
inrö rôv kök\@), in II24”25 Épos (for épyov).
(3) Its general resemblance to that in Kº is unmistakeable,
and it was probably greater and more marked when the Com-
mentary was still in the condition in which Aspasius left it.
It agreed with the Kb text even in some of its more obvious
errors, e.g. in 8Aa3epai TôN tréAas in 1123°33, and in fort 8&
toūrov čkaorox in 1127°26.
(4) On the other hand one has also to admit a certain re-
Semblance between it and the Lº text, not only in minor
B 2
4. 7 HE CHIEF JOURCES FOR 7"HE 7'E_YT.
matters but also here and there in matters of some importance.
Noteworthy instances of readings common to LP and Aspasius
are rvkvokivövvos in II24*7, trpoyapyaxto:6&vres in 1150b 22, and, if I
am not mistaken (v. Asp. p. 130, 5.7), 6mptobeig in II45°24, and
6mptočeias in II.48° I9.
(5) The coincidences observable between the text in As-
pasius and that in the inferior MSS. of Aristotle lose their
significance as soon as one sees—as I think one must in the
case of Ob and M*—that these readings have been imported
into the later MSS. by correction of their text from Aspasius.
The situation accordingly in many particular cases of agree-
ment is one of the very greatest doubt and uncertainty; it is
quite possible that the MSS. have been corrected from Aspa-
sius, and it is quite possible also that Aspasius has been
corrected from them. Even in regard to LP and Aspasius, in
the case of certain coincidences of reading, it is impossible to
avoid the suspicion that the agreement may perhaps be due to
an assimilation of the one text to the other.
II. Bekker's six MSS.—Of his six selected MSS. Bekker has
generally neglected two, viz. H* and Nº. As far as I can see,
he was quite right in thus simplifying his apparatus criticus:
when they deviate from the text of the other four, their read-
ings are demonstrably in the majority of cases either idle
variants or corruptions of a better text. -
It appears to me that we may with advantage go a step
further, and eliminate also the MSS. known as Ob and M",
so as to leave as our recognised sources for the text Kb and
Lb ; to which one must add T, the old Latin version *. The
varying position of Ob Mb in reference to Kb LP has been ex-
amined, with more care than the subject merits, by Rassow
and Susemihl, and the result is the following series of corres-
pondences:—
Kb Mb – Lº Ob in Bks. I, II, VI, VII, IX.
Kb Ob — Lb Mb, in Bks. III, IV.
* Bekker ignored it, but it is regularly quoted by Zell, and it was the
source from which Turnebus derived some important readings.
BEKKER’s MSS.—CO.D. O" 5
Kb Lb — Mb Ob ) .
Kb Ob – Lº Mb | * Bk. V.
Kb Ob – T Mb, in Bk. VIII (Lo standing here alone).
Kb Mb — LB Ob", in Bk. X.
These results are arrived at by taking an average of the
instances of agreement and difference among the four MSS.,
and from this arithmetical point of view are no doubt true
enough ; for the explanation of the facts, however, they leave
us just where we were. Thus in the opening section of Bk.
III, in which one expects the general formula Kb Ob — Lo Mb,
the readings of the four MSS. group themselves in reality in a
very different way:—
Mb — Kb Lb Ob.
Kb – Lo Mb Ob (thrice).
Ob – Kb Lb Mb.
Lb — Kb Ob Mb.
The truth is that the texts of Ob Mº are essentially products
of contamination. When we come to see that—and we can
easily do it without any elaborate calculations—it is of little
moment to know that in one Bk. Ob happens to present a
somewhat larger proportion of Kº readings, and in another a
somewhat larger proportion of those in Lb. What we want is
a criterion of value, to enable us to estimate a reading found in
Ob or M" alone, i.e. one without support or confirmation from
K”, or Lº, or (I may add) T. We may perhaps get some such
criterion by an examination in detail of the unique readings
in Ob and Mb, a point on which the statistical method throws
little or no light. If we come to the conclusion that their
unique readings are as a rule worthless, and that the exceptions
are mostly due to emendation, more or less successful, we
shall not lose much by relegating them to the same category as
Ha and N b.
III. O’.—The worthlessness of most of the unique readings
in Ob is sufficiently shown by the fact that no one ever thinks
* See Neue Jahrb. f. Phil. u. Pád. 1883, p. 621.
6 7THE CHAEF SOURCES FOR 7'HE 7'EX7.
of adopting them into the text. We can often trace their de-
velopment out of the materials already in Kb or LP. Thus in
II 77°21, where K* has a composite reading re)\etav olketav, Ob
has made out of this error a new reading rexelos oiketav : in
IIIg” 15 the oëre 8' of O' is a combination of otºr’ (K") and oğ8'
(LP): in II53* I, where LP has evöeoûs očorms and Kb (as cor-
rected) évôeoûorms”, O9 starts with this latter and gives us évêeoû-
orms oëans. There are, however, other Ob readings which we
cannot dismiss in this summary way, more especially those
which rightly or wrongly have been admitted into the text by
Bekker. Ob supplies a missing iv in two places (1156' 28,
117ob 24); it adds or omits the article in some four places
(1151* Io, I155° 14, 1173° 25, 1176°27); it omits the intrusive à
in II6o"7, and Ürdpxew in II31°27; it gives rô (for rº) in
1118° 23, 3 (for ºv) in 1132" 7, 8é (for 85) in Io94° 22, paſſXat (for
qiaºxol) in IIo4" 21, kakā troueiv (for kakotrouetv) in III.4° 4, Twów-
pinna (for émévphuara) in III.8° 16, rô airów (for tèv atröv in Lb) in
1121°29, re (for the 8é in Kº) in II.48°6, eúspyermºriköv (for stepye-
ruków) in II.71° 16, yewópeva (for yivópeva) in II?9°35. Of these
selected readings I think we may fairly say that half of them
are pretty clear instances of corruption. The rest are not
necessarily anything more than successful conjectures; they
show marks of their origin in several ways, (I) in the slight-
ness of the changes involved, (2) in there being as a rule no
substantive change of sense or construction, and (3) in their
occasional character : had they been part of a real textual
tradition, we should surely find them followed up by others of
greater importance and of a less obvious type. They are in a
word the few successes among the large number of failures
that deface the Ob text.
These corrections probably came in from the margin, and they
are certainly not the only marginalia which have found their
way into the Ob text. An indubitable instance is in 112ob 6,
* In the MS. the last two letters of évôsočorms are in an erasure, which
includes the first two letters of the next word, "ormuetov: the original
accent, however, still survives, the syllable -ov- having now two accents.
The fault which led to the correction was probably due to some accident
in the writing of otorms.
COD. M*. * 7
where Aristotle's rô yńp an 8Xérew ép' tavrov \ev6eptov becomes
rô yöp uh émighèrew éq'éavröv d'AA' e is rô ka? §v éAévéeptov. ow8
yáp a rºw A ev6eptov Tó rāv oike tav xpetav ris row be ouévov
ºrportporé pav [sic], by the addition first of a note from Aspasius
(p. 99, 20), and then of another from the Scholia (fol. 5* v. 6).
Another instance is in 1150°3. Aspasius with the license of a
paraphrast amplifies Aristotle's dAN’ oëk exel into d\\’ #q6aprat kai
oùk #xet, which accordingly becomes part of the Ob text in a
slightly disguised form, d\\’ huáprmrai kai oix exei. After this we
cannot lay any stress on the coincidence of reading in III.8° I9
(ydarpues) between O" and Aspasius (p. 91, 19); it is merely one
out of many indications of the artificial character and late origin
of the Ob text.
IV. M*.—No MS. is so difficult to deal with as Mb, owing to
the odd medley of good and bad that it presents; the old varia-
tions of the traditional text appearing in it side by side with the
errors, corrections, and ‘improvements’ of a long succession of
readers and scribes.
Our problem is to determine, if we can, what value is to be
assigned to readings which rest on the evidence of MP alone.
It is clear that Bekker thought well of this MS. ; and since
Bekker's time, a number of eminent Aristotelian Scholars
(Bernays, Bonitz, Eucken, Susemihl) have—with many limita-
tions and reserves, no doubt—acknowledged its importance.
As the weight of opinion is thus in favour of M", it may perhaps
seem a paradox to say that Mb appears to me to be in every
way the least valuable of all our late MSS. It has certainly
here and there readings which we find useful or accept faute de
mieux, but that is no proof of its evidential value, for we some-
times take readings from a Renaissance edition of a classic,
though we may happen to know quite well that they were not
in the archetype of all the extant MSS. of the author. The
following enumeration of the characteristics of the MP text may
help to clear away illusions as to its authority.
(1) Variation in particles (etc.). Mº constantly deviates fronn
the tradition not only in the order of words but also in the
insertion or suppression of little words like plév, kai, the article,
prepositions (etc.); and besides this, it exhibits a distinct ten-
8 7 HE CHAZF SOURCES FOR 7"HE 7'EX7.
dency to variation in 8é and 8%”, 8é and yép, and the like. As an
illustration of its eccentricity in these matters it may suffice to
exhibit its relations to the older texts in two typical instances:—
II25°2O €traveiral 3' otºv i &is Kb : étrauveiral obv kai i &is
L”: étauveira. Hºw kai ſi èëts Mb. &
II59” 28 yodu Kº ; obv T : yāp (an equivalent for yojv) Lº :
8è Mb.
(2) Substitution of synonyms or other equivalents, e.g.:—
II II* 25 oterat] 8oke. Mb.
II24” I kóopos rus] káAAos ri Mb.
II35°25 pox6mpós] movmpás M*.
II35°26 trpovoias] trpoalpéorea's M*.
1156b 8 || Ka88 Mb.
1157° 4 to airó] rô torov Mb.
1161b 32 36ev} 816 Mb.
(3) Arbitrary correction of the older text. The following
instances are clear enough to explain themselves:—
IIo4° 23 tróorms #8ovns droMašov kai ºn Sepuas direxéuevos]. Mº has
éxöuevos instead of droMačov—apparently as a better antithesis to
direxéuevos.
IIo5°24 8vváplets 8é kað is traénrukol rotºrov \eyópe6a]. Mº sub-
stitutes troumrukoi for tra6mrukoi.
III.8°24 pil &s bei). The composite reading in Lº paſſ &s bei )
$ 8eſ (v. infra p. 20) is ‘improved ’ in Mo by the insertion of
another pi, after 6.
II25* 9 trepi dvaykatov i pukpóv]. Mº interpolates a pui) before
dvaykaiov.
II27° 5 Ös yöp aioxpov rô Wrejóos eixaflºorerai). Reading of for
ës (with L'). M* “improves’ the statement by substituting képôos
for Jesú80s.
II.47° II oik #v rô exeiv ćrtorraoréal.]. Mº’s év ré, éxetv is an
attempt to emend fiv tº exeiv, the reading in Lº.
II.48° 18 8ta proxênpäs qºrets] 6ta pox6mptav qāorsos Mb.
II52°34 ai kaðia rāgas eis tºw pugiri)w ééw] ai kaðuarãoral eis rºv
qīāoriv čeis M".
*—-
* I cannot agree with the remark of Eucken (De Aristotelis dicendi
ratione I. p. 4o), ‘In Ethicis Nicomacheis ubicunque agitur, utrum 5%
an 6é scribendum sit, codex M" ceteris omnibus praeferendus est.’
COD. M”. 9
II75°29 ovvºkeiða-6at rôv jöovöv čkáormvj. After ovvokeiðaðat
Kb adds rm (sic), out of which Mb has made 8).
(4) Insertion of explanatory words or other additions : e.g.
dóñ\ots 88 (očort) in III2° 9, elev (ai TXeta rat) in III.4° 31, 8é (oi
oróq poves) in III.8° 26, rºv trów dèukoúvri () airóv) in 1138” I4.
(5) Combination of readings: its text is manifestly full of
composite readings, made up of those already in K", Lº, T.
(6) Influence of Aspasius. The following readings are com-
mon to Mb and Aspasius :—
Io95° 9 rôv ‘Hortóðov] rod 'Horváðov M” Asp.
Io98°33 yivnrail yévmrat Mº Asp.
IIoo” 4 &ormep) &s Mº Asp. ; in p. 27, 20, however, Asp.
recognises óorrep.
IIo2* 5 rus] om. Mb Asp.
IIo2° 9 et trºl si pº Mº Asp.
IIo2°34 re om. Mb Asp.
III2* 7 rº, ös d\móós] rô d\móñs M”; comp. Asp. rº, d\mé)s
*
6 LPGite
III.3* I2 BoöNevatv) BoöAmoruv Mº ; Asp. records both readings.
II.49° 24 in 16vpias] intićupſtav Mº Asp.
II52° 7 xaipeiv) uá\tora xaipew M*; comp. Asp. oiov &s āv
strous pſiAa xaipovra.
II56° 3 ris éporukºs] rols porukois Mº ; Asp. records both
readings.
II58°31 tſpóra’s] rpárov Mb Asp.: but in the next line,
where Asp. has again irpºrov, Mb retains the reading of the
Aristotelian MSS.
II58°33 Öudormual rô Suáormua Mº Asp.
II60° 4 xpſiuara] Xpmudrov Mº Asp.
II61° 18 trpoovéuera.] drovéperat Mº Asp.
This list is possibly not quite complete, and I have designedly
passed over the Aspasius readings which M" shares with Ol'.
We may note in the above readings (1) their very occasional
mode of appearance; we find perhaps several in the course of
a page or two, and then the agreement comes to an end for a
time : (2) they agree with the text of Aspasius in certain cases,
where it is clear that he is not attempting to give the ipsissima
verba of Aristotle, but varying the language slightly as is
the way in a paraphrase. These last instances are decisive as
IO 7A/E CA/EA’ SOURCES FOR 7'HE TEXT.
to the provenance of the Aspasius readings in Mb. It should be
added that in one place (1174° 18) we may observe a coincidence
of reading between Mb and another of the Aristotelian com-
mentators, Alexander Aphrodisiensis, who (Quaestt. N. et M.
p. 259 Speng.) quotes the passage with the reading ékáormv
(in lieu of ékaorov): after what we have seen, however, the
presumption must be that it was inserted in much the same
way as the Aspasius readings, and is thus of no long standing
in the text.
V. The Old Latin version, T.-The medieval version now
known as T, whether the work of William of Moerbeka or not,
goes back to his period, since Aquinas took it as a basis for
his commentary on the Ethics. In its printed form the text
seems occasionally to have sustained some injury, no very
serious injury, perhaps, but still quite enough to make one
wish to see the book re-edited from the MSS. with the same
care as has been bestowed on its fellow versions of the Politics
and Rhetoric. The translator follows the Greek so closely
that T is practically almost as good as a Greek MS. to us; we
have to bear in mind, however, that a Latin version cannot
reproduce every point in the Greek—the distinction between
perfect and aorist, for instance—and that on certain matters,
therefore, we must not look to T for evidence.
T anticipates many Mº and Ob readings, but its text is on
the whole distinctly superior to that of either, as it presents
fewer marks of Sophistication and approximates much more
nearly to what we find in K" and Lº. It gives us, moreover,
readings which have an unquestionable air of antiquity about
them, even when compared with those in the two older MSS.
(I) Its readings sometimes explain the genesis of those in
..", as will be seen from the following variants 2–
1115° 31 otros Kº ; otros T : ošros oºros LP (and Ob).
1137° 23 airós K": otros T : airós otros Lº (and O').
II.47° 6 airós K" : oëros T : airós oiros Lº (and Ob).
(2) Its readings sometimes explain the genesis of those in
* The edition I have had before me is in the volume entitled ‘Decem
librorum Moralium Aristotelis tres conversiones,’ printed at Paris in 1497.
THE OLD VERSION.—COD. L*. II
K”: thus in III.4b21 the Kb reading, kai ré re)\etº, is a corruption
of T's kai ré réNet: and in II36' 31, where T omits the pév, we
find Kº giving it in the wrong place—a form of error which
often implies a previous omission.
(3) In one or two instances certainly, T enables us to get
behind the readings of both Kb and Lb : thus in 1119° 15 the
genetic order of the variants is
# 8eſ . . . . otóév' 60 a T
# 8et oběev . . obôsvös' à Kb
# 8eſ obôsvi . . oi6evós' Sora Lb.
The fact that T coincides occasionally with readings in
Aspasius is not a point on which we can lay any stress. It is
one of the characteristic features of T to incorporate marginal
variants, as may be seen from the number of composite readings
which its text presents. The note of value in T is to be found
in the originality (if I may use the word) of some of its readings
(e.g. in II26°4), which seem to imply a textual tradition quite
apart from that in Kb and L''.
VI. Lº.— Though the value of Lº is pretty generally
admitted, the drift of opinion is now to give it, as compared with
Kb, the position of second best. We must not forget, however,
that the superiority of Kb has its limits, and that it is necessary
to keep these constantly before our minds, lest our belief in Kº
should degenerate into a superstition, as it so easily may do.
The great value and importance of LP are beyond dispute, as
Soon as one reflects that it fills up so many of the lacunas
and corrects so many of the mahifold errors that disfigure the
older MS., besides furnishing in many instances an explanation
of the text in Kb, which enables us to see how and by what
process of corruption its errors have arisen. Bekker, accordingly,
placed Lb almost on a level with Kº, and Rassow has gone so
far as to say that in Bks. V and X it is perhaps our best source
for the text.
A comparison of the Lº and Kb texts reveals a number of
minor discrepancies, of some interest from the point of view
of language, though they do not as a rule affect the sense.
Thus, to take a few typical cases:—
I 2 THE CA/WEA’ SO UAE CES FOR 7THE 7TEXT.
(I) Lt tends to repeat articles; e.g. in IIo5° 19 it reads ra
ôikawa kai (rù) 064 pova.
(2) It sometimes inserts articles; e.g. in Io99 II 86pmua (rois)
dvěpánous, in II65* 28 rupińv (rºw) kað' #Nukiav. The insertion of
the article in II.4.1° I (otov (rù) pavepārará ye) is obviously against
the true sense of the passage.
(3) It sometimes gives compounds, where Kb has the simple
verb ; e.g. in II2O" 6 €irt{3\étreuv, in II.57° I karavevepºmpiévms, and
in II 79°21 νpépovras.
In these and similar variations of reading we may see traces
of the hand of a reviser; and they are not by any means the
only marks of revision in the LP text. But we must not go too
far in this direction; for many of the variants in L", instead of
being of recent origin, are demonstrably older, and probably
much older, than Kº itself. Nothing is commoner in L" than
variation in the matter of particles, pronouns etc.; it gives us,
for instance, j for kai, yāp for yojv, oùros for atrós (etc.), rotodros for
oùros (etc.), and vice versa: now that these Lº readings are of
considerable antiquity, is shown by the fact that Kb recognises
them by embodying them from time to time in its text. Thus,
as regards j and kai, we find KP combining the two alternatives
in II81* 4 (kai j), in II65* 28 (i) kat), and elsewhere. In the case
of another pair of alternatives, oùros and rotooros, we see that the
LP reading in II65° 21, ré, rototrº, is embodied in the composite
reading of Kº, roëtq i rototrºp. Another very common variation
is that between kai and 8é, of which we have an example in
III.4b Io, where K* has kai rô eš and Ll rô 8' eſſ : how far back
this may go is sufficiently shown by the composite readings of Kº
in IIII" I4 and II27° 31. The same criterion is obviously appli-
cable to sundry LP readings of much greater moment than the
above. And there are other ways in which KP is evidence for
the LP readings as well as for its own. Thus in 1162b 23
&qeXeias is seen to be an ancient variant, from the fact that in the
parallel a little further on (in 1163° 24) the same variant re-
appears in the Kº text itself. In both of these passages there
must have been two readings, q i\tas and &qe)\etas, quxias (the true
reading) being preserved in the first instance by Kb and in the
second by LP. This alone is sufficient to prove that we cannot
lay down any hard and fast rule in dealing with the Lº readings:
COD. K*. I 3
many of them must be quite ancient alternative readings, and
as such, must be accepted or rejected by us on their intrinsic
merits or demerits.
I may add that some obvious errors in Lº are apparently part
of its inheritance from the common ancestor of Kb and Lb. The
two MSS. agree in giving us in II6ob 15 trepi traetorov (for trepi
tr}\etorov), in I 167°34 evoelv, and in II 71° I4 edvolav (for évvosiv and
évvotav)—which looks as if Y and N were easily mistaken for
one another in the archetype. A misunderstood symbol in the
archetype would seem to be the explanation of the Kº Lº
reading in 1129°8, where both give us pºi), a correction apparently
of pºet (i.e. uetov), and also of that in IIT3° 25, as I hope to show
when I come to discuss the passage (v. infra p. 67).
As regards the later elements in the LP text, for which we
have to make throughout every possible allowance, they seem
to fall in most cases under one or other of the usual heads, (I)
errors of transcription, (2) omissions, (3) glosses, (4) double
readings, and (5) alterations with a view to “improving' the
text, or making things easier.
VII. Kb — Kb stands alone not only as being the oldest of
our surviving MSS., but also through the number and impor-
tance of its peculiar readings, and the singular freedom of its
text, as compared at any rate with the other MSS., from revision
at the hands of a corrector". At first sight the text seems a
singular combination of sense and nonsense. But with
patience and reflexion it is not so very difficult to perceive that
the phenomena, examined in detail, are the same in kind as
those seen in varying degrees in all ancient MSS.; they admit
of classification, and may be explained in most cases by re-
ference to definite, ascertained, and acknowledged causes of
textual corruption.
The following enumeration of the commoner errors in Kº,
besides throwing light on the pathology of the MS., may also
* It is hardly necessary to say that I am speaking of the original text
of K", not of the text as modified by the various correctors who after-
wards worked over it. In the statement of its readings in these pages I
have as a rule ignored the existence of corrections.
I4. 7 HE CHAEF SOURCES FOR THE 7'EX7.
serve incidentally to show us what kinds of mistake we may
reasonably assume, when we come to deal with its readings in
doubtful passages in the text. It will be seen, too, that the
errors of Kb often take us back to a very early stage of the
textual tradition.
(1) Errors of transcription through confusion of letters:—
Io99°22 Tel Te Kb (cp. IIoI*8, III.3° 17, 1124*9).
1130°24 "Erij"Ori Kb.
II64° 16 Eis go] enorato Kb.
1132b 8 5An ‘H] §AmN Kb.
II26°2 trape K6aivov 1 trape IXBaivov Kº.
II70°25 Aërms] Airms K9.
II37° 14 piéAI] puéN Kb.
II26' 19 IIukpoij Mukpoi Kº.
1133° 26 8' xrï] 8: "Oru Kb.
II23°31 ueya)\oyöxoI] pleya)\ováxo2 K" (cp. II23°32).
1164° 20 roaroëroy — 30 oy] rooroúroN — Goron K” (cp. 1160915).
1167° 34 Nvoeiv) eyvoeiv Kº LP (cp. II.71° 14).
Io99° 21 otöv TE] otovrAI (cp. II37° 15).
1172°8 otovrAI] otów TE K" (cp. II65° II).
1164° 16 els "Eo] 6HorAIo Kb.
1163* Io 8EI] 8H Kb (cp. 1169°15).
1153*2 #8EI] jöH Kb.
II42° 28 SEI kai &s] §Ikaios Kb.
II28° 29 trpáčEI] trpáčHI Kº (cp. II2O”29, II22° 28).
II65° 14 80kHI] §okEI K" (cp. III.7° Io, I158°21).
IIo299 trx Hv) trºlv Kb.
II61* I oëx ‘HI] oëXI Kb.
1165° 14 &p' ºri] dperH Kb.
IIOoº 13 8eflatOrms] 3e3atorms K”.
II39° 14 Aéyòprev] AéyOuev Kº.
II.43° 2 mpérov) trpárov Kº (cp. IIo2° 15, II28°26).
IIIob 19 riNYarov) émixOImov Kº LP.
(2) Errors in Kb implying the use of symbols in an earlier
MS. This seems to be the explanation of its frequent omission
or addition of N*, and of its occasional omission of -ON at the
* The symbol for N survives in Kº in xpedº (=xpedºv) in I Ioo" 11, and
perhaps elsewhere.
COD. K.”. I5
end of words, where the symbol for -ON is apt to be confused
with the grave accent:—
1104°32 öv] & Kb.
II36°5 oëv) oë Kº (cp. II45°9).
II6I* I duelvov] due ivo K".
II40° 17 Aërmy] \tºrm KP (cp. IIo7b27).
II67° 4 #kovra] eikóra Kb.
II4ob 18 &eiv] §st K" (cp. IIIob Io, 1166° 16, 1169°5).
II22°5 öst] Seſv Kº LP (cp. II22° 22, 1135°25).
1154°5 €repa] répav Kº.
II22b 23 £orruáv] éorriv čv Kb.
112998 uetov] pi, Kº Lb.
II.44° 14 otov] of KP.
To these I may perhaps add three instances of a less obvious
kind. In II96°20 Kº's tràeſov (for r\}v) seems to have origin-
ated in tràj becoming first trxei (cp. IIo2b9) and then txei. In
II73°2 the Kº reading Tpórepov, for trpès érepov, is apparently a
misinterpretation of Tjerspov. In 1173° 25, as I hope to show
hereafter (infra, p. 67), Aéyour probably represents Aéyot ris,
through a confusion of the symbol for -us (or -ms) with the mark
of elision.
(3) Errors of transcription through some general resemblance
between two words. A few typical instances must suffice to
illustrate the infirmity of Kb in this respect:—
IIIIb 13 dxparis] drpoarºs Kb (cp. 1136°6).
II37° 13 vepāueval yewóueva Kº.
II.48° 20 kvodoras] kūvas K9.
II49* 9 dippóvov] dºppoètortov Kº.
II52°31 aiperat] aipeirat Kb.
II69°4 repov Kárepov Kb.
II72°8 pačAov] q}{\ov Kb.
1175°34 quxoukočáuoil pixoëókuot K".
+180°4 vöpupa] ºvipa Kb.
(4) Errors through assimilation of terminations:—
*104°6 Tów trepi kagra A6)0s] rôv tr. º. Aáyov K".
**43°33 faxárov imavraj čaxárov &mdvrov K".
*44*2 oëo as ékarépavl otoas izarépas K*.
'I 6 THE CHIEF SOURCES FOR THE TEXT.
II73° 14 rpoqºv Avröv kai hēovóv] rpopºv \{nrmv kai #8ovňv K”.
III.7b2 ytveral] yívea 6at KP, by assimilation to the infinitive
dq,avićeorðat that precedes it (cp. III9°3).
II.46° 16 Aéyo] Aéyovres Kº, by assimilation to the éxovres just
before it.
II73°8 Aéyovres] Aéyearðat KP, by assimilation to dwriketo 6at
in the preceding line.
(5) Errors through accommodation of construction :-
IIo5° 2 ovvréðpan rail avvrerpáq6at Kº, through the influence
of the preceding paiveral.
II25°7 év rupińs épéet] 'v rupiń kai épéet K", the dative rupiń
being due to the proximity of the preposition (cp. infra p. 20).
(6) Errors of omission. Besides the omission of homoeo-
teleuta, we may observe in Kº a tendency to leave out (a) words
or small groups of words, and more especially (b) little words
of frequent occurrence; (c) initial letters; (d) letters in the
body of words.
(a) Io95” II at om. (in a verse).-IIo4° 19 &\\ov om. (cp.
II59°33). IIoôº I Šào om.—IIo995 6' éavrots om. III.4.”
2I el pun év om. II2O“32 rā xpñuara om. II27°6 peyd Mms om.
II27b2O 8tà rooro om. II3ob Io pièv oëv om. (cp. II68°I5).
—II34°20 Suá om. (cp. II54” I2). II37°5 raúróv om.
II42* I Starpiðav ppóvipos om. II.47°6 dyvouaom. II55*6 kai
ôuvaorreias om. II66°2O rô puév om.— II69 b 21 kai Tôv om.
II 71b 35 # 8' om.
(b)
où (oëk) om. II21*25, 1137°28, II42*20, II49°3, II5I*6,
II54*2.
ºf om. II2O” I6, 32.
&v om. II23°30, II.46°32, II60°23, IITOP24.
div (=éáv) om. II.5.1° 15.
ei om. II50°29, *6.
pév om. IIoT"33, IIo9'30.
8é om, IIo4° 34, 1123° 24, II28°3, II29°I, II36°8, II39°36,
II42°9, II.47°32, II54°21, II?8° 2, 1179°31.
kai om. IIII*4, III996, II32°27, II32°30, II38°33, II55°2,
II75°34.
COD. K.". 17
# om. IIoI* I6, IIII* Io, III2*25, II21°25, 1137° 4, 1151°30,
II66*7, 23, 1169° 26, 1170.98, 11789 II.
ô om. II25* I4, II45° Io, II46* II, 1153°31.
ró om. IIoIb 26, IIo2°27'.
(c)
orūpperpot (= daipperpoi) III2°23.
aloxpoi (= y\to Xpou) II.21°22.
rô trós (= drówas) II36°12.
elva (= vetual) 1137° 16.
& Sei (= raót) II.46° 16.
elev (= Gore-ev) II64° 16.
Avrot (= i\virou) II?3° I6.
(d)
dquarāvaa (= d.bio-ravrat) III2°25.
dkoúsrat (= dxoãorera.) II.28° 28.
oùxī (= oë exei) II.33° 9.
eikruká (= etektuká) II.43°25.
ë (= at) II54” I.
6orat (=ois ai) II66* I.
(7) Transpositions, through an omitted word being restored
in the wrong place :-
Io98° 14 orópia, rà repi Wrvxīv kvpiórara Aéyouev]. Here in
Kº, through a faulty reading of the words, orópa rā becomes
orópara, and the missing article is inserted, not before trepi (as it
is in Lº), but before kvptórara.
II54° 19 Stå rooro]. After this Kb inserts the 8: which has
dropped out after dei in line 21.
II69°22 ösi épa rº, eúðaipova qi)\ov]. Before pi\ov KP inserts
the kai rāv omitted in the preceding line.
(8) Transposition of little words especially liable to omission:—
Io9596 iravös' dpxh yap) iravós yāp dpx?) K.P.
II22° 21 p.6vov' év roºrows 8'] provov 8' év rotºrous K9.
II23° 25 trpès éauröv pièv] pièv trpès éavröv K”.
II36°31 oëk döuket pév] pièv oëx döukei Kº.
II42°33 of il n ov (sic) K".
II.47°29 Aéyo 8 || 8& Aéya K".
* Other instances of the omission of the article occur in 1151° 7,
II53° 32, 1167° 18.
C
18 THE CHAEF SOURCES FOR 7"HE 7'EX7.
1155°3 påv učv Špépov] pāv čušpov pièv K” (against the
metre).
II 79°2O rô kūptov' orkoreiv 81)) rô kūpuav 8) orkottetv K”.
II80° 4 kai 6Aws 8)] 8) kai 6\os K9.
(9) Cmissions re-inserted in the place of some part of the
text, through their being mistaken for corrections of the words
they supplant :-
Io96°32 si yüp kai čo ruv čv ru rô Kouvī] ei yüp to ruv ću ri kai kown
KP, the kai being restored as a correction so as to dispossess
the article before kouvij.
IIo5°31 fav irpoalpoſpevos, kai Tpoatpotuevos]. In LP kai Tpoal-
poëplewos have fallen out, no doubt through the homoeoteleuton :
Kb has them, but in lieu of what precedes them in the text.
II55° IT trpós rô yeyevvmpuévov Tó yewvioravri kai tſpós rô yewvnorav
tº yewvmóévrt.] Here LP omits ºrpès rê yewvijorav rô yew.vméévri,
and Kb inserts them in lieu of what precedes.
II31°31 trpós àAAm\a râ eiorevex8évra] sis àAAm}\a trpoorevex8évra
K”, which implies three stages of error: (1) the omission of
Trpès, (2) the re-insertion of irpès as a correction of rā eio-, and
(3) the restoration of the suppressed eio- in the wrong place.
(Io) Dittographia. A few typical instances of this may
suffice :-rotočotºrov IIoIb 21 — 66ev 66ev II2O* IO – oiöév oë8év
II28°24 – vočv votiv II41* 7–pox6mpia pox6mpia II.48° 2 – 8okeſ
8okei II56*24.
(II) Repetition of words from the context, (a) from that which
precedes or (b) from what follows. I indicate the repeated
words by enclosing them in brackets.
(a)
IIoI* 22 oik forriv waivos (rów rototyrov)—from 1. 21.
III2°5 öočáčouev (8é) — from l. 4.
II34°21 &rav 8é 6óvrat, 8taq,épét (otros ſix}\cos) — from what
immediately precedes.
II35* II ſix\' àötków ri (3rav Trpaxón döikmuá čorriv)—from l. Io.
[áðuków ri should have been restored in the printed text for
ã8tkov.]
II36°27 áðukov (#x0) — exov being in the preceding line.
II.43° I vows éori kai of Aðyos, kai 6 (A&yos) pièv Kré.
II75° 21 traorav re (yìp) évépyetav — re yūp occurring already
in the preceding line.
COD. K.". 19
II81° 2 oil yūp qaivovrat obô larpukoi čk rôv ovyypauparov
(baivovrat) yivea'6at.
(b)
IIo4°5 örtep oë8é rà i yielvă (roi kaðoxikoú Aóyov). Totočrov
8' 8vros toū ka86Nov \dyov.
IIII* 8 trós yāp (6 8é) éavráv ye; 6 8é trpárret Kré.
1129°26 áðukov (kai iſ d8tkia) — from ll. 26-27.
1137°31 trepi 6é émieukeias (ºrpès Sukatooriumv)—from 1. 32.
1180° 19 otöð (8%) — we have oč8é 8; 5Xos in the next line.
(12) Repetitions displacing part of the text:—
IIoI* 13 re)\sio] 6\tyº KP — from l. I2.
1128) 8 # 8' év rais] at 8: Kº — from l. 7.
1129* 33 àvioros] abukos Kb — from 1. 32.
1136b 26 deſ] dàukei Kb — from what immediately precedes.
1146, 15 el 8'] oë8' ei Kb — from the oč8' ei qaj)\at that
follows.
(13) Glosses, added in the text:—
III6b 9 eira rotmoral kai un m'aéetv uáAtara öövavrai ék ris
épirepias (kai pu)\áčaoréal kai traráčai): the added words are from
Aspasius (p. 84, 33), who uses them as an equivalent for
Aristotle's trouſ,orai kai pº traffeiv.
III.8°32 miſſaró ris (£1Móševos 6 "Epíšios): the addition comes
apparently from E. E. 1231° 17.
(14) Glosses, displacing words in the text":—
IIo2” I2 duoupov] d\\órptov Kb.
II43b 3 éoxárov) Tpirov Kb.
(15) Double readings in the text, corrections or alternative
readings being incorporated in it :—
IIo6b 13 oi 8'] el 6' oi Kb — implying el 8' and oi 8'.
III.4° 23 &eov] airtov čeov KP.
III994 atémoiv) ééiv ačnow K" – £iv perhaps representing
aúčmv, on which see Bonitz, Ind. Arist. s. v.
II26° 36 8taqbepávros] 8taqbépávros 8taqbópos Kb.
II30° II trapávopov) trapávopov tr}\éov KP.
Ot/
II34b 13 àötkov] dötkia 3v Kb — representing dèukta.
* The very puzzling word &vrixmirruków (for &vrſketrai) in II42" 25 was
perhaps originally a marginal note explaining the construction of the
genitives in the next line, 6 uév yöp vows rôv Špov, &v oëk orri Aáyos wré.
C 2 -
2 O THE CH/EF SOURCES FOR 7"HE 7'EXT.
II4oa 29 réAos rij rô réAos ri Kº: rö ré\os and réAos tu appear
as variants in III2b 15.
II42a 28 otg] ota º K" – implying oig and fi : oia and ā are
variants in III698.
II46b 33 8totore, rö #xovra pièv paſſ 6sopotivta 86 kal rô 6eopoèvra à
pº, Sei trpárretvl. After this Kº (with LP etc.) adds rod Éxovra kai
6eopodvra, an alternative reading for kai rô 6eopovvra.
1166* I roës wéAas] rows pi\ovs TréAas KP.
II77b 21 oikeiav] rexetav oikeiav K".
8.
II78°28 8toigell ovv8toto'ei Kº — representing ovvotores (cp.
Bonitz's emendation of 1153* 7).
These alternative readings may be supposed to have been
once in the margin, and to have got into the text from their
being taken to be omissions. Before leaving this point I may
perhaps say a word on the subject of the Kb reading in III.8b 24,
where it has ui, i öði in lieu of juñ Ös 8et. The explanation of
this is to be found in the LP reading, fi pº &s 8et fi : Set : there
must have been here (just as there are still in 1135° 16) two
competing readings, &s 8el and ºf 8eſ, the latter recorded in the
margin as an alternative in a note of the usual form, # 3 Sei, ‘or
we may read & Set.” Kb, which inserts the whole of this as a
correction, assumes the annotator's j to be part and parcel of
the reading that had to be restored ; and it also gives us a
further corruption by turning # 5 Set into # 68t.
(16) Errors implying an attempt at emendation:—
III9° 6 kar’ intôupſtav yap (&ort kai rā trauðia, kai pºd) to ra év roß-
rots row #8éos àpećis] The kal before pud Mora having got displaced,
an attempt has been made in Kb to set matters right by reading
év rotºrous (yūp) kai i r. º. 3.
II25°7 év rupińs épéet] £v ruń (kai) āpééet Kº. The insertion
of the conjunction was an attempt to make sense after the cor-
ruption of tipis into ripſ (cp. supra p. 16).
II34° 18 row 8é troXtrukoč Šukatov rô uév quoruköv Čorril 8tratov' rú
pèv Kyūp) ºbvatköv čari Kº–interpolating the yáp when roë be tro-
Airukov had accidentally dropped out (through the homoeo-
teleuton in what precedes).
II36b I5 Tor’ döukeſ] trore &okeº Kº–probably a correction of
trorečuket, which would easily arise through a misunderstanding
COD. K.”. 2 I
e
of troračakeſ, just as in II23° 17 Kb's # 8éétá has arisen out of
Wºla, the superscribed elided vowel being in both cases taken
as though it were intended for a correction, instead of for an
omission.
1159°20 åv row) āv6 of Kº, through a misinterpretation of
the scriptura continua, durov.
II73* 8 Aéyovres raúra oi kakós] Aéyearðat, raûra (8') oi kakós K".
Aéyovres having become Aéyearðat (cp. supra p. 16), the conjunction
was inserted to produce an appearance of sense.
The Ko text, as the last paragraph shows, is not free from
interpolations. But they are certainly few and far between ;
the great and indisputable merit of Kº, in fact, is that it has so
faithfully retained the errors and accidents of an older text, with
little or no attempt at disguise or sophistication. If we do not
feel the same confidence in the later MSS., the chief reason is
that their text presents more marks of alteration and ‘improve-
ment’ at the hands of a reviser. This circumstance no doubt
seriously impairs the value of their evidence, but it is not
sufficient to justify us in setting them aside altogether. Nor can
we arbitrarily limit the use of them to cases in which we happen
to require a reading to take the place of some manifest error in
the text of Kb. If the testimony of LP or T is good and valid,
where the Kº text is seen to break down, it may very well be
worth something in other passages where there is no visible
breakdown, but only a certain difference of reading. In other
words, we have to recognise LP and T as being in their way,
just like Kb itself, repositories of a real textual tradition, with
readings which have to be considered on their merits, and
weighed in the balance of probability even against those of the
older MS. e
II.
NotES AND EMENDATIONs on THE TEXT.
I. 1, Io94*9 60 at 8' sial rôv rototrov in 3 Piav rivā Śēvapuv, kaðdirep
into thv immukňv XaXtvorowki) kai 60 au äAAat rôv inſtruków Śpyávov eioriv,
aërm Öe kai Tàora troMepuki) irpääts intô rºv orrparmyukºv, kará rôv airów
ôň rpárov čNAat jºb’ répas' év čnáorals öé rà rôv dpxtrekroviköv réâm
trávrov čotiv aiperòrepa Tów int' aird.
The text as it thus stands in Kº is in harmony with the inter-
pretation in Aspasius : 60 at 8é slow intô putav Šāvapuv, dei äA\m int'
ãAAmv, kaðárep inrö pièv Tiju inſtrukºv XaAlvoroumrukň, # 88 intruki, inrö täv
orrparmyakºv. It is clear that he took the words kará têv airóv 8)
rpótrov as introducing an apodosis, with the clause kaðámep kré, as
its protasis, just as in Meteor. 353” I4 we have kaðarrep ... rôv airów
rpómov as an equivalent of &amep ... otiros (cp. Ind. Arist. 546° 22).
In the present instance there is an appropriateness in the fuller
expression, ka ră răv airóv rpártov, since the assonance serves to
recall the somewhat remote ka84tep clause, with which it has to
be connected. There is therefore no necessity to follow Bonitz
and Eucken in reading 86 for 8; in l. 13 with the Aldine, and Öm
for 8é after év čnáorats with Mb I. Their view of the passage
seems to rest on a simple misapprehension of the kuéâtrep clause,
which merely illustrates the way in which the various subor-
dinate arts are related to one another, their position in reference
to the one supreme art being reserved for the next clause, év
indorats 8e kré. The general sense, in fact, of the whole passage
is briefly this :—When a number of arts come under a single
ðūvapus, we see (1) a certain subordination among them one to
another, and (2) a subordination of their various ends to that of
some one Supreme art.
I. 2, Io94” 4 xpopévns 3: Tatºrms rats Aoitats [mpakrikaſs] rôv émi-
orrmudov.
OAV E. M. I. I–6. - 23
Aouraïs, though recognised indirectly by Aspasius (p. 6, 3. 5),
is represented in his paraphrase by Trpakrikais (inrápxe ôé rà toxi-
ruki, kai to Xpmoróat rats trpakrikats róv émortmuðv, p. 6, II). From
this I infer that Tpakrikais is really a gloss, which in the inferior
MSS. has found a place in the text along with the genuine word
Aoitrats, and which in K", as sometimes happens in this MS.
(v. Supra p. 19), has dispossessed it. In a context like the
present the limitation involved in trpaktukais is inappropriate ;
for if troAvriki) is the one Supreme art, all other arts must come
under it, not the practical arts merely. The qualification was
no doubt suggested by what is said later on at the end of
Bk. VI. (II45° 6), but that point is not yet of any importance
for the argument; and it would have required a much more
distinct statement, if Aristotle had meant to insist upon it at
this early stage in his discussion.
I. 3, Io94° 18 jön yáp rives dn&\ovro Štú TAoûrov, repot be 8t' àv-
ôpetav.
dvöpetav has been questioned by Rassow, who actually suggests
$1}\tav instead of it, on the ground of the inconsistency between
the present notion of dvöpsia and that given later on in the
account of the moral virtues. We may learn better from the
Aldine Scholiast, who says, dvöpeiav Šē évraúða oi rāv Neuxukijv
qnow dperffv . . . dANā tīv karū to orópa \apidavouévnu, ä kai loküs
kvptos &vápagºrai. The word had this sense in ordinary language
(cp. Plato, Rep. 361 B), and Euripides combined the two things,
dvöpeia and TAoûros, just as Aristotle here does :—
TAoûrº re kävöpeig piéyav (Troad. 669).
The idea that a man may come to harm through his strength
or wealth is already in Xenophon, who makes Socrates say:
troXAoi Śē Štú riv ioxiv pleiçoatv ćpyous étruxelpouvres of Pukpots Kakols
trepitriirrovoſt, troXAoi Šč Šlá ràu TAoûrov Staëpvirtópevoi re kai énigov-
Aevépévol diróAAvvrat (Mem. iv. 2, 35): compare also Plato, Rep.
491 B and Laws 66I D.
I. 6, Io9699 Štá rà pºi) trepi travrös dyadoo rows Aéyous siphoróat.
eipiadat, for which KP reads troteio 6a, has the support of
the parallel in the trepi dvarvons, 47.2° 28, où trepi travrös 6avárov Tiju
airíav inroxmirréou siphorbat raúrmv.
I. 6, Io96932 el yap kai éorriv ću ri ré Kouff karmyopotkevov dyadov
xopia röv airó ri kað' airó.
24 AVO 7"E.S AAWD EMEAVOA 7TWOAVS
The Kº reading, el yáp £orriv čv ri kai koivà, which has met with
the approval of Rassow and others, seems to be only an instance
of an error which we find elsewhere in this MS. (v. supra p. 18),
an omission (kai) supplied in the wrong place and dispossess-
ing another word (rù). The article before kolvi, is confirmed by
E. E. I.218°7 oëk évôéxeral rô wo)\Aam Adortov rô Kouvº karmyopoſpevov
elva, Xaptorów. As for the order in airó ri kað' airó, it may suffice
to compare E. E. 1218* Io, airó ri dya&óv, and Metaph. Io45° 16,
aúró ru @ov.
I. 7, Io97*22 &or' et ru rôv trpakrów &mdvrov čorri réAos, roor' àv
eim rò Trpakröv dyadóv, ei Še trxeia, raûra. Heraśaivav 8; 6 Aóyos sis
raúröv dºpikrat rooro 3’ ºri pāX\ov Šuaoraq moral treparéov. čarei 8& TAeto
qaiveral rà réAm kré.
The reading of the so-called Heliodorus, étel 8), for émei 88 in
the last line, is an attempt to disguise a structural flaw in the
text. The clause êtel 66 kré., instead of being the clearer state-
ment just promised (8taoraqphoral relparéov), follows in natural
sequence after si èe TAeto, raûra, and continues the statement in
the first sentence. How the intrusive pueraśaivav — Treparéov has
got into the text, is another matter; and it raises a question much
too large for discussion in these brief notes.
I. 7, Io97° 26 otov traoûrov at Noës kai ÖNos ra öpyava.
aúAoûs has been called into question by several (myself in-
cluded); but it will be recognised as right and intelligible, as
soon as one remembers that in Plato, Rep. 601 D, the ai)\ös is
taken as a typical instance of an āpyavov.
I. 7, Io98°7 el 8' éotiv pyov div6pórow Wrvyns évépyeva kara A&yov fi
uń śvev Aéyov, rö 8' airó (papev Épyov elva rö yévet robbe kai roßbe
ormouðatov, &otrep kiðaptoroo kai orrow8atov któaptorrow, kai än Aós 8h
roor' émi travrov, trpoortóepiévms ris Kará ràv dpermv in epoxns trpès rê
*pyov' kiðaptoroi, Hèv yāp kiðapićeiv, orirověatov 8é rô ed. ei 8' otºros,
[dvépômov 8é riflepiev ºpyov Çoſiv Tuva, raûrmy 8é Wrvyns évépyevav kai
ºrpáčets uerå Adyov, a movöatov 8' dvöpós eş raúra kai kakós, ékaorov 8'
eū karū rºw oiketav dperºv droreMetrat" el 3' otºro, rô divěpánivov dyabov
Wºuxſis évépyeta yiveral kar’ dperſiv.
Aspasius and also Alexander Aphrodisiensis, Quaestt. N. et
M. p. 284 Spengel, have dealt with this passage and laboured to
explain it on the assumption that it constitutes one logical and
grammatical whole. But as I read it, instead of forming a chain
OW E. W. I. 7–8. 25
of reasons for the conclusion at the end, it divides into two dis-
tinct and co-ordinate statements thus:–
ei ö’éorriv pyov divépôtrov Jºuxſis
> * w p *A * ºf
évépyeta Karā Māyov fi ur àvsv
$ *
Aóyov, rö 8 airá papey ºpyov sivat
ró yévet roße kai rodöe oritovëatov,
º gº
Öotrep Kubaptoroi, kai orirovöatov
Kučaptoroi, kai äm Mös 8) roor' &mi
dvěpátrov 8é rifleuev pyov (offiv
riva, raûrmy 8é Nevyns évépyeav kai
p * * * $
Trpáčevs pierå Aóyov, atrověatov 8
3. * º gº * * *
dvöpós sº ratra kai kakós, exagºrov
3. ºp * * º p 5 * 2
8’ eſſ kara rºw oikeiav dperºv dro-
*_ _ _ e – ? Sº ºf
rexeiras' ei 8' otºro,
Trávrov, Trpoortóepuévns rims kara
rºv dperºv intepoxns ºrpès rê ºpyov'
* V *
pièv yāp kiðapišstv,
grověatov 8é rô eś el 3' otºros,
kiðaptoroo
* Y p 3. * * jº a * > 3 2
rô divépôtruvov dya&öv Vrvyns évépyeta yiveral kar’ dperſiv.
It will be seen that each of these two statements covers much
the same ground, and prepares us for the same conclusion, and
that each ends with the same formula, si 8' of ros: if either were
wanting, the logic (and grammar also) of what remained would
show no sign of injury or loss. I take this, therefore, to be
a clear instance of a duplicate reading in the text, and am glad
to be able to say that my friend, Prof. J. C. Wilson, has long
been of that opinion.
I. 8, Io98° 30 rois pièv oëv Aéyoval rºv dperºv h dperfly riva ovvºpóós
eorriv 6 Aóyos.
avvºpóós is certainly an appropriate word in such a context
as this (comp. II72°5, and Plato Phaed. 92 C), and it aptly
repeats the idea involved in avváðet in Io989 20. The Lº reading
is orépiqovos, obviously a gloss on ovvºpôás or some similar word.
Our great difficulty here is the Kb reading oºvopós: as the word
would naturally mean ‘conterminous, it is very hard to believe,
with Busse (Hermes 18 p. 142) and Susemihl (Neue Jahrb. f.
Phil. u. Paed. 1883 p. 616), that this is what Aristotle really
wrote. The suggestion that a link may be found between
ovvºpóós and orévopós in the reading ovvočás in two MSS. examined
by Mr. Stewart (Engl. MSS. of the N. E. p. 19) is not to the
point, since the accent is enough to show that ovvoëós is merely
a degenerate form of ovvºpóós, so that we remain as far off as
ever from the orévopós of Kb. If one may hazard such a conjec-
ture, it has occurred to me as a possibility that orévopos may
26 AVO 7'ES AAWD EMEAVIDA 7TWOAVS
represent an ancient variant oróvopos, which was taken to mean
the same thing as the more familiar ovvgöös. The existence of
the word seems to be attested by two articles in Hesychius:—
orðvopov' orčuqovov Ópokoyotpievou. h ovyyevn.
dorévopov [dorºvopov 2]' dorépºqovov.
— where the explanation orºughovov will be seen to be identical
with the gloss now read in Lº. If orévopos is a real word, it is
hardly likely to have been used by Aristotle; and I can only
suppose it to have got into the text through some reminiscence
of Greek poetry (cp. on IIoIP I and 1181*22).
I. 11, IIor” I fouke yāp ék rotºrov, ei kai Šukveirai ºrpès airot's ºrwoov
. . . dºpaupév ri kai pukpov h in Aósi ékelvous eival.
dqavpóv is a poetical word; we should perhaps restore in
lieu of it duaupév, which bears a physiological sense like our
word “obscure' in a very similar passage in De Anima 403* 19:
pumvče, be rô Toré pèv ioxupév kai évapyóv Ta&mparov ovuòatvávrov
plmöév trapoéðveo 6at # 4,08eto 6at, viore 6 inrö at kpóv kai d'u a v på v
kiveto 6al, Örav ćpyū rô orópa.
I. 13, IIo2*20. As a confirmation of Ramsauer's Tây (Tö)
orópa I may observe that Kb omits the article (with trav) in
IIo5° 3, and LP in III897.
I. 13, IIo2”3 Šokeſ yúp v roſs ºrvous évépyetv påAtara rö Ráptov
toūro kai i öövapus airm, 68' dyadès Kai kakós jºia'ta Święm\ot kað ºrvov
(66ev bagi . . .), TAju ei ºil karū utkpóv, Kai Sukvoúvrai Tues róv
Kivijoreov, Kai raúrm Bextio yiveta rā ‘pavráo para Töv čtvetköv rôv
Tvyávrov.
We are indebted to Aspasius for the idiomatic trºv et aſ
(comp. Ind. Arist. 604°28), instead of TA}v et trim, and also for the
amended punctuation of the passage : év Tots ºnvots, he says,
évépyet uāX\ov totaúrm Šávapus, Öre friara Ó dyadès kai 6 kakós Suáönkot
(6 yap ºrvos dpyia), TAïv et ui, karū utkpów 6 orirověatos kai 6 si6aiptov
ôtaqbépet row évavriov, Aéyo 8m (8& 2) kará ràs qavragias.
I. 13, IIo2° 17 § pºdzerai kai dvtutelvet rô Aéyò.
The Kb reading uáxerai re must have originated in a confusion
of -rai and -re. We should perhaps take the same view of
elpmrai re in II.44°31, and omit the re (this time with Kº).
II. 1, IIo3°31 rās 6' d'perås Aapéâvoplew évépyñoravres ºrpórepov,
ãotrep kai émi rāv d\\ov texvöv' & 'yūp Öet plaðóvras troueiv, raûra tot-
OAV E. AV. I. II — II. 2. 27
oëvres pavéâvopiev, otov oikoëopodvres oikočápot yivovrai kai kiðapićovres
Ki6aptorrat otra, Öm kai rā uév Šikawa Tpérrovſes óikato yivópeča, Tā Śē
oróppova oró%poves.
Bekker and others, who adopt Ko's otro Sé in l. 34, have
missed the construction of this passage. The clause of com-
parison &ortrep kré. does duty twice over, first in connexion with
the preceding statement, and then with the restatement of the
point in the following clause: compare De Anima 430, 28
(where the punctuation has been set right by Vahlen), and for
Platonic instances see Riddell's Digest of Idioms $ 209.
II. 1, IIo3°8 ék yāp row Kučapišstv kai oi dyadoi kai kakoi yivovrat
kiðaptatai.
The article before dyadoi is apparently an intruder; it does
not appear in the parallel that follows, ék pièvyāp roi ei oikočopeiv
dya&oi oikočápot €orovrat, or in what precedes in IIo3°33, oikočo-
plot wres oikočápot yivovrat — where yivovrat means “people become,’
as it must do here, if we leave out the article as an interpolation.
II. 1, IIo3° 16 €61%uevot qošeforóat # 6appeºv.
The asyndeton in Kb, which omits the fi, does not come under
the rule laid down by Vahlen on Poet. I457° 22.
II. 2, IIo3b 29 dwaykalov čntakéWraoréat rā trepi rās Tpáčets.
ér, and éori are so easily interchanged in MSS. (see on
IIoôb 22, III2° 31, 1134*26) that the reading in T, fort a kéWraoréat,
is virtually identical with LP's étrio KéWraoréal. The KP reading
#v orkévao 8at may have originated in 7, the symbol for én't
(Lehmann, Abkürzungen, p. 85), being mistaken for m= mv.
II. 2, IIo4° 18 otros oſſu kai émi oroppoo ºvns kai dv8petas Éxes . . .
6 re yāp Túvra q)ešyov kai pogoûuevos kai plmöév tropiévov čeixòs yivetat,
6 re uměév 6Aaos poſłońplevos dANā trpès trävra Bačićov 6pagüs' épotas
ôé kai épév táans #30wns diroMašov kai ančepitãs direxópevos dróNaoros,
68é Trägav (bet yov . . . dvatorónrós rus' $6eiperat 6m oroq poorávn kai i.
dvöpeia into ris inſepšoxns kai tºs éA\eiveds, into 8& Tſis plea &rnros
orçõeral. g
The 8m restored in 1.25 after q&siperat seems to be implied
in the KP reading 8é à, which I take to represent 6' ºi, i.e. &#.
For the omission of the article before oropporºvn it may suffice
to refer to Vahlen on Poet. I449* I, and Riddell's Digest of
Idioms $240. That 8%, and not yūp (the reading of the vulgate),
is the appropriate particle, has been already seen by Suse-
28 AWOTES AAWD EMEAVIDA 7TWOAVS
mihl. Aristotle's argument is this: “What we have said of
strength, which is destroyed by excess and defect, is true also
of oroq poorávn and dvöpeia: for it is clear that by fearing every-
thing one becomes a coward, and by fearing nothing, foolhardy;
and by yielding to every pleasure, one becomes dissolute, and
by rejecting all pleasure, one becomes àvatorónrós rus: one sees,
therefore, that orogºpográvn and dvöpeia (just like strength) are
destroyed by extremes and maintained by the mean.” The
statement in ll. 20–24 is an appeal to experience; the clause
that follows (q)6eiperat Kré.) is not a reason for it, but an inference
or generalisation from it, and it is, as it should be, identical in
sense with the original proposition (in l. 18) which had to be
proved. In the parallel in M.M. I.185°30 we have an āpa in the
part of the argument corresponding to our q6eiperat 8:), and one
may perhaps surmise that the vulgate reading q6eiperat yap m
oroq poorºvn was in a somewhat earlier stage pósiperat āp' fi oro-
qpoorévm — which would reduce the discrepancy in the tra-
dition to a verbal difference of no importance for the logic of
the argument.
II. 4, IIo5°28 dpkei otºv radrā traos éxovra yewéoréat.
Kb has rôt instead of otºv, and LP airá instead of raúra : the
primitive reading, therefore, may possibly have been, äpket obv
rö airá tros éxovra yevéo 6au. º
II. 4, IIo5” 2. The order of the words in KP, où8év h uspáv, is
confirmed by the quotation in Themistius, Or. II. 31 C, and by
the similar order in E. N. IIIo”23 and II61°32.
II. 4, IIo5°3 rà 8' àAAa oi pukpóv dx\á rà trav Ščvarat, àmep Šk row
troX\ákus trpárretv rá Šikawa kai oróg pova treptytveral.
The antecedent of ārep is presumably rā āAAa, i.e. purpose
(trpoalpoëple vos) and stability of condition (8ebaios kai duetaktuffras
#xov); but these have not been shown to result from the re-
petition of acts (ék row troANdzis trpárrew). Aristotle perhaps wrote
not àmep, but eitrep, in which case the subject of replyiveral will be
dperff, or rô rās dgerås exeiv (cp. IIo3*I7).
II. 4, IIo5° 7 Öikatos 8é kai oróqipov čo riv oix 6 raúra trpárrov,
dAAä kai [6] owra, trpárrow &s oi Sikatot kai oróq poves mpárrovow.
The excision of the article before otro is demanded by the
sense: ‘The appellation of just and temperate is given to the
man who, besides doing these things, does them also in the
OM. E. M. II. 4–6. 29
way in which the just and temperate do them.” The antithesis
in fact is between two ways of doing the same act, not between
two persons. For the position of the negative we may compare
II30° 7 áploros 8 oëx à trpès airóv rà dperm dAXà trpès repov (scil.
xpépuevos), where Rassow would read dAA’ 6 trpès repov with Ob T
(cp. Ind. Arist. 539* I4). -
II. 5, IIo6* 8 otr Čnawoºpe6a offre Wreyóue6a lacks a conjunction
to connect it with what precedes, and it is certainly a rather
otiose addition. The words may perhaps be a repetition from
IIo5°32.
II. 6, IIo6°22 önep £orri riis dperms.
The form of expression here is confirmed by what follows
in l. 27 raúra 8' duºpo ris dperms. The KP T reading 6mep forriv
€rri riis dperms seems to have arisen by a combination of two
readings, éori and éni (comp. on IIo3b29).
II. 6, IIoë"25 €v ois à pièv inep3oxi) āpapráveral kai fi A\elvis
[Nºëyerat], rö 8é piècov ćirawstral kai karopéoùrat.
Rassow transposes and reads, fi pièv ÚtrepôoA:) kai fi A\ewris àpiap-
Táveral (kai) \réyeral, which sacrifices the characteristic order of
the words. It is simpler to assume Wréyeral to have been re-
corded in the margin as an alternative reading. How little
Aristotle cared for symmetry in such matters is shown by
IIo8* 16 otr' émauverå oſſºr' épôā āAAá Jºekrá.
II. 6, IIoë" 36 v Hegórnri oëga rā trpós inas, &ptopévn Aćyº kai (;
&v 6 bpóvipos épio'etev.
The dative &ptopičvn is certified by Alexander (Q. N. et M. p.
295 Speng.) and Aspasius, the latter giving us a most instruc-
tive explanation of the entire passage:—röv Šē àpov ris Heorórmros
#xoptev trapá roß Aéyov, & 6pičeral unre TAelow elva, ujir' #Narrov. 6 yap
Aóyos eş in a yopete rà év rais trpáčeow. raúra pièv oëv droxpóvros
exei eis rôv ris àperms Aóyov, rà 8' àAAa &gtrep &mymruká čorru Töv čv rº
Öptopº. eine yāp airiv čv plea &rmri sivat rh &ptopévn Aóyº. kai éreč-
mystral troiq Aéyò' ré roß qpoviuou kai (; āv 6 ppóvipos épio'etev. The
º
reading 6 (for the Ös of our MSS.) is thus clearly indicated ;
and it is implied by Alexander, when he speaks of the mean
as Špiſówevov . . . inró (bpovňoreés re kai row 3p600 Aóyov (l.c. p. 294),
and by his language elsewhere, kará ràv čk ppovhaedºs ré kai épôöv
Aóyov (l.c. p. 287). I may add that º and Ös are confused in the
MSS. in II23°32, II35° 16, II38°9, and pleya)\ovčxº and HeyaMo-
3o AVO 7"E.S AAWD Aº MEAVOA 7TWOAVS
Wróxos in II23°31, through a tendency which has not escaped
the notice of Madvig, Adv. I. p. 67 (and also p. 312).
II. 7, IIoTº 4 trepi i80was 8e kai Ağras—ot tróa'as, ºrrow 88 kai
trepi rās Mötras—plea &rms oroq poortvm.
The second kai, which Aspasius ignores, is unmeaning as
the passage now stands. I have suggested kai (oix àpioios)
on account of the reference to this passage in the next Book,
III.7°25, 3rt pièv oëv plearórms éori trepi ijóovås # oropporávn, sipmrat
huív' firrow yap kai oix 6P otos éorri trepi rās Aötras.
II. 7, IIo7” Io €vavria's 8' év airaſs intepSáAAovoi kai éA\eirovoiv.
The amended reading here, 8' év ačrais, is based on that in
LP, 6’ avrais, which may well represent 8&avrats: comp. the
confusion of obô' év and obôé in the MSS. in III.8a I6. The con-
struction with the preposition év is dominant throughout this
Ch., ; there is but one exception (besides the present), that in
IIoTº I, and it is easy to bring it into conformity by reading
rów 6 intepfax\óvrov 6 prev (év) rā d-bogiq àvóvvuos.
II. 7, IIOT” 33 kai éort pièv Óre émauvoopew rôv (pi)\óriptov čari 8'
ôre rôv dquxóriptov.
The pièv which LP has after the first 3re I have ventured to
transpose and put before it, on the assumption that this is a
case of an omission supplied in the wrong place (cp. Supra p.
17). The particle in fact is actually wanting in Kº T.
II. 8, 1108b27. For the superlative TAetorm, restored from Kb
LP and Aspasius, compare Kühner Gr. Gr. 2 p. 22, ed. 2.
II. 8, IIo8p 30 ºri rpôs pièv rô pléorov čvious ākpots àpoiárms ris
qhaiveral.
The pºv, which Kb omits, is sufficiently certified by the con-
text in IIo8b 15, 17, 19, 21. Kb has a further mistake, röv (for
rô) uéorov, the neuter being clearly required by what follows in
l. 33, rots 8e drpois irpès àXAmNa, and by rô Héorov in 1.35: on the
other hand in II25°25 we find LP (and Aspasius) giving us rô
Héorov in lieu of the masculine rôv Héorov. It is evident that the
scribes failed to see that rô pléoov corresponds to rā ākpa, and 6
péoros to oi äkpot.
II. 8, IIo9° 13 rpós à yāp airoi HāNAov requkapuév tros, raûta
pax\ov évavria ré puéorº baiveral. -
The original reading in Kb here was exoplév tros, from which
I think we may recover an older and better reading, fiétropiév
OW E. M. II. 7 — III. I. 3I
tros (cp. supra, p. 16, for the loss of the initial): the parallel
certainly in E. E. 1222°3 has in Škelvo 8& tróvres pétrovo's pax\ov.
II. 8, IIo9° 14 oiov airoi pāA\ov Teqûkapley trpós rās jöovás, Ötö
eikaraqpopórépoi éoplev Tpós àkoMaortav h trpès Koopuárm ra.
ečkaraqpopórepot is recovered from the Latin of T, facilius
mobiles. The MSS. have eikaráqopot, an instance of the kind of
confusion which we see in Kº in III9°25 (€movetótorov, for énovel-
8to repov) and II58°3 (800 ko)\ot re, for 8vorko)\órepot), and in Lº T
in II27°27 (sūkaraqppóvnrot, for eikaraqipovnrárepot); so that a tend-
ency in this direction is observable in all our authorities.
III. 1, IIIo920 p.m.8év rv 8voyépaivov čni rā trpáčet.
For pumöév ru, restored from Kb for the plmöèv or pumöèv 8é of the
other MSS., compare Plato Soph. 258 A and Breitenbach's note
on Xenophon Oec. 3. 8, to whose instances may be added
Mem. I. 2, 42 and Hell. V. 4, 45.
III. 1, IIIo"23 & 83 pºi) uerapeNéuevos, étrel repos, Éorro oix éków.
The punctuation with the comma after Éorro is apparently an
innovation of Bekker's : it is not in Cardwell or Zell, or any of
the old editions which I have consulted.
III. 1, IIII*8 & 6é rpárret dyvoñorelev čv ris, otov Aéyovrés $acriv
ékºréosiv atroës, h oëk eiðévat 3rt dróppmra #v.
Aspasius appears to have read Aéyovras (v. p. 65, 23), and to
have taken atroës as governed by ékºréaeiv: the paraphrase in
the Aldine Scholia, otov Aéyovrós plov čéméoé plot rototrov finua, may
perhaps be thought to imply a more serious difference of read-
ing. At first sight one might be inclined to take Aéyovrés qaoruv
together, as an instance of the common pleonasm, but it will be
seen that that is hardly probable: there is a certain emphasis
on Aéyovres, because Aristotle is thinking of some unintentional
offence in words, as contrasted with one in deed, which he
proceeds to consider in the following context. If the passage
is taken to mean, “they plead that the words fell from them
when speaking,’ ‘excidisse sibi ex ore inter loguendum” (Sup-
posing that ékºrégéiv can bear that sense, as a sort of passive to
ex8á\\etv), the nominative Aéyovres in an object clause of this
form is a solecism. Nor is the verb pagiv quite satisfactory.
The agent, whose various pleas are being stated, is spoken of
throughout this Ch. in the singular ; and in syntactical depend-
ence on this verb we have in the very next line 86téal BovXópe-
32 AWOTES AAWD EMEAVOA 7TWOAVS
vos dºpeſvau-which implies pmari, not pagi. Lastly, we want a
subject of some sort for ékºréoreſv, since there is a tacit reference
to this subject in the second plea, i, oùk sióéval &rt áróppmra fiv.
With so many elements of doubt in it, it is best to leave the
passage as it is, as one of hopeless difficulty.
III. 1, IIII* I3 &mi orornpig iria as āmokretvai äv' kai 61&qi 8ovXó-
Plevos . . . traráčetev čv.
micras (for tratoras) is the emendation of Bernays, but there is
very little to choose between it and that of Bonitz, Torioras. It
is clear from Aspasius (v. Supra p. 3) that even in his time
there was something wrong in the text. I may remark that
his paraphrase (hpéua traiew) confirms the reading 6ićat restored
by Bernays (from the Paris MSS. quoted by Turnebus and
Morel") in place of the common reading beišat. The sense de-
mands 6ićal, and between 6eiéal, the primitive spelling of the
word, and 8eišat there is only the difference of a single letter.
III. 2, IIIIb 22 BoöMmorus 8' éorri (kai) rôv dèvvárov.
The kai here inserted from Aspasius seems required by the
sense as well as by the parallels elsewhere:—
BoöNovral piev yap Évia kai rôv dövvárov E. E. I225°33.
800Xmous pièv ydp &orri kai rôv dövvárov M. M. II.89°6.
III. 2, III2*3 mpoalpoſſueóa pièv \agetv # puye iv [f] ru rôv rotoſſ-
rov, Šošáčopiev Šć ri éotiv i rive orvpuqépet.
# ru rôv rototrov would supplement Aa3eiv iſ puyetv and make
the enumeration of possibilities exhaustive (comp. III5* 23,
M. M. 1188b 29, Poet. I453° 21). Such an addition, however, is
superfluous, since in the nature of things Aa3eiv h ºvyetv, like
8tókeuv, or aipeio 6at, h qetyev, covers the whole ground of desire
and aversion. Omitting the # (with K9), we see how very aptly
rt rôv rototrov comes in ; it recalls the idea of rāyaéâ h rā Kaká in
the preceding line, and thus gives us at once an object for
Aabeiv h ºvyetv (such as we have, for instance, in E. E. 1221°33)
and a subject for the verbs in ri éorrt # rivi orvpiq,épet—this last
being very much needed to make the meaning as clear as it
should be.
* In the notes in my edition, not having access at the time to the rare
Turnebus edition of 1554, I took the readings of these MSS. from that of
Morel (Paris, 1560).
O.M. E. M. III. I–4. 33
III. 3, III2°31 raúra 8: Kai čorri Aottrá.
Aspasius (p. 72, 3) would seem to have read raira 8: kai émi-
Aotira, which may possibly be right (comp. on IIo3°29).
III. 3, III2°8 rô BovXečeoróat 8é év roſs &s étri rā Toxt, dóñ\ots 8é
trós diro5hore rat, kai évois d8tóptorrow.
Rassow's addition, êvots (ro &s 8ei) ā8tóptorov, is not required
either by the sense or the supposed parallel in M. M. 1189° 18.
The clause kai év ois à8tóptorov is explanatory, and in apposi-
tion to év rois &s étri rô troA5, dóñAous Šē trós dro&#orerau, and from
this latter it is easy to supply trós drošāorera, after détéptorov.
We have, therefore, not a new idea, but a repetition of what has
been just said in a somewhat different form, ‘i.e. in matters
wherein the issue is indeterminate.” Comp. De Part. Animal.
639° 22 ſión Nov yap kai d'êtóptorróv Čort Aéyeav vov trepi rotºrov.
III. 3, III2°2O 6 yap flouxevöpevos éouxe ôm retv kai dvaMäetv rôv eipn-
pévov rpárov &gtrep Štáypaupta (qaiverat 8 m pièv (firmats oi rāora sivas
800Xevows . . . ; Śē 800Aevoris Tāora ºrmous), Kai rô oxarov čv rſ, āva\0-
aret trpárov eival év rº, yewéoet. o
The punctuation is implied in Aspasius: 8ov\evóple6a 3& trepi
rôv čq' huiv, & 3rav (mrógev &s sipmrat, dva Müoptev, kai rô £axarov čv rà
dva\öoret Trpárov čv Tà yewéore, rns trpášeos trototiple6a.
III. 3, III.3° 4 rô yāp ex rms 3ovXms kpiðév trpoauperóv éorriv.
Tpokpwéev, the reading of LP etc., has the support of Alexander
(Q. N. et M. p. 308 Speng.) and Nemesius (De Nat. Hom. p. 281
Matth.), as well as that of Aspasius. A strong argument, how-
ever, in favour of Kº's kpwéév is the circumstance that a few lines
further on, in a statement which repeats the sense of our
present passage, the simple verb appears in all the MSS. :—
€k rod 8ovMeðoraoréat yüp kpivavre s 6peyóple6a kará ràv BoöNevow
(III3* II).
III. 4, III.3* I7 orup Saivet Öe rots uév [rö] 8ovXmråv rāyačov Aéyovort
Kré.
The excision of the article before BovXmröv with Ob, which is
here in accordance with Aspasius (p. 75, 22), is confirmed by
the context: in l. 24 no MS. has the article, and in l. 20 it seems
to be found only in Hº Nb', being wanting in Kb LP MP Ob, as
well as in Aspasius.
* In the note in my edition of the text, Ob is an error for Hº Nb.
D
34 AVO 7TES AAWD EMEAWDA 7TWOAVS
III.4, III.3°29 6 orirověatos yāp kaorra kplvet épéðs.
The Kº reading röv ornověatov . . . kpively, which can hardly be
intended to carry on the construction in 1. 23–5, may perhaps
represent an alternative reading, too orověatov . . . kpivetv. The
divergence, however, does not end here, for in l. 32, instead of
6 arm ovöalos . . . &v, Kb has rô a trověatov . . . Šv-on behalf of
which one might quote the use of the neuter in dxovarruków (in
IIo3°3), rà épéyépuevov (in III9°4) and rô et éeopotu (in II41*25).
III. 5, III.4° 15 Rassow's emendation, kairot for kai, gets some
support from the fact that in Io96* 9 Kb has kai for kairot, and in
1 Io2° 14 LP T read piév for puévrot.
III. 5, III.4° 16 röre pièv oëv éénvairº um vooreſv, Tpoenévº 6' oikéri.
K” reads ééöv, and it deviates in a precisely similar way from
the vulgate in II.44°3 also. It is just possible, I think, that ééðv
should be retained, in which case we may compare this passage
with Herod. v. 50 (quoted by Klotz on Devarius, p. 374), xpeov
yáp pitv piñ Aéyeuv rô éóv, 8ovXópevöv ye 3raptuñras &#ayayetv čs Tāv
'Aorimu, Aéyet 6' &v rpióv pumvów qās elva, rºv čvočov, and explain the
construction as an anacoluthon, on the principle laid down by
Kühner Gr. Gr. 2, p. 657, ed. 2. Instances of Šá after ordinary
participial clauses, to mark a contrast between the two parts of
a sentence, are to be seen in some few places of the E. N., e.g.
8ovXópevot mp3 rôv kuvöövov, Šv airois & dq to ravrat III6* 8.
ôpokoyoovres repi rod trpáyuatos, trepi 6é [so Kºl row trorépos
ôikatov duqua Smrodow II35°31
érepot puev čvres, duqérepot 38 rā oroplarukā #8éa 8tékovoruv II52°4.
A fourth instance, that in III.8°24, must be reserved for
another note, as there is some doubt as to the true reading of
the passage.
III. 5, III.4° 18 €n' airé ré 8a)\eiv [kai jival).
The tautology being so unmistakable, it has been proposed to
remove it by restoring Aa3eiv (for Baxeſv), which appears to be
found in some of the inferior MSS. I prefer to regard this as
one of the many instances of the presence of a gloss or ancient
variant in the text. The paraphrase in Aspasius, kai Éival piev
āv rus éavröv čköv h \iéov, seems to imply a single verb, and
suggests the suspicion that jūrat has found its way into the text
from him.
III. 6, III5°22 et ris #3pw trepi Taíðas kai yuvaika poésirai.
O.M. E. W. III. 4–IO. 35
The reading yuvaikas, in K", has the support of Aspasius, but
it is as well to remember that in Io97b Io, where K" reads yuvaiči,
Aspasius agrees with the vulgate. The plural would seem to be
the result of assimilation to what precedes (cp. Supra p. 15).
III. 7, III5°29 Šokei Še kai d\açöv elva, 6 6pagi's kai Tpoortroumrikós
divöpetas' &s youv čketvos trepi ră qoğepā exel, oùros BoöMetal paived 6at'
év ois obv bövarat, upſetrat.
I have ventured to restore yoºv for the očv of the MSS., partly
to avoid the repetition of oğv, and partly because the sense seems
to require youv, or its equivalent, yāp. The words are constantly
confused in the MSS. Thus in 1159b 28, where Kb has yoºv, T
has oëv and Lº ydp (cp. also the variants in Bekker in II68°29);
and conversely, in Io98” 7 we have yáp in Kº T, and obv, i.e. youv
(as my friend Mr. Burnet has seen), in Lb.
III. 8, III.6°24. That Atopičms was originally nothing more
than a marginal note is shown by the case (which to fit into
the construction ought surely to be an accusative), and by the
absence of the article (cp. infra, on II45°20). In Aristotle's time
such a piece of information as to the speaker in a familiar
Homeric passage was hardly wanted.
III. 8, III.7° 19 diró Áeos yöp Pax\ov fiv, 3rt firrov čk trapaorkevils.
#v seems to be implied in the K” T reading h, which may very
well stand for j, i.e. iv. For this use of the imperfect it may be
sufficient to compare:—
ei yüp BovXmrów, kai dyadóv' fiv 8', ei otºros érvXe, kakóv III.3° 19.
dNA &rt éq àpiv fiv obros # ph oùros xpija aoréal, Štá rooro èkočovot
III.5°2.
# oãros éxes &s oëk #v rô #xeiv ćiria raoréat 1147° II.
LP has fi kai, a combination apparently of j and kai, two per-
petually recurring variants (v. Supra p. 12): we are, therefore,
precluded from supposing fi kai to represent sival, which would
give much the same sense as the fiv which I have restored.
III. 10, III.7°28 Šimpija'600'av Šil ai Wuxukai kai ai oroplarukai, otov
quxorupuia quxopuděeta.
The Kº reading is 8. §§ kai ai oroplarukai kai ai VivXukai, but the
change of order may be due to an omission, and in any case
it is difficult to justify the kai before ai oroplarukai. The sense is,
‘We must distinguish the mental from the bodily pleasures’—
the emphasis being thus on ai VivXukai, so that the illustration,
D 2
36 AVO 7"E.S AAWD EMEAVOA 7TWOA'S
otov quxoripita Krá., may very well refer back to these, rather than
to the nearer term, ai oroplarukai.
III. 10, III.8°22 öpioios 8 oë8 ióðv “fi [eipóv] #Naqov # typtov
alya,” d\A' 3rt 8opāv Éet. .
eūpāv, which Susemihl has already bracketed, is a gloss from
Aspasius, who unadvisedly substitutes it for Aristotle's ióðv,
because it stands in the Homeric line which Aristotle had in
view:—
eipov h \adov kepačv h #yptov alya (Il. 3. 24).
The # before [sipóv] I have retained as being probably part of
the quotation, and not the ij we sometimes find with alternative
readings.
III. 11, III.8° Io Trás yāp in 16vueſ à évôe)s £mpas à trypas Tpopſis
. . to 8° rotagöe # rotáorós, oùkért was, où8é rôv airóv.
There is a pretty obvious difficulty in rô 83 rotao'8s # rotagöe
očkért tras, which is not quite removed by Ramsauer's travrós,
though the conjecture may find some sort of support in the
language in IIo9° 28 (oikért travrös oë8é Ödövov) and in the
paraphrase of Aspasius, 816 pnot riv pièv rms rpoºns àpečw . . .
quorukºv elval, rös 8é rouáorðe # rowdo 6e oëkért travrös oë8é rôv airóv.
The explanation is no doubt wide of the mark, but it implies
that Aspasius had in his text an article agreeing with rouăorée or
rotéorèe. I would restore, therefore, rijs 8é rouáorðe, to be taken as
governed by émióvpel, understood from the beginning of the
clause.
III. 11, III.8° 22 rôv yāp quxorotočrov Aeyopévov # ré xaipeiv ots
paſſ 8eſ, # ré uáA\ov i ös of troX\ot, h pil &s 8et, karū trévra 6' oi dré-
Aaorrow inepôá\\ovoruv.
Susemihl reads rô Xaipeiv and rô playov with Ob, and kará
mdivra 8% with MP. Against this view of the passage it is to be
remembered (1) that Aéyearðat rô—, a favourite form of expres-
sion at all times with Aristotle, occurs in the immediate context
in l. 29, and that we have an obvious parallel to this in 1125°
14, TAeovaxós roo pºorowodrov \e youévov, where ràeovaxós covers
the ground of r6 xaipeiv kré, (2) The 8' comes under the
principle considered on III.4° 16, indicating a certain contrast
between the position of the pi\ototoirot and that of the dkóAaorrow :
‘Whereas the biXorototrol [e.g. the pi\ovevåås, the biXépyvpos,
the pixówas] get their appellation from their feeling pleasure
O.M. E. AW. III. IO – IV. I. 37
either in an improper object, or to an improper degree, or in an
improper manner, the dróMaorrot run into excess in all three
ways.”
III. 11, 1118° 30. The variation in the MSS. here (oë8' dróNaoros
Kb T, dróXaorros & Lº) is just like that between kai and Šá, which
we so often find in the MSS. of the E. N. (v. supra p. 12).
III. 11, III9° 14 oir' dróvrov Avrreirai oib’ intôupleſ, # pierpios,
où8é play)\ov # 8et, où8 &re ui, Šet, où8' 5Xos róv rotočrov oběév' dora öé
Tpös i yield v čorriv Kré.
See supra p. II. The origin of the faulty text in Kº Lº was
apparently a wrong division of oi8evoora into oë8evós' é (instead of
into otöév Šora), and the insertion of the true word oë8év after
pax\ov i öel, as though it were something omitted and not the
correction of an error.
III. 12, III9° 27 86éete 3’ &v oëx égotos ékoúatov # 8eixia sival rois
kaë' exagrov.
qevkröv, the reading of Kº Lº for ékoúatov, would mean, I
suppose, ‘avoidable, but I am not aware that the word can
have that sense in Aristotle.
IV. 1, II2O" 7 karū riv oëoriav 8' ſi èAévéepiórms Aéyerai' ot, yāp £v
rº, TAñ6et rôv Štěopévov rô &Aev6éptov, dAN' év rm rod 8,86vros éðel, ačrm
8è kará ràv oëoriav Štěoortv.
If airm stands for j rot, 8v8óvros Éts, it is surely a very incorrect
mode of expression to say, iſ roi, 8v86vros ééus Stöworw. Ötöwouv,
indeed, is worse than superfluous, for it tends to obscure the
correspondence between this clause and that at the beginning
of the sentence, kará ràv oëoriavi čAev6eptérms Aéyérat, for which the
rest of the statement is a reason. Liberality, says Aristotle, is
according to one's means, for the liberal act depends on the
condition (Éts) of the giver, and this varies according to his
III CalT1S.
IV. 1, II21* 7 tº 2tpovíðm oix dpeakópºevos.
tº 2tpovičov, the correction I have suggested, derives some
support from the paraphrase of Heliodorus, où8é riv 2 plovišov
ôéxerat trapaivéoriu Tāvavria intoru6epuévov.
IV. 1, 1121*24 8&oet yap ois 8eſ, kai oë Affveral 66ev oi Öeſ.
For ois Kº has oë, which may possibly represent the ot
omitted by Kb before Añverai.
IV. 1, II22*7 6 uévrot Kv3evrºs kai 6 Aomočárms kai & Amorrºs rôv
38 AWOTES AAWD EMEAVOA 7TWO AVS
diveXev6épov eiorivº aloxpokspöets yáp' képôovs yāp €veka duºpórepot
Tpayparedovrat.
kai 6 Amarás is ignored by Aspasius. Either this or kai 6
\omobiºrms should be struck out as a gloss, for there is no room
in the sentence for them both, unless we suppose the one to
mean the land-robber, and the other the sea-robber, which surely
makes the statement much too minute for Aristotle's present
purpose. It will be observed also that in the next sentence he
speaks of duqārepot, i.e. the dicer and the robber, as if he had
two, not three, kinds of offenders before his mind.
IV. 2, II22° 25 ičva yüp Set rotºrov elval, kai Hà Hóvov tº ºpy?
dAAä kai tº trotoovri trpérew . . . trpétrel 66 [kai) ois rotavra trpovirápxet
ôt' airów iſ róv trpoyóvov.
The kai before ois seems to have been interpolated through an
inability to see that what intervenes between Tpéretv and trpéret
is a parenthetical digression. What Aristotle says is, that the
performance, to be magnificent, must not merely befit the
occasion (ró pyº); it must also befit the person, who under-
takes it (rº trotočvri); and it befits the person (Tpéret 6é), if he has
personal or hereditary claims to distinction. The last clause,
therefore, does not add a new class of people (as irpétrel Šē kai
would do); it simply describes the kind of man who may with-
out impropriety aspire to discharge certain public duties in a
magnificent manner.
IV. 2, II23” II kai pleya)\ompetréorrarov (Čn Aós) uév rô v Heyd'Aq,
puéya, Évraúða Śē rô év rońrous piéya.
âr)\ós (or some equivalent) has similarly dropped out in
1152931, where we are able to restore it from Aspasius.
IV. 2, II23°23 Kai Kapıçöots xopmyöv čv rā trapó89 tropºpúpav eloqê-
pov, &otrepoi Meyapot.
LP etc. and the editions read Meyapets, but Meyapot is what is
meant by the first reading in Kº ueyapoi, and it gives a better
sense. It was not the Megarians but certain persons at Megara
who did these things.
IV. 3, II23° 22 kai ävev Šē Aóyou qaivovral oi pleyaMävlºvyot trepi
Tiptºv sivat' rupińs yāp uá\torra [oi HeyāAot] dévotorw éavrovs.
oi pleyāAot is bracketed on the assumption that it got into the
text from the margin, where it was recorded as an alternative
for oi ueya.Ndyuxot in the preceding line. The existence of such
OAV E. N. IV. 2–3. 39
a variant seems to be sufficiently intimated by the fact that two
lines further on LP actually has pleyá\ov for preya)\ováxov.
IV. 3, 1124° II kai dvrevepyerikös tràetovov' otºro yap oi trpooroq \ſi-
oret 6 in dipšas.
The oi which I have restored from Kh has the stamp of
genuineness upon it, though it may be hard to find another
instance of this use of the pronoun in Aristotle. It refers back
to the primary or more remote subject, as it so often does in
obliqua oratio in Plato and elsewhere (comp. Kühner Gr. Gr.
2, p. 492, ed. 2).
IV. 3, 1124° 12 Šokotori Öe kai plump ovečew o' &v troumoroa'uv eş, &v
8' àv ráðajorivoč . . . kai rā pièv #8éos droßeu', rà 8' dmöðs' 8to kai Tàu
ečruvot Aéyetv rás eiepyeglas tº Att.
The oč which I have substituted for oºs is confirmed by
Aspasius, who writes, however, instead of it &v, no doubt for the
sake of symmetry with the &v 8' év tá60orty which follows. We
thus get a proper antithesis (‘they remember a service they
have done, but not those they have received ’) with less change
than is involved in Münscher's emendation, (Öq') &v 3’ &v iſ 400-
oruv, and the text harmonizes better with what follows, rà uéu
jöéas droffew – where rà pièv stands for & av, rather than offs àv,
Trotſoroo’iveč. There is in fact a close correlation of meaning be-
tween pivnuove ºeuv and droßeuv, just like that between Aéyetv and
dkočev in 1128* 1, 18, ‘to say’ and ‘to have said to one.’ This
being the case, I have not hesitated to write ékočev (for the MS.
reading dkočet), so as to make the verb depend on Sokoi ort in the
same way as pivnuovečeuv does. It will be seen too that with the
infinitive droßew in the context, the obliqua oratio in the next
clause (ötö kai rivečrtv Kré.) is no longer an anomaly.
IV. 3, II24° 26 dwaykalov 8é kai pavepopugi, eival kai pavepāq, Āov
(rö yöp Aavčávew poğoupévov, kai dueMelv ris dAméetas pâN\ov i riis
8óðns), kai Aéyetv kai irpárretv pavepos (Tappmartaorris yap Suá rà kara-
$povnrikós sival, kai dAméevrtkós, traßv čo a piñ 8t' eipovetav [sipoveta 86)
Trpós rows troNAoûs), kai n pès àA\ov paſſ 80yao'6at ºnvdAN' # pi\ov čovXt-
köv yap.
The punctuation has been amended here, to bring out this as
the general sense of the passage: “From what has been said of
the pleya)\6\ºvXos it follows (I) that he is open in his love and
hate, and (2) that he is open in speech and act.” The reason
4O AVO 7TES AAWD EMEAVIDA 7TWOAVS
given in support of the first proposition is that “it implies fear
to conceal one's feelings, i.e. to care less for truth than for
appearance.’ Here pr. Kb has kai dueMeiv (I mention this
because Bekker's report is not quite accurate), the vulgate
having kai MéAetv, which I take to be a corruption of kāplexeiv:
dueMelv ris dAméetas is a quite legitimate expression, and the verb
occurs also elsewhere in the E. N. As regards the second pro-
position, the reason for it is not so certain owing to the great
diversity of readings in the MSS. : I have adopted one of the
alternative readings in T, trappmortaorrºs yāp Štú rô karaqppovnrikós
elvat, which has the advantage of not needing emendation to
make it intelligible; but it is quite possible that something
better may be hidden beneath another of the many readings in
the MSS. The only alteration I have hazarded is in bracketing
sipoveta 88, which I do on the assumption that eipoveta is a
dittographia, such as we often find in Kº (v. Supra p. 18), and
that 8é was interpolated to give a semblance of syntax to the
clause after the intrusion of eipoveta (comp. Supra p. 20). The
reading of N°, sipova, which has been accepted by Bekker and
others in spite of its strange grammar, is, I conceive, a mere
corruption of eipoveta.
IV. 4, II25” I4 tràeovaxós too quxorototºrov Aeyopévov oik tri rô
aúró (pépopev del rô pixõrupov.
The traditional reading here is rôv quxóripov, but the sense
demands the neuter: it is the character or quality of pi}\ortuia and
not the man that we are able to attribute (q)épew) to a certain act
(comp. on 1108°30, for the similar confusion of ropéorov and rôv
Héorov).
IV. 5, 1126° 4 oi yöp pum épyićöpievot q'ots 8et Miðiot Sokoto welval,
kai oi º os Sei pujö’ &re uně ois &ei Šokeſ yúp oëk aloédvegöal.
T has rô yāp pºi) āpyićsorðat éq' ois 8e. Auðtov Šokeſ sival, which, if
we omit the oi in the next line with KP, gives us, I think,
a better reading than that of the MSS., and one more in
harmony with the use of the singular in the following clause
(8okei). As for the position of the accessory clause kai paſſ 6s 8el
kré., we have an instance of this order in II26°34, and indeed
in countless places in the E. N.
IV. 5, 1126*24 év airó Sé mºral rºv Čpyńv xpóvov bet.
The suggestion I have ventured to make, betral instead of Šet,
O.M. E. W. IV. 4–7. 4 I
is, I find, supported by T, which has indiget, the word it has in
II.47° 22 — where 8stral must be restored, if we wish to retain
the K9 T reading roºro. 8sirat may have been curtailed into 8eſ,
in the same way as in Io97°23 moésirai has become in Kb troëeſ.
IV. 5, II26°3 Čv yāp rots kað’ graorra kāv rà alo.6%ret # kptorus.
I write here kāv for kai, on account of the parallel in IIo9'23,
rå Öe rotaúra év rois kað' ékaorra, kai év rm aio 6%get à kpions. The
same correction seems to be required a little further on in
dAméevrtkös kai rº, 3(4) kai ré, A6)? (1127° 24); I would read here
kāv rº, Biº, because the preposition appears in two very similar
statements in the immediate context:—
trepi 6é Tóv d\méevóvrov re kai Wrevöopévov . . . v Adyots kai
trpášeort II27°2O.
kai év A&yº kai év 8to d\méeşet II27b2.
IV. 7, II27°9 6 8é pleiſo róv inrapyávrov trpoorotočplevos plmöevös
€veka pačAq pºèv éotkev . . . pºſiratos 85 paiveral pâM\ov i kakós' ei &
évéká rivos, Ó Hév 66éns à rupińs oë Atav Wrekrós . . . 686 dpyvptov, # 80 a
els ápyūptov, doxmuovéo repos (oik Šv rà èvvápet 8' éorriv 6 dxaćov, dAN'
év rà irpoalpéo et kará ràv Éw yāp kai tº rotéorès etvai d\aćov čo ruv).
&otrep kai Wreworms 6 pièvrº Wregósi airó Xaipov, 6 Se 86&ns épéyépévos
# képôovs.
In the above punctuation I have sought to show that the
clause oilk v rá čvvápºet—d)\ačºv čorriv stands apart from the main
construction. It may perhaps be a clumsy parenthesis, like
that in III2” 21, unless one prefers to suppose it to be out of
place, more especially as Aspasius seems to have had it in
his text after eipmuéva in l. 20. There is thus no reason to
question àortrep kai Wrewarms kré., which comes in aptly enough to
illustrate the double sense of the word āAaſóv : you may have
and Mašov plmöevös éveka and an d\açöv čveká rivos, just as you have
a Westorms plmöevös evexa (rº Wreſöet airò xaipov) and a Wreworms évéká
ruvos (866ms épsyóplevos fi képôovs).
IV. 7, II27°26 oi Śē rà pukpā kai pavepā [mpoo Trotočuevo..] Sav-
kotravoúpyot Aéyovrat.
trpoormotočuevot, which was first recognized as an intruder by
Vahlen, seems to have found its way into the text from the para-
phrase of Aspasius: oi Öé kai tā opurpä kai rā Atav qavepā āmapvoú-
Hevot kai trpo a to to ºpie vot pil Éxetv Čiriyoyot, Kai és (bmari, Bavkora-
woup you ka?\otivrat.
42 AWOZ’ES AAWD EMEAVOA 7TWOAVS
IV. 8, II28°7 oi 8é puff" atrol āv eitóvres uměčv yeMotov roſs re
Aéyovo. 8voyepaivovres àypotkov kai ork\mpoï 8okoúatv sivat.
ăypotkov is due to Kº, the common reading being dyptol, a very
old variant, since the paraphrase of Aspasius implies it. What
is decisive in favour of āypotkov is the fact that in the rough
enumeration of virtues and vices in Book II the fault that cor-
responds with that now under consideration is said to be a kind
of dypotkia:—
trepi 8é rô jöö rô pièv év trauðtá á pláv péoros súrpátrexos kai i öuděeoris
eirpare\ia, i ö’ intepbox: 80p.oxoxia kai à éxav airijv 8wpoxóxos,
6 8' NAetwov dypot k 6s ris kai ji čus dypotkia IIo8°26
—to which one may add the parallels in E. E. 1234°5 and M. M.
1193? II. ‘Boorishness’ may very well be made to include a
stupid inability to make or understand a joke. The reading
ăyptot takes us into a wholly different set of ideas. As applied
to a man dyptórms is (like Öpyi)\órms and XaAerórms) a kind of
excess in the matter of anger, the mean being trpaërms, and the
opposite extreme a certain slavish acquiescence in wrong
(see E. E. I231°9).
IV. 9, 1128° 21 oëöé yāp misukoús éorriv iſ aio Xóvn, eitep yiveral
éti Tois pačAois . . . qačAou 3: Kai Tô elva rotovtov viov Tpárrew ri
Töv aioxpóv.
Rassow has already suggested qaşNov 3é Ötö rô elval, but it is
a simpler change to write tº instead of ré, which gives the
same, if not a better, sense: ‘Shame is the part of a qat)\os,
and through a man being of a nature to do something shame-
ful.” For the form of the accessory clause kai tº eivat Kré.
compare
peo’ſ rms 8: 800 kaktów, ... kai ért ré rās pew éA\eirew rās 8' intep-
8áAAew rod 8&ovros IIo/*3.
karū thv čw yāp kai ré, rotéorèe elva, d\aôv ča riv II27° 15.
V. 1, II29° 23 dxoAovéeſ 8 &s éiri rô woxõ, éâv 6árepov trxeovaxós
Aéymrat, kai 64tepov tr}\eovaxós Aéyeo.6at.
It is perhaps worth noticing that 64 repov–6érepov, the reading
of T (for the vulgate 64 repa-6árepa), is also in the New College
MS. of the Scholia. The sense demands the singular, as this
logical correspondence is primarily between two terms, rather
than between two sets of terms.
O.M. E. N. IV. 8–V. 2, 43
V. 1, 1129* 27 áNAá Štá rà oðveyyvs elva, Tºv ćpovuptav airów
Aav6ávet kai oëx &otrep &mi rôv tróppo 8%Nm pā)\ov, (ii yap 6taqbopä
ToMA) # karū Tiju ióéav) otov 3rt kaxeſrat k\eis 6pověpos iſ re intô rôv
aúxéva röv Šºšov kai fi rās 6&pas k\etovoru.
The punctuation, as thus amended, makes the parenthesis à
yāp-iöéau a reason for the choice of the kind of instance that
comes after it. Another instance of this order is in IIo4a 13,
where Zell has a note to show that the construction, though
rare, is not peculiar to Aristotle (comp. Kühner Gr. Gr. 2 p. 853
ed. 2).
V. 1, 1129°32 öoxeſ 8) & ré trapávouos àukos elva, kai 6 mºeo-
vékrm's kai ävuoros, Öore 67Mov Órt kai [6] 8tkatos éo Tat 6 re vöpupos
kai 6 to os. -
The logical symmetry of the statement requires the excision
of the article before 6ikatos, so as to make the adjective a predi-
cate like àötkos in the preceding line. Aristotle is arguing on
the strength of the principle just laid down (in 1129° 24): As
ãöukos has a plurality of meanings, so also must its opposite
ôikatos; it must be applicable to two distinct kinds of men, the
vöpupos and the toos, in the same way as āölkos is applied
to the trapávouos and also to the TAeovékrms or āvuoros. In using
the familiar word TAeovékrms (cp. TXeoverreºv, Plato Rep. 349 B),
Aristotle adds kai ävuoros as a synonym, to prevent the term
being understood in too narrow a sense (comp. II29° Io),
and to prepare us for 6 toos as a designation for the just
HT13 Il.
V. 1, 1130” I2 iſ uév trpós repov, Šukatoa tºwn, # 88 rotéðe Éts in A&s,
dperff.
The punctuation here, with the comma after dirMös, is that of
Trendelenburg, who was not aware that it had been anticipated
by Argyropylus, and again by N. Grouchius, in his version
printed at Paris in 1566,
V. 2, II30°22 Éorriv ćp' àA\m ris d8tkia.
to riv ap' is not very far from the Kb reading for yap. In the LP
reading €o ruv dpa ye (followed by Bekker and others), it is diffi-
cult to see what meaning is to be attached to the ye: it may
perhaps represent kai (comp. fort ris kai étépa II30°6), or it may
be due (as Prof. J. C. Wilson has suggested to me) to a repeti-
tion of the ye in the preceding line,
44 AWOTES AAWD EMEAVOA 7TWOAVS
V. 2, 1130°22 oxeóðv yāp rà troNAA rôv wouipov rá árð ris 6\ms
dperms ſpoo rarrópevá čorriv' kað' ékáormv yāp dperºv trpoordrret Çiv . . .
6 vápos.
Tpoorrarrápeva (Kº T) is supported not only by the following
ºrpoorrárret, but also by two close parallels elsewhere:—
rä karū traorav dperºv intô rod vôptov retayuéva II38°5.
roës rā intô róv vöuov retayuéva trotoovras II.44* I5.
These two instances show that in our present passage the
agent with trpoo rarrópºeva is really into rod vôpiov : ámó rms 6Ams
dperms denotes not the agent, but the principle which law takes
as its starting-point.
V. 3, II31°25 rô yāp Šikatov čv rais vouais 6poRoyotori Trávres kar'
détav rivá Šstv sival, riv piévrot détav oi riv airijv Aéyoval tróvres
[ürápxeiv], dAN' oi pièv Šmuokparukoi éAev6eptav Kré.
Ob omits inépyetv, and Kb has instead of it kar' d'étav ruč, beiv
elval, by a repetition from the preceding line. As the sense is
merely ‘But they do not mean the same standard, it looks as
if Önüpxeuv had been inserted as a stop-gap, when the repeated
words were struck out: the word triivres also just before it is
not quite free from doubt, as it may very well have come in
along with the other repeated words, through the similarity
between Aéyovort and the épokoyobot in l. 25.
V. 3, II31°7 &ore kai rô 6\ov trpès rê šAov' 8tep i vouñ ovvöváčev,
kāv obra ovvreći, Šukaios ovv8váčet.
&ntep ovvöväſst is supposed to mean, I believe, ‘which conjunc-
tion the distribution effects.' I cannot help thinking that the
singular Ömep is due to assimilation to the preceding 6\ov,
and that the true reading is inſep, which would then be in
apposition to the word 6\ov. The 6\ov in each case consists of
two terms, which are those combined in the distribution. It
will be observed that avvreón (virtually a passive to avvöváčew)
must have a plural subject, but there is no such subject in the
sentence, unless we find a plural object for avvöväget by restor-
ing inep for Ömep.
V. 3, II31b Io kai uéorov rô 8íkatov roor' éorri, (rö 8' àöukov) to
mapá rô dwdNoyov' rú yāp dváAoyov čorov, rö 8é 8ikatov dvdAoyov.
The insertion of ré 8' àötkov (from T) is confirmed by what
follows in the context:—
OM. E. W. V. 3–5. 45
tº e º
rô plºv oëv 8tratov rooro, rô dwāAoyov' ré 8' àötkov ré trapā rô divá-
Aoyov II31° 16.
* * Jºy V y p gº g * º * * 3. w w
kai ré à8tkov ré àvruketuevov rá, 8tratºp rotºrº rò mapá rà dwāAoyáv
éorriv II31°31.
It is surprising that editors should acquiesce in the Mb read-
ing, row trapá rà dváAoyov, which is only one of the facile and
transparent attempts at correction which characterize the text
of that MS. (comp. on 1151b 24).
V. 4, II32” I rod piéorov dpa €vi, kai to uéorov, dºp' of dºmpé6m, vi.
Zell conjectured (rod) dºp' ot, through a wish to remove a
kind of ellipse not uncommon in Aristotle (comp. Ind. Arist.
239°28), and of which we have several instances in the E. N.,
e.g.
ékárepos yāp rotºrov Xaipei, où [=Tº oil pixmrukós éorw III.7°30.
droxv6évros oëv 8t' à [= rod 6’ 6] pi\ot morav II56*22.
ãorre Xaipeiv čv (; [= ré, év (; ) rooro II68* Io.
ôuaq povaal rô stöet à dip' &v [=Toís d'p &v] II.74” Io.
V. 5, II33°7 oikočápos éq a.
L” etc. prefix otov before oikočáuos, but it is not really wanted.
Similar instances of an illustration without an introductory otov
are to be seen in II.33° 4, 23 (cp. De Gen. et Corr. 332b 14).
V. 5, II33°8 &ei oſſºv Mapſ3ávew rôv oikočápov trapá row orkvrorópov
rô Keivov ºpyov, kai airów £kéivº Heraðiðóval rô airod.
In Kº LP we have here two genitives, rod Éxeivov ºpyov and rod
airoi. I have not followed them in these readings, because it
seems to me that in a context like the present partitive genitives
are out of place. Heraðiðóvat, as here used, does not mean ‘to give
a portion of,” but rather ‘to transfer” or “give in exchange: it
repeats the idea implied already in peráðooris (el 8é puff, ueráðooris
où yiveral, rn Heraðóoret 88 orvppévovoruv II33°2), which means
‘exchange’ or ‘interchange,’ as it clearly does in Pol. 1257°24,
I280°20, 31 likewise. And as regards the word pyov also,
instead of signifying a man's work in the collective sense, it
seems to mean rather the particular work or piece of work
which is offered or taken in exchange; it certainly has this
concrete sense in a very similar passage a few sections further
on :-àrep yeapyös trpès orkurorópov, rö ºpyov to row a kurorópov trpès rê
toū yewpyot (II.33°32 : comp.”5).
46 AWOTES AAWD EMEAVIDA 7TWOAVS
V. 5, II33" 8 &gtep 3rav ot, ºxel airós 8émrai rus, otov oivov, 818ów-
res orirov čğayoyńv.
The Kb reading ééayoyńs may be dismissed without ceremony
as due to a scribe who read ££ayoyńv as two words and altered
the termination accordingly. But even with ééayoyńv in the
text, the passage is one of very great difficulty, owing to the
lack of congruity between the two parts of which it consists.
The situation implied in Örav of éxet airós 8émrat ris is apparently,
like that in the preceding context, a transaction between two
citizens of the same state, a yeapyös and a grkvrorópos for example;
whereas, if I understand the phrase rightly, Ötöövres orirov čayoyńv
cannot be taken to describe the act of a private citizen. Övöövat
éčayoyńv is the act of a state or government : it is used, for
instance, in Isocrates (370 B) of a King of Pontus who allowed
corn to be exported to Athens, and in the Inscription in Boeckh
3523 (=Cauer I26) of a state which granted permission to export
as a privilege to a favoured foreigner (comp. also Dittenberger's
Sylloge, 60 b I and 354, 6). I may also remark that the mention
in this passage of corn and wine as objects of exchange is
especially suggestive of international commerce (comp. Pol.
1257° 27), and that the use of the plural Stöövres points to the
conclusion that at any rate one of the parties in the transaction
must be a community. Under these circumstances we may
perhaps assume a lacuna between the two halves of the
passage as the simplest way of getting out of the difficulty.
V. 5, 11339 13 träorxst pièv oëv kai rooro to airó’ oi yüp dei torov
öövarat āpios 6é BoöAeral piéveu playSov.
Taking to airó as the object of tróo yet, the interpreters suppose
the passage to mean that money is subject to the general law
of Xpeia and thus fluctuates in value. The reference, however,
in rô airó is very obscure, for there is nothing in the immediate
context to give it this significance. It would be easy to strike
out the article before airá (as a dittographia of the last syllable
of rotto), so as to leave us free to take trioxet absolutely, in the
sense of ‘is subject to modification or change.’ It is quite
possible, too, that rô airá or airó may be an alternative reading
for rooro. There is no variation so common in the MSS. as
that between otros, airós, and 6 airós (with their cases), e.g.
aúrûv and raûrºv in II30' 30, IIT8 Io, airá and Tatra in Iro5°32,
OW E. W. V. 5–9. 47
rö abré and roºro in IIoTº 28, 1135° Io (comp. II37° 17, 1161°31,
1173* 20) : and there are certainly some clear instances of the
two alternatives being combined in a composite reading, e.g.
LP’s rotºrov airod in 1121b 4, and airós otros in II.47° 6. These
facts may perhaps serve to justify the reading I have given in
117ob 25, where I assume the airó rotiro of Kº to be a combina-
tion of two readings, airó and rooro (cf. Supra p. 19).
V. 5, 1133° 26 &rt 8 otros i d\\ayi) āv trpiv to vápagua elval, 87Mov.
elva, rests on no better authority than that of MP. Kb has
instead of it #, but as the word is wanting in LP, one may
suspect that it is out of place and that it once came in after trpiv,
so that the original reading was Tpiv ii, with some word after
vápºtopia which the # in Kº has dispossessed (cp. Supra p. 18).
The clause may perhaps have run thus : Tpiv h rô vöpuorua
(éA6eiv). A6eſv occurs in this sense in II.33° 20 €q à tê vöpuapua
eXàAvée, and in Poet. I448° 31 evois kará rà éppiórrow iapfleſov \6e
Hérpov.
V. 6, 1134° 26 rooro è griv Čiri koivová v 8tov Tpós rô siva,
airápkelav.
In leaving the text thus I overlooked the fact that fortv Čiri is
a composite reading made up of Kº’s émi and LP's fort (cp. on
IIo3°29). Susemihl has very rightly bracketed the émi.
V. 9, II36° 16 kai épa trav otros iſ €keivos, [äoritep kai rô dèuketv
Trāv čkočortov] iſ rô pièv ékoúortov rô 8' drońotov ;
The words in brackets seem to be a repetition from the
preceding line. Aristotle raises two questions, (I) Is dèuketo 6at
always involuntary, just as ā8tketv is always voluntary 2 and (2)
Is it necessarily one or the other, or may we say that it is
sometimes the one and sometimes the other ? The words
&omep kai rô d8tketv Tāv čkočotov are clearly in their proper place
in the first question, but not in the second.
V. 9, II36° 23 Émeira kai réðe 8tamophorelev du ris Kré.
The retra, which I have ventured to restore for the MS.
reading étrei, corresponds with the tipátov piév at the beginning of
the Ch. (II36* II). We see the same correspondence between
them elsewhere, e.g. in II.44° 1–3 and in Poet. I462° 4–14, where,
as here, the words are separated by a considerable interval.
In this Ch. Aristotle discusses two dropiat, (I) Is it possible ékóvra
dôuketo 6at, and (2) Is one who meets with unjust treatment
48 AVO 7'ES AAWD EMEAWDA 7TWOAVS
always wronged 2 and it is clear from the trpárov pºv with
which he begins, that the second dropia was already before his
mind as something to be mentioned in its turn. It is hardly
likely, therefore, that he would introduce this as an idea that
suddenly occurred to him ; and besides, there is nothing in the
immediate context to suggest this new point.
V. 9, 1136°33 Éxóv r" &v dèukoiro kāv čvöéxotro airós airröv doukeiv.
For atrös Mb I have airóv, but the personal construction is
sufficiently assured by M. M. I.195°36, &pá ye évôéxeral airós airów
dôtketv, where the editions with little or no MS. authority read
atröv for airós.
V. 9, II3698 3 re àkpaths oix à olerau &eiv trpárretv rpárret.
So Kº, instead of reading 6 oikoteral with the rest of the MSS.
We find the same form of expression in the parallel in E. E.
I223°7 d\\a uşv 6 drparévôpievos oëx à BoöNeral trouet.
V. 9, II37* 9 rô yvövat rā Śikawa kai rā āöuka oióēv otovrat oroqêv
elval, Ört trepi &v oi vápot Aéyovow oi XaAetrów avvuéval (dNA’ oi raûr'
eari ră 6trata d\\ , karā oupgefönkós) d\\ā trós trparrópieva kai trós
vepuépieva Sikata, rooro 8m tr}\éov Épyov fi tā irytetvå eiðéval' émei käket
HéAt Kai oivov kai éAAé8opov kai kadow kai topºv eiðéval figölov, d\\ā trós
ôet veſpat irpès i yielav kai rive kai tróre, rooroorov ćpyov 60 oviarpov sival.
The punctuation makes the clause introduced by the first
dAAá (= ‘though ' in English) a parenthesis, just as it is in
another passage, the punctuation of which, as it appears in the
editions, has to be set right:—
ºf * º P f * * sº * y y * * Jºy Qº *
ôrt puév oëv Kakia iſ drpaoria oëk fort, pavepôv (dANā tri, toos) ré
puévyāp trapā trpoaipeou to 6é Karā Tºv trpoaipegiv čo ruv II5I* 6
—where it will be seen that the clause following the parenthesis
is a reason for the distinction which precedes it, kakia dxpaoria
oùk to ru. In like manner in our present passage, the first d\Aá
belongs to the parenthesis, and the second to the main con-
struction. If there is a certain clumsiness in this double use of
dAAá, it is nevertheless not without parallel, as the following in-
stances will show:—
où réAos étrºs (dAAä ºrpós ri kai ruás) rô troumróv, d\\á rà irpak-
róv II39°2.
y * sº 3. gº. * * tº g * t * *A gº
où yāp et ris ioxupév kai Ürepòa)\\ovorów #8ovöv firrărat fi Avröv,
6avuaorév, dAAá ovyyvouovuköv ei dvtiretvov . . . dAA' et ris
OW E. W. V. 9–VI. 6. 49
trpós às oi woMAoi 80yavrat āvréxeiv, rotºrov ºrrārat [scil. 6av-
paorév čo ruv) II5ob 6.
In l. 13 in lieu of rooro 8: I restore rooro 8:), or if any one
prefers it, rooro [83], in order to keep up the correspondence in
construction and sense between this clause and that which
comes just after, in 1. 16: in the one case an act is said to be
tr}\éov ćpyov kré, and in the other rooroorov ºpyov Kré.
VI. 2, 11399 2. For the punctuation see the foregoing note.
VI. 4, II40° 18 trepi rā airá čorriv h rôxm kai i réxvm.
The Kb reading trepi raûr' éorriv points to trepi raûr £orriv as
the earlier form of the text (comp. the variants in II38°22).
Throughout Aristotle we find from time to time latent traces of
crases and elisions, which must have been once a more common
feature in the text than they now are.
VI. 5, II40° 14 to Tpiyovov 860 6péâs éxet.
The evidence for the above reading is preserved in Kb and T :
the former has (m. pr.) 660 6péâs to as Éxet, and the latter 600 6p-
6ais to as éxet—both of which are composite readings, a com-
bination of 800 épéâs éxel and its equivalent (which is in Lb)
övdiv ćpéals to as Éxes. For the form of expression 860 6p6ās exeiv
(which is also in E. E. 1222° 32) see Bonitz on Metaph. IoSI* 24
and Ind. Arist. 770b 17.
VI. 5, II40° 17 tº Öe 8teq6appévº 8t' #60w)w i, Atarmv et,0ts oë pat-
veral dpxã.
The article which Lb adds before àpxh is not wanted; comp.
# kakia q6apriki) āpxis in the context, and the language in 1150° 4
do weatépa yöp pavXórms dei row pil Éxovros dpxiv, Ó Sé vows dpx?.
VI. 5, 1140° 20 Éw elva, perä Aóyov damóñ.
d\méoùs, the reading of Mb T, derives some support from the
citation in Alexander in Metaph. p. 7. 22, ed. Berol. It is to be
observed, too, that in the preceding definition of réxvn (II40* Io,
21), which is on the same lines, we have éâts perä Aóyou d'Améo 5s.
VI. 6, II40°32 slai 8' dpxai Tôv droöeukróv.
The article which appears in Kb before dpxai seems to have
arisen through the unelided form of the particle 8é having
become bat, and then by a misreading 8 ai. A confusion of Öé
or 8' and 8at underlies many of the variations in the MSS. of
the E. N. Thus the reading of the inferior MSS. in 1154b 16
(Öe ai) may be supposed to represent * and that of Kb in
E
5o AVOTES AAWD AEMEAVOA 7TWOAVS
º
Io99° 14 (8' del) 8at—the superscribed correction being mistaken
for an omission. The converse of this is to be seen in II56b 17,
where in lieu of 8: ai or 8 at Kb has 88, which probably repre-
sents 8a, i.e. 8 ai: and one may perhaps also surmise that the
omission in Kb of 8' ai in 1160° 32 was due to 8at having been
corrupted into 8é, and then expunged as an intruder.
VI. 7, 1141* 25 rā yāp trepi airó exagra rô eš 6ewpoov qmoiv sival
qpávipov, kai rotºrº €rtrpévet airá.
This, with the alteration of a letter (ra for rö) is the reading
of the passage as it stands in Kb. The old editions generally
read qaiev čv and étutpéretav, but the deviation is greater in
Bekker who (through an unwise confidence in Mb) omits the
article before e5 and substitutes éavroſ's for airá. As for the
above form of the text, I may remark (I) that the plural rà mepi
aúró is justified, indirectly, by the plurals in the context (ra Öqé-
Alpla ră atroſs in II.4I* 30 and rå trepi airów in II42* I), and directly,
by the airá at the end of the clause. Ékaorra also is now seen to
come in aptly enough as a qualifying addition to rā trepi airó, the
point being that rô ppóvipov in the popular conception of it deals
with the practical details rather than the theory of conduct.
(2) As regards the position of the words, rå trepi airó exagra is
put first for emphasis, though in the order of construction it has
to be taken as coming after rô eš 6eopojv. This arrangement is
not uncommon in Aristotle, as may be seen from Vahlen's note
on Poet. I455°24, to whose instances I may add II.46° 22:-
8wa yap Tö trapáðoča 300Xeo.6at éAéyxeuv . . . 6 yewópevos ovX\oyto-
pubs dropia yiveral
—where the outlying clause êtê rô trapá8oča 800Xeorðat Aéyyev is
to be taken with yewópevos rather than with yiveral. (3) As for
the meaning, I suppose that q\maiv, coming in, as it does, imme-
diately after irdvres àv stroiev, may signify ‘one says’ (comp. Ind.
Arist. 589” 47), so that the sense of the passage may be, ‘For it
is that which observes aright the various matters concerning
itself that one calls wise, and it is to this that one will leave such
matters.” (4) The growth of the vulgate may be seen in LP,
which in lieu of qPmaiv has qaiev (through assimilation to eitrovev),
but after that émirpévetev, which I take to be the missing link
between rurpévet and émirpéyétav.
OM E. W. VI. 7–Io. 51
VI. 7, II4I*32 el um kai larpuki) uía trepi Trávrov rôv čvrov.
Zell’s note shows that §vrov has been questioned : there is,
however, a parallel to it in E. E. 1217° 26 ot, yāp éorriv et Saipov
triros oë8' àputs oiâ’ix60s oë8' d\\o róv čvrov oë6év.
VI. 8, II42°27 alo.6morus, oùx róv i8tov, dAA’ oig alo 6avópe6a 3rt
rô [év roſs plaðmuariko’s] forxarov rpiyovov.
The general meaning of this is clear enough : when I say of
some particular act, ‘This is just, or honest’ (&c.), I exercise a
sort of atorðmorts, not one like seeing and hearing (which involve
a separate organ) but one like that whereby I say, ‘This is a
triangle, or a square, i.e. one resembling the ato.6moris róv kováv
of the De Anima. I have bracketed €v Tois Ha6muarukots as a
marginal_note, though it is quite possible that it is only out of
place, and that it came in originally after aiorðavöple6a (comp.
II51* I7). There are surely many mathematical éoxara, but the
text as it stands in the MSS. and editions speaks as though
there were but one.
VI. 9, II42° 18 6 yap drpaths kai 6 (pat)\os à trportóerat tièeivt £k
rod Aoytoplot, rešćeral.
Trportóeoréal is “to propose to oneself as an end,' and with an
infinitive ‘to propose to do' something : in the present context,
however, it is a strained and unnatural mode of expression to
say that a man, will attain what he proposes to consider (ióeiv),
or (to take Rassow's very arbitrary correction) attain what he
proposes to attain (ruxelv), when the meaning is clearly no more
than this, that he will attain the end he proposes. The T read-
ing beiv would, I think, require inrottéeral instead of trportóerat.
As an heroic remedy, I would suggest that ióeiv (8eiv) may have
come by some accident to usurp the place of rotºrov — a word
that seems to have dropped in more than one place in the text.
Thus in II42°23 à pièv Šet troumorat rvXeiv, Lº adds toūrou after
tuxeiv, with perceptible advantage to the construction ; and in
another place, II54* 13, it is possible that the text should stand
thus: röv pièv yāp effeov kai kwho eav 60 ov plm fort roo BeNTiovos
intepGoxh, oë8é Tſis #8ovns (rotºrov) 6orov 8 orri, kai riis jöovns. In
this case it is KP that supplies the word, for it reads roërov in
lieu of the second dorov, apparently through a kind of error not
very uncommon in this MS. (comp. Supra p. 18).
VI. 10, II42°34 — II43* I. ei ovveoria and stavvérows (for dovvedia
E 2
52 AWOZ’ES AAWD EMEAVOA 7TWOAVS
and doruvérows), which are usually ascribed to Spengel, were antici-
pated by H. Stephanus, in his ‘Principum monitrix musa, p. 422.
VI. 11, II43* 19. For ovyyvöpiovas Lº T read etyvápovas. The
word must have found its way into the text from the corres-
ponding part of the M. M. 1198°34, where etyvouooróvn and
etyvópov are uniformly used as the equivalents of the Nicoma-
chean terms yuápm and ovyyvópov. As there are thus two read-
ings here, I suspect that this must have once been the case also
in the next paragraph, II43°30: ovverös kai etyvápov h ovyyvópov
has certainly the look of a composite reading, and we should
lose nothing if we excised kai etyvápov, as being originally a
marginal variant (comp. Supra p. 19).
VI. 11, II.43° 9 8té kai dipxh kui réAos vows' ék rotºrov yap at diročet-
£ets kai trepi rotºrov.
In its present position this clause breaks the thread of a con-
sistent and continuous statement. Having laid it down in
1143° 6–9 that certain powers seem to come to us in course of
nature with growing experience of life, Aristotle in II43” II—
14 proceeds to draw the moral, that on questions of conduct the
undemonstrated assertions of our elders are entitled to serious
consideration. The true place of the clause would seem to be
after the rotºrov otv čxeiv Šeſ ato.6mortv, airm 8' éori vows, to which it
is a corollary.
VI. 12, II.44% 24 airm 8' éorri rotatºrm &ore rà irpès rêv intoreóévra
a kotröv orvure ivovra öövaoréat raúra trpárretv kai rvyxdvew airod.
The MSS. have airów (for airoº), through an accommodation
apparently to the plural raûra. In restoring airrod (i.e. row orkotrow)
I am glad to see that my friend, Mr. J. Burnet (Class. Rev. 3.
373) had independently lighted on the same correction.
VII. 1, II45°20 &grep "opinpos Tepi (row) "Ekropos remoinke
Aéyovra röv IIptamov.
The article is added in accordance with Fitzgerald's principle,
which is still ignored by most editors notwithstanding the large
array of instances which support it. In Bk. VII alone we have
in the above passage rôv IIpiapov, in II.46° 21 rod 'Oövgoréas, in
1148° 33 Nié8m, in II.49° 15 rºv 'Aqipoğirmv, in II51° 18 6 NeotróAe-
pos, – without a single instance except the present of the
omission of the article with Such proper names as these (comp.
J. of Philol. I4, p. 47).
OAV E. W. VI. II — VII. 2. 53
VII. 1, II45° 24 m rm 6mptóðet ävrittéeplévn ééus. -.
The reading of Lº Tómptoëtq, i.e. 6mpioësia, may have arisen from
a repetition of the initial in dwrittéepuévn. It may be worth while
to observe that the word was probably in some texts even in the
time of Aspasius,who uses it more than once (p. 130.5) as though
it were a familiar and recognized Aristotelian term.
VII. 2, II45° 22 &ntorrápuevov pièv oëv.
The omission of pièv in Kb is another piece of evidence (comp.
supra p. 14) for the use of symbols in the older MS. of which
K" is a descendant. If triarápevov were written ärta réuev, with
the symbol for -ON superscribed, it would easily absorb the
puév that followed it.
VII. 2, II45° 27 otros pév oſſu 6 Aóyos duqua Smrei roſs paivopuévous
évapyós, kai čáov Čnretv trepi Tô tróðos, ei Ši' dyvotav, ris 6 rpótos yiveral
rms dyvoias.
Bonitz (Ind. Arist. I68°54), to avoid taking 8éov in the sense of
ôéov éorti or ösſ, suggests the excision of the kai which precedes
it; the participle, however, in that case would naturally mean
either “since it is necessary' or ‘whereas it is necessary,’
neither of which senses suits the context in which this clause is
found. As the last clause would read as well or better without
a verb, I suspect we should transpose and insert the yiveral after
8éov, so as to make the passage mean, “If dºpaoria is the result of
ignorance, it becomes necessary to consider the question as to
the particular form of ignorance that causes it.’ The other
instance in the N. E. (IIo?”32) of 8&ov in the sense of 8ei is in
a Ch. of dubious authenticity, and in a section which bears on
the face of it marks of ‘patching.’
VII. 2, 11.46° 21 ºrt 6 oroquorukös Aóyos [Jeevööpevos] dropia.
In bracketing Wrevööpevos with Berg and Coray, I assume it to
be a repetition from Šlá rà Avneto 6at Wevööpevos in the preceding
line. What follows this is a digression suggested by the word
dropia, to explain how it is that the mind is embarrassed by
a logical puzzle. The account of this particular aroquorukös A&yos
comes further on, in l.27, where we must surely read ovuòaivet
ôň, and not avpgaivet Öé.
VII. 2, II.46°35 el pièv yöp réretaro à trpárret, plerameworðsis àv
érrawo aro' vov 8é KâAAa) Teretopuévos ow8év firrov [äAAa] rpárret.
Ramsauer, to whom the insertion of the first &AAa is due,
54 AWOZ’ES AAWD EMEAVOA 7TWOAVS
retains the second : I have, however, preferred to bracket it,
not only as a superfluity, since the object, à trpárret, may easily
be understood, but also because we are in this way enabled to
supply the āA\a required before retrelopévos by a simple trans-
position — one of the most legitimate critical expedients in a
text like that of the N. E. If I am not mistaken, we have an
echo of otöðvitrov trpárret, without the āAAa of our MSS., in M.M.
1203* 9 tº 8é ye ākpateſ indpxet 6 Aéyos, kai čuos Tpátre 1, Öore àv
6 rototros 86&siev čviaroseival.
VII.3, II46” I4 fort 8' dpx?) ris orkéyeos, trórepov 6 €ykpaths kai 6
dºparis eior. Tº trepi à m rò &s éxovres riv 8taqbopáv, Aéyo 8& Tárepov rº
trepi raði sival pudvov dºparis à ékpaths, ot, dANă ră ăs, hot d\\' é
diplºoiv.
In l. 15 the MSS. have ró rös Yovres, a reminiscence appar-
ently of the familiar trós exeiv. But it will be seen that we have
13 &s in the explanation which follows in l. I'7; and the amended
text is also in exact conformity with the language in De Gen. et
Corr. 320°25 # pueraðoxi, Suaq,épet of pºvov trepi 6 d\\ä kai és kré.
VII.3, II.46° 31 d\\' émei Šixós Aéyouev rá čniorraoréal (kai yap 6
exov pièv oë xpópevos 8é rim two rhum kai 6xpóplevos Aéyeral étrio raoréal),
ôtotoret rô #xovra pièv ui, 6eopouvra öé kai Tô 6ewpoovra à pil &et trpárretv
[roo exovra kai 6sopodvra].
This is a clear instance of two alternative readings in the
text, and the only question we have to consider is which of
them is to be taken and which left out. Instead of omitting kai
rô 6eopolovra with I and the editions, I have elected to excise row
£xovra kai 6eapoovra, on the ground that the shorter form kai rô
6eapoovra corresponds more directly with the preceding kai à
xpópevos. For the kai in the construction 8totoret rô Éxovra . . . kai
Tô 6eopot wra mpdtreuv compare
où8év yāp 8taq pet plmöevi inrápxovros wavri Aa3etv inſipxeuv, Kai
ruvi inrápxovros ka86\ov Aa3eivinápxeiv Pr. An. 57°33.
rö 86 piègov oë8èv 8taq'épet elva kai pi sival Aapelv Post. An.
77° 14.
VII. 3, 1147a 22. See note on II26*25. The vulgate reading
toūrq 8; xpóvov čeſ is sanctioned by Bonitz (Ind. Arist. 168°35)
who supposes the dative rotºrº may stand for Tpés rô orvpupivat.
VII. 4, 1147°32 &n Aós pièv oë Aéyoptev depareis, Tpoortéévres 8é rô
Xpmºdrov disparets kai képôovs.
OM. E. M. VII. 3—5. 55
By excising the rô before xpmuárov we are enabled to connect
the genitives with dkparets, and to take irpoartóévres as used
absolutely, in the sense of karā Tpégéeariv (Karā trpóoréeorºv Aéyearðat
II48* Io): compare
Tpowertridevres riv čkpagiau repi fragrov Aéyovow 1148°7.
Tpoortóévres dºparm 6-pod &otep ruñs kai képôovs qapiév II48” I3.
to 6’ 6\ov Aéyoptev kai émi rôv rototyrov rôv dºparm trpoartóévres,
trepi ripºv drparºs # 86%av i öpyńv M. M. I2O2°37.
VII. 4, II48*6 6 ºil rô trpoapstorêat rôv #8éov Štókov rás intep-
8oNás—kai Tôv Avrnpöv (bet yov, Treivns kai 8tºrms kai dAéas kai Wrixovs
kai travrov táv trepi äq}}v kai yet ouv-dNAa trapá ràu Tpoaipeouv Kai rāv
ôtávotav, drpaths Aéyétat.
K” has (m. pr.) rôv 8é #8éov, through an anticipation apparently
of the -8e- in #86 ov; an attempt to emend this is to be seen in
the Ol' reading, rôv re jöéov, which has been too readily accepted
by editors. The essential objection to róv re jöéov (apart from
its lack of authority) is that it causes undue stress to fall on the
statement as to rā Avrmpá, which comes in by an afterthought,
as a parenthetical accession to the main statement, as I have
endeavoured to show by the above punctuation. The primary
conception of drpaola is in reference to certain pleasures, and it
is only incidentally and in its negative aspect that it involves the
avoidance of certain pains. I think we may retain the common
text in the clause kai Tôv Avrnpöv kré. on the supposition that
Aristotle in running off into this side-statement continued the
form of the preceding construction, without seeing that in strict
grammar the language implies róv Aurnpöv dečyov rás itépêo Más,
and is therefore inconsistent with fact (comp. II54* I9).
VII. 4, 1148°22 €irei Šē rôv émóvpuðv kai rāov jöovóv at pév eiori
Krów) ré yévet kaśāv kai atrověatov (rów yap höéov via qiāoret aiperá),
rå 8' évavria roërov, rā Śē gerašū, ka84trep Steixopeu trpórepov kré.
The above punctuation, which makes the parenthesis end at
aiperá, leaves us with two neuters (rå 8' évavria, rå Öe pueraść)
where we should expect two feminines, an inconsistency due to
the influence of the gender of Évia extending beyond the limits
of the parenthesis (comp. Poet. I447° 20, with Vahlen's note).
VII. 5, II.48° 23 rows 8é rā trauðia èaveiſeuv d'AAñ\ots eis stayiav.
It may be observed that I', which has et comedere et com-
56 AVO 7"E.S AAWD EMEAWDA 7TWOAVS
modare, may possibly imply the existence of some other
reading besides 8aveiſelv. -
VII. 5, 1148b 31 dorous pièv oëv påorts airia, rotºrovs pièv obôsis àv
stretev drpatets ... &gačros 8e kai boot voornuaróðos éxovat 8, 60s.
I have ventured to write Gorot, in lieu of roſs, before voornuaró-
80s, in order to keep up the correspondence with what precedes,
ôorous q ſorts airia : the sense is that we do not apply the term
‘ incontinent’ to those who act in this way (1) through their
nature or (2) through an abnormal condition consequent on
habit. The error in the MSS. may have arisen from éxovot
being mistaken for the dative of the participle. If the reading
ôorot for rots seems too great a departure from the tradition, I
may point out that the corruption it assumes is not unlike that
in 1132° 15, where K* has €v rois àAAots in place of év čorous āNAots.
VII. 5, II.49° 16 &otrep oſſu kai pox6mpias # prev kar’ avópoſtov
dirMāos Aéyetan pox6mpia, i öé karū Tpó06egu, ärt &mptôms à voornuaró-
ôms, an Aós 6' oi.
pox6mpias is restored from Kº, for Hoxêmpia : for a partitive
genitive in the singular compare II.4.1° 24 ris Sé trepi trów # uév
. . . vouv6eruki, i öé . . . ToMurukň. I have also written i öð, where
the editions have # 88, to show that kara Tpó06eoruv (the opposite
of dirMás) belongs to the predicate, Aéyeral pox6mpia, which we
have to supply from the context: for this twofold use of the
article, a favourite construction with Aristotle, it may suffice to
quote
e W
3. * * * g 9. * * A * * *
of pièv divöpelot 8tá rà irpárepov eipmuéva 6appaNéot, of 8é 8tä rô
*
oteorðat kpário row elva III7* I2.
e * * * * * * * p f gº A * * ?
6 pièv yāp row 6vpod dxparis rod Aéyov tros trarat, 6 &e tims émi-
6vºltas kai of rot Aéyov II.49° 2.
VII. 6, II.49° 26 kaðdirep oi rayets róv 8takóvov, ot trpiv droño at trav
rö Aeyópevov čk6éovoruv.
The relative ot, which it has been proposed to omit, seems to
be indirectly recognized by M. M. I2O2” 12, to riv oëv iſ trepi riv
épyńv drpaola Špioia Tów Tatēov rois trpos rô 8takovetv Tpo6épios éxovoruv'
kai yap oirot, 3rav stirn 6 Sea Tórms “ 86s plot,” tº Tpo6vpiq eşevex6évres,
Tpö rod droßoral à 8e7 600Val, éðakav.
The T reading puta, i.e. otov, is interesting as an illustration of
the way in which of and otov may be confused, through the
O.M. E. M. VII. 5–14. 57
grave accent of ot being mistaken for the symbol for -ON (comp.
supra p. 14). There is a similar confusion, though without the
accent to explain it, in II51°5, where pr. Kº has oi 800 metarot
and the vulgate otov Ščarevorrot.
VII. 6, II49°31 Ötö kai rā 6mpia otre oróqipova oër’ dróMaorra Aéyo-
pev . . . kai et rive 6\os àAAo trpós àAAo 8taqbépet yévos róv ćov Ú8pet
kai ouvapopig kai tº traudáyov eiwat.
For the dative rivu, which is very harsh and difficult to account
for, I suspect we should restore ru, so as to make the clause
come in as a supplementary addition to 6mpia, ‘the brutes, or
any kind of creature there may be distinguished for wanton-
ness, destructiveness, and voracity.’
VII. 7, 1150* I9. See J. of Philol. 4, p. 218.
VII. 9, II51° 4 eiori 6é rives of éppeverukoi tº 86&n eioriv.
This is the Kº reading, and it is confirmed by what follows
soon after it in l. I'7, eiori 8é rives of rots 66éaoruv oëk éppévovoruv.
VII. 9, II51°23 étrel 8' forru ris kai rototros otos firrov i öst rols
oroplarukois Xaipeiv, kai otºk éppévov ré, Aéyº, ö [rototros] roſſrov kai rod
àkparods uéoros à éyxparis.
The editors acquiesce here in the Mb reading (a very helpless
attempt at correction), fi rotojros, instead of 6 rotodros, but they
have omitted to tell us in what way fi rototros serves to add to
or qualify the previous statement. I have preferred to retain
the 6 of the good MSS., and bracket rototros, as a repetition of
the rototros in the preceding line, so as to make the clause say:
“The man who stands in the mean between this extreme and the
dxparis is the éykparis.’ I need hardly observe that the article
is used before both subject and predicate because the terms are
to be regarded as convertible (comp. IIo6*22, E. E. I232°4).
VII. 13, II53” 7. Tàptorov, Spengel’s correction of &ptorrow, is
confirmed by Tó àptorrow a little further on (l. I3), and apparently
by Aspasius (p. 150. 32, 151. 2). On the other hand, it has to be
admitted that the article is wanting in the MSS. of the M. M. in
the parallel statement in I2O6°31–5.
VII. 14, II54* I4. See note on II42° 18.
VII. 14, II54°26 trpárov pièv obv 8:) or ēkkpoſſet rºw Airmv.
The combination of particles, oëv 8%, is defended by Bonitz
(Ind. Arist. 173° 41); but as LP I omit the očv, the probability
seems rather to be that Kº gives us here a composite reading.
58 AWOTES AAWD EMEAWDA 7TWOAVS
So also in III7°2, where Kb has 8% and Točv, Lb combines the
two into 8) obv.
VII. 14, II54° 31 kai oi orrovčaſov 8; 8okei iſ jöovi, Štá 600 raûra,
&otrep sipmrat, 3rt at pév paſſXms (bögeós eius trpáčets ... at 8 intpétat
[ört] 'vöéoùs, kai éxeiv 8éArtov i yivsoróat' at 8é ovg|Saivovort rexeovué-
vov' kara orvpſ3e3nkös oëv ortrovöaial.
The comment of Aspasius on this passage, besides showing
that the sentence occupied its present position even in his time,
is important for the corrections which it suggests of the manu-
script readings:—ölä yāp 800 raúrá qnot Śokeſ [80keiv 2) rºv #60Våv
Hiſ eivat otovëatov 8t' év uév, 3rt eigi rives qat)\ms pêoreos ºrpáčets, rov-
régrav čvépyetat . . . pta pièv oëv ačrm airia . . . répa Śē àrt eiqi rives
#öoval iarpetal, otov ai rôv kapıvávrov kai ka86\ov Heră ăvan Ampëoreos'
Ös [oi, 2) a trovčata Šil 8okoto at [Šokoúatv ºl ārt rod vôeoûs iarpetai kai
divan Ampëorets, kai 3éArtóv éort rô #xeuv Črtoov i yive.oréat ai 8é jöoval
yevégets baivovrat ai rotaúral Stå rô Đi [per'?] dvaitampôoreos yived 6al.
6tó qnot oupéaivetv rás jöoväs raûras rexeloupévov' ot, yāp at rat
[airai 21 teNeudoets eioſiv otöé yevéorets dAN& ré, évépyetv riv poortv 3rav
yévéorts kai dvairMilpworts j. Karā ovušešmkös oëv atrovöatal at Goparukai
ñôovat, tető röre yivovrat ai évépyetal ris ºptoeos, fivika ſi èvépyeva
8okeſ of ortrovčata elvat, 8tóri drexhs. It will be seen that in l. 34 he
ignores the 3rt (a repetition apparently of the 3rt in 1. 32), and
enables us to restore at 8° larpetal évôeoûs, instead of the common
reading ai Śē tarpeiat àrt évôéoùs (comp. On II.49° 16), thus marking
the antithesis between two kinds of pleasure, those which are
qat)\ms quorea's irpáčevs and those which are évôéoùs 'pěorea's intpétat.
The Aristotelian text, however, if we take it as it stands in the
MSS., at 8° orvp3aivovort rexéoupévov, would imply a third kind of
pleasure, for which there is no room in the scheme. This
clause in fact, as Aspasius has seen, is a mere continuation of
the account of the second kind, and explains that, as they orvu-
8aivovort teNeovuévov, they are good only karū orvpage@mkós and not
in their own nature. We must surely read, therefore, at 6:) ovu-
gaivovort TeXeovuévov.
VII. 14, 1154° 16. See note on 1140b32.
VIII. 1, 1155°31 kai ért rows atroës olovrat āvöpas dyuéoùs sival kai
q i\ovs.
Though kai ºrt (for which T has kai éviot) may be defended by
IIo7* 3 and III5° 14, I suspect that we should transpose the kai
OA' E. M. VII. I.4—VIII. 5. 59
and insert it after otovrat, where it might have dropped out very
easily through the homoeoteleuton : comp. the parallel in E. E.
I234° 27 kai 6 airós Sokei dvīp kai dyadès kai (pixos.
VIII. 2, II55° 27 ámi pièv rà rôv dyūxov (bºflores of Aéyeral pixta'
où yáp éorriv duriq i\mats, oë6é BoöAmorus ékeive dyadoù (ye)\otov yap
toros ré, oivº 800Xeorðat rāyaāā . . .) Tö 86 pix@ ºpaqi Öeiv 800Xea&al
Tāyaéâ ékéivov čveka.
In restoring éketvq for ékéivov in l. 29, to keep up the corres-
pondence with tº otvº BoöAeoréat and rô q i\@ 800Aeoróat in the
context, I understand ékéivº to mean ‘the object,’ whatever it
may be, the particular dyvyov that happens to interest the man.
For the confusion of ékeive and éketvav compare the variants in
the MSS. in 1132b 7, 1137° 3, 1166° 12, and for the dative after
the verbal substantive 800Amoris see Ind. Arist. 166*61 and Vahlen
on Poet. I461° 19. [ékelvº has already occurred to Ramsauer as
a possible reading.]
VIII. 3, II56° 15 kai oi 8t’ ºbovňv [scil. ‘pºojvres a répyovori!] Suá
rö attoºs jóð, Kai oix # 6 pixočuevös éoriv, dAA' | xpfiguos i ijöös.
K” omits the article before pixoşuevos, and I cannot but think
that it would be better away : comp. E. E. 1137° 4 (as corrected
by Bonitz) to pºetv Tó kar' évépyetav Tó ‘bºotpaevov čori xpija 6al m
qukočuevov, 688 biàos (buxoëpevov rá biº? § pi\os.
VIII.3, II56°3 Övörep ptAoûort kai taxéos ºraćovrat.
The kai, I suspect, should come after raxéos : compare the
context in II56°34, Övö taxéos yivovrat (pi\ot kai iratovrat.
VIII. 3, 1156” I2 kai éorriv čkárepos én A&s dya&ös kai Tº q i\@' oi
yāp dya&oi kai än Aós dya&oi kai d\\?\ots &@éApot.
After ékárepos a kai would seem to have slipped out: we cer-
tainly have one in the following clause of explanation, and also
in the very similar passage in l. 15 kai yüp in Aós of dyadol jöets
kai dAAñ\ots. The paraphrase in Aspasius, 68’ dyadès kai äm Aós
dyadès kai ré, ºptAq dyabós (p. 167. 26), is in favour of the insertion
of the conjunction.
VIII. 3, II56” I7. See note on II4ob 32.
VIII. 5, 1157° 19 otöév yāp otros éori pi\ov &s rô ovšºv (&qe-
Aetas Pièv yāp oi évôeets àpéyovrat, ovvmuspeſsiv 8é kai oi pakáptot' plová-
rats yap sivat rotºrous ijkuota Tpoorfixes) ovvöudyeiv 8é Her dAAñ\ov oik
for Hä #8sis àvras uměč Xaipovras rols airois.
The vulgate adds uév after provérats, through a misconception
6o AVO 7ES AAWD EMEAVIDA 7/OMS
as to the limits of the parenthesis. If we ignore the paren-
thesis, we see at once that a vuòuáyetv takes up the idea of the
preceding ovćiv, so that the first and last clause together are
a consecutive whole in point of sense.
VIII. 6, II58°31 rows pièv sirpattéAovs [scil. (mrodot] roo jöéos
€quéuevot, rot's 6é Öeuvois trpāśat rô mutax6év.
Aspasius adds eis rās Xpeias after émirax6év, and in our own
time more than one editor has supposed that some addition of
this kind is wanted to complete the sense. The text, however,
may very well remain as it is, if we take rois 6° to mean ‘others,”
and understand 8euvois Trpaśat rô Tvrax6év to be a kind of predi-
cate. For toys pièv strpatréAovs—rows 8é see note on II.49° 16; and
for a predicative term after (mreiv compare
{mrodori Šukao Tiju péorov II32° 22.
{mroduév ćrspóv ru rô kvptos dyadóv II44°7.
{nrotoruv repáv ri rôv TAoûrov kai rāv xpnuarvarukňv Pol. 1257° 18.
VIII. 6, II5894 &rt 8& kai irröv eiouv ačral pixtat kai puevovoru,
elpmrat.
The reading 8: Kai (for 8') preserved by Lº T is sufficiently
assured by the passage to which reference is made in the text,
Kai eioriv hrrow ºpi\ot kai 8tapévovow, in II57* I3.
VIII. 7, 11589 IA 6taq,épovot 3' at rat [scil. ai (pi)\tat] kai d\\;\ov.
It may be worth while to notice that Lo Tomit the kai, and
that it appears in Aspasius in the wrong place, namely before
airau.
VIII. 7, 1159°3 dxpºs pièv oëv év Tots rototrots owk to ruv ćptorpiós,
eas rivos oi (pi\ot troXAów yūp dºpaipovuévov ćrt uévet.
The question surely is not as to the limits of friends but as to
the limits of friendship. Perhaps, therefore, we may restore #
quxia for oi (pi\ot, and thus also incidentally get a suitable sub-
ject for the following verb puévet. An instance of the confusion
of oi and iſ is to be found among the variants in II.57° 2.
VIII. 8, 1159° 21 rooro yāp dyadów, otov rá, émp3 oix typé yewéo 6at
dAA' émi rô peo ov čA6eiv.
Aspasius and K" agree in reading typé, oi £mp3 : this can
hardly be the true order of the words, since Aristotle has evi-
dently in his mind the dictum of Euripides quoted at the be-
ginning of the Book, Épāv pièv Špºpov yatav čnpavčelo'av, in II55°3.
VIII. 9, II60, 19. See J. of Philol. 17, p. 69.
OM E. W. VIII. 6–13 6 I
VIII. 10, 1160°32 elori 8' ai pºev troM retat 8ao tºeta re kai dpia ro-
Kparta, rpirm 8' diró tºpumudrov.
The omission of 8' ai in Kb has been noted already, on
II40°32. The of the vulgate before dirò is not wanted, as one
may see from Poet. I454°37 and the parallels collected by
Vahlen in his note on the passage.
VIII. 11, II61° 18 pāore re dpxtköv rarip vićv kai trpóyovo,
éxyövov.
After re LP T add yap, which may perhaps have arisen
through tº coalescing with what follows, TAPxtköv becoming
first TAPxtköv, and then TAPAPxuköv. In another place in which
re yap has been found in the E. N., that in 1177° 21, I think we
may explain the appearance of re yap (instead of re) as due to
the influence of re yap in l. 19 (cp. supra p. 18).
VIII. 13, II62°34 tpirrów 6' oigºv pºtów, kaðárep £v dpxñ sipmrat,
kai ka8 €káormv róv uév év to 6tmrt pi\ov čvrov kré.
Aspasius adding the article reads róv pi\tºv: that this is
probably right, is shown by the presence of the article in the
passage to which reference is here made, rpta 8) rā rms pºtas
etön in 1156*7, and further by the similar use of the article in
II30°6 &rt uév oëveloivai Sukatoorºval TAetovs. It is just possible
that there is a trace of the missing article in the róv which Kº
intrudes before pi\ov in the next line.
VIII. 13, II63* I Švvapiévº 8) durairoëoréov rºw détav &v čvačev
[kai ékóvrij (akovra yöp (bi)\ov oſſ troumréov' &s 8) &tapaprávra év rā āpx?
kai sã tra66vra Öq, ot, oùk éðel—oi yap into qi)\ov, où8é Öi' airó rooro
ôpóvros—ka84trep oſſºv Čiri finroſs stepyerméévra öta\vréov). Kai époxoyff-
oat 6' fiv 8vvápºevos dro8&oeuv' dévvaroëvra 6' oiâ’ 3 81800s métooev čv.
kai ékóvri is omitted by Kb and ignored by Aspasius. Ac-
cording to the above punctuation the whole of the passage from
ākovra to 6ta\vréov is a digressive parenthesis; and it may be
shown to be a parenthesis from what follows in 1, 6–7, where
ôvvapiévos and döuvatojvra revert directly to the idea involved in
ôvvapiévº in 1. I. Rassow's emendation oikoimréov is not so pro-
bable as the traditional of troumréov, “one must not make a man
one's friend against his will :' this latter, indeed, besides ac-
cording better with the context, has a certain stamp of genuine-
ness upon it, as being, if I mistake not, an adaptation of the
language in Xenophon, Mem. II. 6, 9 akovra yap ºptAov ćAsiv ćp-
62 AWOTES AAWD EMEAVOA 7TWOAVS
yööes. As for the conjecture which I have hazarded in l. 6, 8
&pioMáymorev čv, for épio Noyńoral 8 &v, I may explain that I take the
words in close connexion with Tºv détav &v čtraðev in l. I, ‘the
value of the service received ’ being followed up by an equiva-
lent, ‘what the man would have agreed, if able, to pay.” With
this change the statement becomes the parallel in form and
sense of what we have a little further on (in 1164b Io) on the
subject of the benefactor and the return he may receive for his
Service, 60-ov yap oëros & peºfföm fi dv6' 60-ov rºv jôovňv et\er' àv, ro-
ooirov duriNaščov čet riv trapá rotºrov détav.
IX. 1, II64° 22 riv détav 8é Torépov ráša Čorri, rod trpolepiévov #
roo Tpo)\agóvros ;
One would prefer ºrpoxapéâvovros, partly on account of the
tense of irpoispuévov, and partly because of the present participles
in the context, 6 8v800s (KP) in 1163° 7, oi trpoxapſ3ávovres (KP Lº) in
II64° 28, oi \apſ3dvovres (Kb LP) in 1164° 20 ; to which we should
probably add rôv Havéâvovra, preserved by Lº, in II64° 25.
IX. 2, 1165"3o kai ovyyevért Sé kai pukáraus kai troXirats kai rols
Aourois àmagiv dei relparéov rô oiketov drovéueuv, Kai ovykpively rā
ékáorous inépyovra kar’ oikeiôrmra kai dperºv h Xpnow. Töv Plév oëv
ôployevöv figov i oróykptorts, rôv 8é Šuqqepávrov pyoóegrépa.
orffykptorus, for the kptorus of our MSS., is the happy discovery
of M. Ruelle (Rev. de Phil. 12, p. 175), who saw that it was im-
plied in a passage in Damascius trepi dpxóu (2, p. 74, ed. Ruelle).
The question here is not of ‘judgment’ or ‘distinction’ or any-
thing of that sort, but rather of combining the persons and their
respective dues—ovykpivetv (scil. atrols) rà ékáorous titrápxovra: now
as the terms to be combined are not homogeneous but different
in kind, there is, says Aristotle, some difficulty in the combina-
tion or a ſykptoſis. oºykptorus aptly repeats the idea of ovykpivetv
in 1. 32 ; and as for the expression orđykpious róv Óployevöv, rôv
ôtaqepávrov, a single instance may suffice to show how right
and Aristotelian the language is:—
6eppäv yáp eart rô avykpivov rá áployevº (ro yāp 8takpivetv. . .
ovykpivetv &orri Tà ôuébvXa tº gº .), Wrvxpóv 8é rô ovváyov kai
ovykpivov ćpioios ré re ovyyevi kai rā uſ) juáqv\a De Gen.
et Corr. 329°26.
awykptorus in fact, as here used, involves the same idea as orđevés
OW E. W. Ix. 1-7. 63
in the corresponding part of the theory of Justice in Bk. V
(II31°9, II33°6), just as ovykpivstv corresponds to ovvöváčev
(1131b 8).
IX. 3, II65°2O 86éeve 8' àv Ó 8ta\váuevos ow8év dromov troueiv' of
'yāp tº rototrº pi\os fiv.
The reading in Kº T, où yāp roëtq i rototrºp, is probably to be
explained as a composite reading due to a fusion of totrºp and
ró rototrº or rototrº—which so constantly appear as alterna-
tives in the MSS. (e.g. in 1127° 21, 1128°35, b33, 11569 17,
II.57° 2, 1158° 4, 1166°32, II76° 15, 1178b. 15).
IX. 4, 1166* Io ſpös éavrov 8° rotºrov čkaorov rá, érieukei irápxei
(rots 8e Aoimois, fi rototrol intoxapSávovortv sivat' fouke 8é, kaðánep
eipnrat, Hérpov čkáorrow # dperii kai 6 a.mověaios sival)' otros yöp 6plo-
yvouoveſ avrò.
The above punctuation, which enables us to retain £ouke 8é,
instead of adopting Éolke yáp from LP T, is really demanded by
the sense. The clause otros yāp Öployvapovet éavrò begins the
enumeration of the various facts proving the truth of the initial
statement, that the émieukňs has trpès éavröv all the marks and
characteristics of friendship : it has no reference to the inci-
dental observation in the parenthesis.
IX. 4, 1166° 34 86&eve 8' div raûrm elva, ºptXia, j čari 800 m r\eta), ák
rôv eipmuévov, kai Ört iſ inep3oxi) ris ºbt)\ias rh Trpès airóv ćpotoorat.
The punctuation, as thus amended by the insertion of a
comma after r\eto, assumes that ék Töv eipmuévov is to be taken
with ööðetev čv (comp. II80°33); the connexion, however,
would certainly become clearer, if after ék a re were added,
such as we have in the very similar passage in II.21° 27: Ó Sé
rotºrov row rpórov dooros troXè 8okei Beºriou roi diveXev6épov elva, 6tſ.
re rà eipnuéva, kai Ört 6 pièv & pe)et troXX00s, 6 8é oë6éva. For
instances of the omission of re in the MSS. see the variants in
IIo5°26, II66°3.
IX. 7, II67°28 Šáčete 8' fiv ºbvotkórepov elva rö atriov, kai oë8' àpotov
rô nepi rows Śaveto avras.
In reading oë6' (instead of oix) I have simply followed Kº ; rô
mepi is a conjecture, the MSS. and editions having rö Tepi, which
would naturally (if not necessarily) lead us to supply rô airtov as
the subject of the clause oč8' 8potov kré. If the form of the com-
parison in oió' àplotov to trepi rows 8aveto avras is inverted and to our
64 AWOTES AAWD EMEAVIDA 7TWOAVS
thinking abnormal, it is nevertheless not un-Aristotelian, as will
be seen from the following instances:—
ôpotov oëv rô détobv kai trepi Tô dötketv . . . elva. Headr"ra
IIoTº 18.
kai Hà éuotas iotopias rās ovvi,6eis sivat Poet. I459° 21.
What Aristotle is here considering is the vulgar theory which
explains the kindly interest of the benefactor in the well-being
of the benefited as a consequence of the fact that he is in the
same position as one who has lent money to another (II67b 19).
The reply to this is (1) that the cause lies deeper, and (2) that
the analogy assumed is false. The position of the lender, so far
from being the same, is not even like that of the benefactor,
whose relations to the benefited are to be compared rather to
those between parent and child, or the artist and his work
(II68°3).
In support of the Kº reading oë8' 6potov one may quote the
language used in IIo5° 26, £rt oë8' àuotöv éo ruv čni re róv rexvöv kai.
Töv dperóv — where in like manner a certain comparison is set
aside as resting on a false analogy.
IX. 8, 1168° I qaori yap beiv quxetv pºdżuorra röv påAtoºra q i\ov,
qíNos 38 pud Mora ö BovXópevos @ 800Aerat rāyaāā ékéivov čvska.
As Kº has # 85 for 5, I think that the j may possibly represent
ñ, i. e. fiv. The imperfect would take us back to the statement
in II55°31 tº 68 pix@ qaqi beiv BoöAegóat rāyabâ keivov čveka.
IX. 8, II68° Io dropetrat 8:) sixóra’s trorépous xpedov ćirearðat, duqoiv
éxóvrouw rô muqróv.
I have restored 8) for 8°, so as to indicate that the statement
is a conclusion drawn from what precedes it in the text. The
Ch. opens with an āropia (dropetrat 66 kai trórepov bei pixelv Šavròv
p.dxtorra i d\\ov rivá II68°28); and Aristotle proceeds forthwith
to show in reference to it that there is really something to be said
on both sides of the question, and that the difficulty accordingly
is not groundless or imaginary (dropetrat Sheikóros). For the form
of the conclusion compare
* , \ * * * º * p t y w p
eikóros 8: 80ket atrovčaios eival, duri trävrov aipoſpevos rô KaNév
II69* 31.
IX. 9, 1170° 29 6 6' 6póv Ört épá aio 64tweral kai 6 drońov 3rt dkočet
Kai 6 (3aôićov 3rt Saôt{et, Kai étri rôv àA\ov Öpioios éorri ru rô aio 6avó-
oAV E. M. IX. 8–9. 65
pevov 3rt évépyoſpev, &are àv alo.6avópe6', 3rt alo-8avópe6a, kāv vodºpiev,
ðrt voodgev to 6’ 6tt alo 6avópe6a iſ voodpev, &rt éopév (tò yāp eival fiv
aiorðdvea'6at # voetv), rö 8' alo 6dvegóat 3rt {n, Tāv jöéov kað' airó.
The reading I have ventured to restore in 1.31 is based on
that in Kº, ögre alo:6avóple6' àv 3rt airéavópe6a kai voodplew 6tu voodpev,
in lieu of which T has āore alo-8avoipue6' àv 3rt airéavópe6a kai vootaev
ôru voodpev, and Lº, alo 6avoipueda ö' àv 3rt aio 6avópe6a kai vootpaev 3rt
voodpev. The primary error in the KP text I suppose to have
been an omission of āv (= €áv) like that we still see in it in II.5.1."
I5. The vulgate reading kai vootpaev 3rt voojuev is perhaps
specious, but it must not be allowed to mislead us. It is clear
that throughout this section the word aio 64veg 6al has, in addition
to its ordinary meaning, a more general sense corresponding to
our modern term ‘consciousness.” In default of a better word
Aristotle is obliged to say, for instance, aiorðūved 6at 6tt Bašićet in
l. 30, Öri čvepyoupev in 1.31, 3rt aivéavópe6a in l. 32, 6 ru voodpev in
l. 33; and it would be strange indeed if, with alo 64yearðat Ört voodpey
in the immediate context, he lapsed into different language in
l. 32 and said what the vulgate makes him say, voetv 3rt voodpev.
voetv in our present passage at any rate is a mere energy like
the rest, and if the idea of consciousness has to be superadded,
we have to say alo 64Megèat 3rt voodpev. The very form of the
statement in the text implies this, for it practically involves the
following argument:—
fort ru rô alo-8avópevov 3rt évépyojuev :
but
Among our energies are aio 64ve.oréat and voev :
therefore,
êv alo 6avópe6a, fort ru rô alo 6avópevov 3rt alo-8avépé0a,
and
êv vodopiev, a ri ru Tô alo 6avópevov 3rt voodpiev
—which seems to show that the logic of the passage demands
the above alterations, and makes the ordinary readings im-
possible. I may add that when Aristotle in this part of his
statement leaves so much to be understood, his brevity is
easily explained : he wishes to avoid as far as possible the
juxtaposition of aio 64yeo'6at = ‘to be conscious,' and aio 64yearðat
= ‘to perceive by the bodily senses.’
F
66 AWOZ’ES AAWD EMEAVOA 7TWOAVS
IX. 9, 117ob 12 otra, yāp &v 86éets rô ovšºv ćri rôv dwépôtrov
Aéyearðat, kai oëx &orrep &mi rôv 800 kmudrov ré šu rô airò véueoróat.
ró v tº airó vépeo:6at would give us an antithesis to the otro
in the first line, with considerable advantage to the sense, as it
seems to me. The construction, too, Aéyeo 6a, tº . . . véueoróat
is one that Aristotle especially affects in the E. N. and else-
where (comp. Iroja 12, 1118°22, II.43° 26, 1168934 &c.).
IX. 11, 1171°6. See J. of Philol. 14, p. 41.
IX. 11, 1171° 21 pi\ou yūp et Toleiv, kai Hakuota toûs év xpeig kai
[to] pum délégavras.
If I am not mistaken, rô plm dévôoravras would mean ‘expecting,
or thinking they have a right, not to receive such treatment,” rô
uń coming grammatically after the verb d'étéoravras. But the
sense requires rather, ‘not expecting, or thinking they have a
right to, such treatment,’ i. e. p.m dévôoravras without the article.
The rô therefore would seem to be an intruder; and we may
perhaps account for it by supposing that it stood originally
before eſſ troteſv (comp. On II62°34, and p. 17).
X. 2, II/3° 2 et prev yūp rà dwómra épéyerat airów, #v čv tº Aeyópevov,
ei öé kai Tà qpévua, trós Aéyotev du ri ; toros & kai év tois pačAous
fort tº quoruköv dyadów kpeirtov fi ka8 airá, é, éq}teral row oiketov
dyadoſ.
There is no doubt a certain harshness in the construction
here, but the difficulty is only disguised by the LP reading,
&péyero. I have suggested fi – ), instead of ei — ei, which at any
rate enables us to keep Špéyérat, and understand it again after
rā ºppévipa. Before Aeyópevow the editions (with T) add the article,
but it is not wanted, nor is it recognized by Alexander, who
adopts Aristotle's phrase in Q. N. et M. p. 299, 20 ed. Spengel.
In l. 4 I cannot see how it is possible to say of a puoruköv dyadov
that it éqiteral row oiketov dyadoù, and suspect accordingly that we
should either excise quoruköv dya&öv as a gloss, or restore in the
next line º 'ºpterat rod oiketov dya&ot.
X. 2, IIT3* IO duçoiv yap 5urow (róv) kaków kai peukrá čáet àpºpo
eval, rôv umöerépov če ºnóérepov.
Kb has āvrov, but the dual is sufficiently assured by dupotv yüp
àvrouw (pixow in Io96* I6, and duqoiv exóvrouw rô morów in 1168° II.
My reason for inserting the article before p(\ov is in order to
make róv q i\ov a partitive genitive: this predicative use of the
OAV E. M. IX. 9—X. 4. 67
genitive, which is so common in Aristotle (comp. Ind. Arist.
14992), is clearly the dominant form of construction throughout
this section, for we have an instance of it in the very next line,
rów amóerépov, and again in the next sentence (II.73° 13), où pºv
où8' ei ºil rôv motorffrou Čorriv iſ #30wſ, 8tà root’ oë8é Tóv dyadav.
I may also say that in a very similar passage in 1148*23 a rôv
which is wanting in the MSS. has been very rightly added by
Rassow. It is not impossible that the Övrov of KP may have
preserved in its termination a trace of the lost article.
X. 3, II/3° I2 dºš yivoplévns Fièv dvairMnpóoews jöour àv ris, kai
replvópevos Aviroiro.
I have suggested that replvápºevos may represent yºvápºevos (i.e.
yeavópevos), and that évôeñs may have dropped out before it, on
account of what follows in the context: i. 66%a 6' affrn Šokeſ yeyev-
moróat ék Töv trepi riv rpoqºv Avröv kai jöovóv' évôseſs yap yewopévows kai
trpoxvirméévras jöeorðat tº dwatrampõgev.
X. 3, IIT3" 25 # oãra Aéyot ris àv, 3ri kré.
Aéyot ris is a correction of the Aéyout' of the MSS. : with Aéyot
rts in the context just four lines above this, it is hard to see any
reason for a change to the passive form of expression, Aéyotr'.
In restoring Aéyot ris I have assumed that in the common arche-
type of Kb LP ris must have been occasionally written with a T
and the tachygraphical symbol for -ms or -ts, which, if unfamiliar
to a scribe, was apt to be mistaken for the sign of apostrophe
(comp. Bast, Comm. Pal. p. 767). In the case of Lº we have
two pretty clear instances of this confusion, Aéyour’āv ris (for
Aéyou ris àv) in II73° 21, and ris T' (for ris : comp. E. E. 1222°7) in
II38°34 — where the LP readings must have arisen through
a combination of r = ris and ris as written out in full.
X. 4, IIT4° 21 v Šē rois Hépeat kai ré xpóvº trägal drexels [scil.
ai kwiſgeus], kai érepai ré etēet ris 6\ms kai dAAñAdv.
The vulgate reading év Šē roſs Hépeau roi Xpévov may be dismissed
at once as implying an erroneous view as to the sense of pépéort,
which stands for the various parts of the work, as is shown by
the explanation which follows, i, yāp rôv Atôov gºv6eoris érépa Tris
roo kiovos fia&óorews, kai at rat ris rod vaoû trouhoreos. In default of
a better parallel to the expression rô xpóvº drexels, one may
perhaps refer to II56°33 airm piev obv kai kara röv Xpé vov kai
Kará rà Aoutrā reketa éorri : at the same time it must be admitted
F 2
68 AVO 7TES AAWD EMEAVIDA 7TWO.WS
that rô xpóvº is not absolutely wanted, and that it may have got
into the text through a repetition of tº xpóvº from the preceding
line.
X, 4, II/4” I4 alo.6%rews 8é réorms trpès rê algénröv čvepyotorms,
reMeios 6é rms eş 8take pleums ºrpès rê káA\tortov rôv intô rºw ato 6mauv
. . kað' ékáormy 8: BeNtio rm éotiv iſ vépyeva toû dipta ra ötakespuévov
ºrpès rê kpártortov táv in airfiv.
kað’ exdorrmv (for the kað’ exagºrov of Kb Elb) is from Alexander
(Q. N. et M. p. 259 ed. Speng.), and it is confirmed by the
equivalents in the context, karū Tāoray yap ato 6moriv in 1. 20, and
ka8 Káo rmv 8 ato 6mauv in I. 26. In the last line, as also further
on in 1. 23, we have to read with Kb T rôv in airfiv, not rôv Úq,
airffv, as the parallel in l. I5, rôv into rivatorêmoriv, suffices to show.
Töv Vir' airfiv is indirectly confirmed by Alexander (p. 259. 23),
though the formal quotation in him embodies the common
reading, rôv Úq' airfiv.
X. 4, IIT4°29 rototrov 8' 8vrov rod re aio 6ntoi, kai row alo.6avopévov,
dei éo rat mêovi) wrépxovrós ye rod re trothorov'ros kai row treto'opévov.
The re before trouija ovros is inserted on the authority of LP,
which has ye, a frequent variant for re. The propriety of the
insertion may be seen from toº re alo.6mrod kai rod aio 6avopévov in
the preceding line, and rod re traënrikod kai rod troumrukoi, in
II75°2.
X. 5, II?5* 29 pave in 8' àv rotto kai ék row ovvºkeiôoréat Töv jöovów
ékáormv rà évépysiq àv reketot.
The rm (sic) which Kb adds after ovvºkeiôorðat may perhaps
be explained as an anticipation of the article before évépyeig,
unless one prefers to suppose it to represent the qualifying
particle irm.
X. 5, II76° 19 rā 8° rotrºp 8voyépm et tº qaiveral jöéa, où8èv
6avpiaotów' troX\ai yüp q6opai kai Ailpat dvépôtrov yivovrat #86a 3’ owk
to ruv, dANà rotºrous kai otºro èuakeupévois.
As roërg! in 1. 20 stands for the normal man, it seems strange
that Aristotle should forthwith use totrous to denote the opposite
kind of man in l. 22. It has occurred to me that rotºrous may
possibly represent rototrous — the two words being perpetually
interchanged in the MSS. — or simply rots, of which reading
a trace is perhaps preserved in the wrong place in the rotºrous
kai roºts owra ötakespuévous of MP.
O.M. E. W. X. 4—9. 69
X. 8, IIT8” Io Tpáčets 8e rotas āmoveſpat xpedv airots [scil. Tots
6eois] ; trórepa rås Sukaias; # yeMotos qavouvral ovva)\drrovtes kai
Trapakaraóñkas droötöövres kai 60 a rouaira; d.MAa rās divöpetovs, in opié-
wovras rä (boSepä kai kuwövvečovras 3rt kaxóv; ) rās éAev6eptovs; rive
8è 8&orovouv;
The commentators, as far as I have been able to observe, are
silent as to the interpretation of this difficult passage. One sees
that droveſpat Xpedºv has to be supplied with dANä rās dvöpetovs, but
it is a hopeless task to explain the participles which follow it,
and I accordingly in the printed text marked a lacuna in this
place. It would have been better, however, to merely obelize
the clause. The present use of dvöpetovs as a feminine — I am
not aware of another instance of it in Aristotle — has led me to
think that the fault in the passage may possibly be in this word,
and that the text may have originally stood thus: áXX& rās
dvöpetov intopévovros rā poſłepå kai kuwövvečovros Órt kakóv; If rās
dvöpetov once became rās dvöpetovs, it would be natural to accom-
modate the following participles and make them also into
accusatives.
X. 8, II?9”9 kai 26Aov 8é rols sióaipovas toos direqaivero kałós,
eiróv perpios rols ékrös kexopmympiévovs, tre+payóras 8e rā kāAAto:6',
&s jero, kai 8efluokóras oroq póvos' évôéxera, yap Piérpta kekrmuévovs
trpártely ā Śeſ.
Lambinus felt the difficulty in Ös jero, and sought to remove
it by writing &s oióv re. I incline to think that we should revert
to the K* T reading, Terpayóras Šč káA\tort’ ero, and understand
£ero in the sense of “he thought’ or “meant, so as to mark a
certain distinction between the actual words (toros direqaivero
ka)\ós) and what they meant by implication. Compare E. E.
1215° II for a similar use of jero.
X. 9, 1180°24 £v uávn 8é rii Aakečaipovicov tróNet (fi) uer àNiyov Ó
vopo6érms émpiéNewav Šokei retroinoréat rpoºpms re kai énirmāevpdrov.
There is a contradiction in the common text (uðwn, pier 3Xiyov),
which disappears as soon as we insert an iſ after tróNet. Having
said pavi, Aristotle sees that the statement is too strong (comp.
IIo2* Io) and has to save himself by the qualifying addition, i.
per' 3\{yov, “ or in it with some few others.”
X. 9, 1180°29 kpário row uév oëv rô yived 6a, Kouvºv ČiripáAetav kai
Öpóźw [kai 8pāv airò búvaoréal' kolvi, 8' éčapleMovgévoy Káorrº èóéetev čv
7o OAV E. M. X. 9.
mpoorfirew rols or perépots rékvous kai pi\ots eis dperºv oup84\Aeo 6at, * *
# Tpoatpeloréat ye. uáAAov 8" &v rooro 80yaoréat 86&etev čk rôv eipmuévov
voucóerukös yewóplevos.
The words in brackets lack point and meaning in their pre-
sent position ; whereas, if we transpose and insert them after
oupédx\eoréat, they may be taken in conjunction with h rpoatpelo-
6at ye, and present in their new context an unimpeachable
sense, ‘that they should have the power, or at any rate the will,
to do this, i.e. to minister to the moral improvement of their
children. It may also be noted that the words in the next
sentence, pºax\ov 3’ &v rooro Sºuaq 6a, 66ésiev, which continue the
idea of 8pāv airò 809aoréat, cannot be supposed to refer to any-
thing so remote as the initial clause in the above passage.
X. 9, II8I* 2L dyarnróv rô pai, 8taxavóóveuvei sã fi kakos tremoimrat
rô ºpyov.
The Kº reading, iſ eſſ he kakós, is apparently a reminiscence of
the Homeric
y
eš je kakós voortjoroplew vies 'Axatów (Il. 2. 253).
#
APR ] . . . . .
* ||||||||||||||
3 9015 01080 2984
Júl 13 1942 O1
UNIV, GP MiGH,
lºº/ARY
-， ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ،