ALVMHVS BOOK FVND 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/aristotelicaOOrichrich 
 
A.RISTOTELICA 
 
 k^^i 
 
By the Same Author 
 NOTES ON XENOPHON AND 
 OTHERS. 1907. 
 
 [On Xenophon, especially the Opera 
 Minora, Herodotus, Pausanias, Plu- 
 tarch's Lives, the Erotici, &c. ; also 
 on Catullus, Propertius, Juvenal, 
 and others.] 
 
 Crown 8vo. Cloth. 6s. net. 
 
 ARISTOPHANES AND 
 OTHERS. 1909. 
 
 Crown 8vo. Cloth. 7s. net. 
 
 PLATONICA. 191 1. 
 
 Crown 8vo. Cloth, js. net. 
 
 TWO LATIN TEXTS 
 By A. E. HousMAN 
 D. JUNH JUVENALIS 
 SATURAE 
 Demy Bvo. Paper boards. 4^. 6ci. net. 
 M. MANH^n ASTRONOMI- 
 CON I 
 
 Demy Bvo. Paper boards. 4^. 6rf. net. 
 
 THE AGAMEMNON OF 
 AESCHYLUS 
 
 Translated by Arthur Pi.att, M.A., 
 Professor of Greek at University 
 College, 
 
 F'cap 8vo. Cloth. 2s. 6d. net. 
 
 GRANT RICHARDS LTD., 
 
 St. Martin's Street, London. 
 
ARISTOTELICA 
 
 HERBERT RICHARDS, M.A. 
 
 Hard words sealed up with Aristotle's arms. 
 
 Dryden. 
 
 
 LONDON 
 
 GRANT RICHARDS LTD. 
 
 1915 
 
7?5 
 
 printed in great britain bt 
 Richard Clay and Sons, Limited, 
 brunswick street, stamford street, fi 
 and bungat, suffolk. 
 
 S>^' 
 
 ^ «>V , ^ «. ' .. « 
 
r^l 
 
 5n ^cmoriam 5n(?ram JB^water 
 
 HIC SITUS EST GRAIAS QUI SEMPER AMAVERAT ARTES 
 USQUE VIGENT ARTES, ILLE VIR HIC SITUS EST. 
 
 334546 
 
PKEFACE 
 
 The following pages consist merely of adversaria or 
 detached remarks on a number of passages in various 
 works that pass under the name of Aristotle. Although 
 on occasion I may use that name, it is of course not to 
 be assumed that I take them all as really his or that I 
 consider them all to stand to him in the same relation. 
 But it has been no part of my plan to discuss here 
 questions of date and authorship. 
 
 For leave to republish the notes on the Rhetoric, 
 which appeared in vol. xxxiii. (1914) of the Journal 
 of Philology, I am indebted to the editors and pub- 
 lishers of that journal. The greater part of my book 
 was already in print when the translation of the Magna 
 Moralia by Mr. Stock and of the Eudemian Ethics 
 by Mr. Solomon was published, so that I have unluckily 
 been unable to make any use of their work, and I do 
 not know whether they have anticipated me on any 
 points. 
 
 vii 
 
viii PREFACE 
 
 I must express, as usual, my indebtedness to 
 Messrs. Clay and their reader for the assistance they 
 have given me. 
 
 Had his death not intervened, I should have greatly 
 valued the critical judgment of Professor By water, a 
 very skilled, if perhaps rather over-cautious, Aristo- 
 telian scholar. The study of Aristotle in Oxford owes 
 a great deal to him, and I have ventured to connect 
 my book, however slightly and remotely, with his 
 memory. 
 
 Oxford, May, 1915. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preface vii 
 
 I. — The NicoMAqHEAN Ethics 1 
 
 II. — The Magna Moralia 43 
 
 III.— The Eudemian Ethics 52 
 
 IV.— The Politics 69 
 
 v.— The Economics 96 
 
 VI. — The 'Aerjvaioop UoXireia 98 
 
 VII.— The Rhetoric 104 
 
 VIII.— The Poetics 115 
 
 IX.— The Problems 133 
 
 X.— The Fragments . . . . . . .154 
 
 Index 1 161 
 
 Index II 166 
 
ARISTOTELICA 
 
 THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 Book I 
 
 1096a 6 There is no real difficulty or doubt about 6 
 Sc ;^pr;/xaTio-T^9 (3iaL6<i tl<; €(ttlv. ;;(p>7/xaTto-T^s (y^tos) is like 
 ^io<; fxovwrqs in 10976 9 ; iStwriys ^tos in Plato Rep. 578 c; 
 oA^rrys /3tos Herod. 3. 52 ; o-T/oaTiwTr/s fiCo^ [Lucian] 38. 3 ; 
 o-xoA-acTT^s /8ios Plut. Cic. 3 ; ixaKapi-rq^ /3lo^ Ar. PZwi. 555 ; 
 nycriwrrys, OLKirr]^, TrkavrfTq<i ySios in Euripides ; and countless 
 other cases of words in -t»/s used adjectivally with various 
 substantives (6 Opavirrjs A-cw?, oTrAmys (rrpaTo?, kvv€^ dypcvrai, 
 dpoTrys /3o9s, Trdriys Xvxvos:) that might be quoted, chiefly no 
 doubt but by no means exclusively from the poets. ^tiaios 
 is amply supported by fStaios Tpo<f>-^ and ySiatot irovoi in the 
 Politics. 
 
 1097a 24 /xcTa^atVtoi/ . . . TTcipttTcov seems, as By water 
 suggests, to be completely out of place here, fiira^aivo} 
 certainly means change of some kind, whereas the argu- 
 ment has only been briefly repeated, not changed. Perhaps 
 a further small proof that the words should be removed is 
 the 8c following (cttcI 8e), which would be ydp, if they were 
 right. 
 
 1098a 4 Here on the other hand the kuC following 
 (BittCxs 8c Kttt TavTT/s) gives strong support to the genuine- 
 ness of the words tovtov 8c to /xkv k.t.K. Cf. 1103a 2 Slttov 
 co-rat Kttt TO Xoyov ^x^^' There is no real difficulty in Tavrrj^ 
 referring back to irpaKTiK-q tis. 
 
2 km0^4ClIEAN ETHICS 
 
 •'.ib. ^/ $<T-^Up h6i:e^ is /or instance, a. sense not recognised 
 in Bonitz' Index, but -qui;be common in the Poetics, e.g. 16. 
 14546 32 and 1455(X 2. Here KidapL(TTr)<5 is an instance 
 of oSc : ohc is not compared to KtOapia-T-^s. In 2. 7. 1108a. 
 34 a)s seems similarly used, though the words are probably 
 not quite complete: and uicnrep again in 7. 5. 11486 25. 
 So Ka^tt7r€/3 Pro6Z. 27. 2. 
 
 1099a 1 dTToreXetv <eV>i;7ra/3;(ovo-av, like 10. 4. 11746 32 
 W5 17 1^15 €VV7rdp)(0vaa ? 
 
 10996 5 ct TO) irayKaKOL TratSci; eiev 17 (ftCXoL, rj ayaOol 
 ovT€9 redvacriv. 
 
 Te6vauv 1 or less probably cicrtV for eltv ? Aristotle is of 
 course irregular, but the irregularity in this case is very 
 marked, and the uncommon form riOvaiev might lead to 
 an error. 
 
 ib. 20 So here tovto for ovtid seems not unlikely, and to 
 points to it. 
 
 1100<x 19 Certainly in spite of the Paraphrast firj alaOa- 
 vop-evio Be is not to be cut off from tw (wvtl and joined with 
 TO) reOveioTL. But perhaps before ixrj we should insert /xiv 
 (which in that place would easily be lost) reading t<5 Iwvtl 
 fxev, ixY] al(T6avoixiv(a Be. In 11026 14 I have sometimes 
 thought we ought to read tov <ixev> Xoyov. 
 
 1101a 34 <€Ti> fiaXXov 8' to-ws'^ 
 
 /jioXXov Be without en naturally means or rather, which 
 is not the sense wanted. jxaXXov B' lo-co? roBe Bel aTropelaOai 
 or BLairopelcrOaL is not a good conjecture, for Bel airopelfrOaL, 
 if ever suitable, is as little so here as or rather. 
 
 Book II 
 
 1103a 23 aXX<D? in Tiav aXXtos 7r€<^i)KOTo)v should certainly 
 not be omitted. Trc^vKortov is not the same as (f>v(TeL ovrutv. 
 If any change were to be made, I would sooner read in 20 
 ovOev yap tcov cf>v(reL 6vT(t)v <aAXo)s> aXAws iOi^eraL, but 
 none is called for. 
 
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 3 
 
 1 1 04ft 20 iravra (fyevyoiv [Kai] (fto/SovfJiivos 1 
 
 So Cobet proposed very plausibly vTro/xivoyv to. 8eii/a [»cat] 
 Xaipo)v in 11046 7. We should rather expect (f>o^ovfji€vo<; 
 KOL <])evyu)v, if Kai were right. 
 
 11046 32 Should not Trepl ravra jxev Trai/ra be irepl Travra 
 fiev Tavra 1 The emphasis is on irdvTa, as fxaXiara Sc Trcpi 
 T^v TjSovqv shows. 
 
 1105a 25 Omit the article to. So in 11106 15 I think 
 we should read Ioikc 8^ [to] /Siatov eivat ov e^u)$€v rj apx'Q as 
 in line 1. In 11196 22 it has been proposed to omit rj, 
 and, judging from 11206 27 and 31 and various other 
 places, it would seem better to do so. 
 
 11056 4 airep 'being just the things which etc' This 
 shows the importance of repeated evcp-yciai, and uirep 
 (By water) for a-rrep would spoil the point. 
 
 ib. 1 1 ovScts av ovSc fieWi^a-eie ytVetr^ai dyaOo^. 
 
 This idiomatic phrase is not sufficiently known. Cf. 
 Thuc. 5. 98 TOV<i fxkv virdpxovTa<; . . . tovs St jxrjhe fxekXr)- 
 aovras yeveaOaL : Ar. Peace 196 or' ovhe ^cAXet? cyyv? cTvai 
 ToJv Oeiov: Dem. 54. 40 6 . . . fxrjK av /xcAXiyo-as dXXd kolv 
 OTiovv TTaOoiv TrpoTipov : [Plat.] Ep. 7. 326 C (nxx^poiv Se ouS' 
 av /xcAAi^o-at ttotc yevecrOai : Plut. Fab. Max. 9 and 
 Anton. 25. 
 
 1106a 6 hid ravrd Sel So the Paraphrast. 
 
 In line 8 ovt' iiraivovfXiOa ovre i(/€y6fiiOa is appended to 
 what goes before with a very unusual asyndeton. Perhaps 
 <Kat> oijTij the Kttt having been lost in the last syllable of 
 KaKOL : or <oti8'> ovT€, which would also easily go wrong. 
 Bywater and Burnet have proposed to omit the four 
 words. 
 
 ib. 19 There is nothing answering to the re in ittttov tc 
 (nrovSaiov iroitt koI dyadov Spa/xiiv k.t.X. What precedes 
 shows that we are not to think tc misplaced, as though it 
 ought to have followed a-TrovSaiov. Rather the tpyov which 
 should have been specified with a Kai seems to be loosely 
 and irregularly given in Kat dyaOov Spa/xtlv k.t.X. 
 
 B 2 
 
4 NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 1106& 2 Perhaps co-rat for la-ri, corresponding to Trpoo-- 
 Tct^ct. The mistake is fairly common. So perhaps the 
 Paraphrast 
 
 1107a 3 The editors seem satisfied, but I cannot help 
 thinking that there is sbmething wrong with koX Itl t<3 
 K.T.X. It cannot be given as a further reason, being only a 
 somewhat cumbrously phrased restatement. Either the 
 words have no business here, or there is something 
 missing. 
 
 ih. 18 ofxoLov ovv T(3 (not to) a^iovvl We usually compare 
 the thing of which we are speaking to another, not that 
 other to it. Cf. on 1150a 6. 
 
 11076 4 TTcpt r}Sova^ Sc kol XvTras — ov 7rdcra<;, ^ttov 8e kol 
 Trepl ras \v7ra<s — ix^a-oTT}^ k.t.X. 
 
 The cure for these awkward words is to omit koL XuVa?. 
 Cf. 3. 10. 11176 25, 26. 
 
 ib. 11 I had myself arrived at Professor Stewart's cavrots 
 for eauTttts. 
 
 ib. 24 ws 8' cAeyo/x€v ^X^'-^ Trpos rrjv fxeyaXoTrpiTreiav tt/v 
 iXevOepLOTTjTa, Trepl fxiKpa 8La<f>epovarav. 
 
 Bywater after Ramsauer <Ta)> Trepl fiiKpa, i.e. eTvat. 
 Should we not write Trepl fxiKpa hia^ipew ovcrav^ Among 
 instances of two words made by error into one we may 
 compare especially Plato So;ph. 257 E ^vfxfSe/SrjKivaL for 
 ^v/ji^e^rjKev elvaL and Dion. Hal. de Thucyd. 852 cAarrovTors 
 (one MS.) for iXdrrovs ovras. 
 
 1109a 34 Tov fxecrov rv)(eLV aKptus ;(aA.€Tf di/ (co-Ttv). 
 
 For oiKpws I have before suggested aKpi/^m, which seems 
 more appropriate. Cf. for instance Hippocr. de vet. medic. 
 12 vaA-CTTOV Se Toiavrr)^ dKpi^€.La<i iovcrrjq Trepl Tr]V Ti)(vr}v 
 Tvy)(div€LV aiel tov dTp€K€(rTa.TOv k.t.X. and lb. 9 tpyov ovroi 
 KarafxaOeiV dKpi/3c'o)S u)crTe (TfXLKpa. afxapTaveLV. In Plato 
 Theaet. 148 c the Bodleian MS. has d/cpt)8tov for dxpoov. 
 
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 Book III 
 
 1110a 5 £t Tvpavvo^ irpocrraTTOi al(r)(p6v tl irpa^at Kvptos wv 
 yoviuiv Kol TiKViov, Koi Trpa^avTos fiev crio^oLvro, /jlt) Trpa^avros 
 8' a.TroBvri(TKOL€V. 
 
 The optatives orw^oivro, aTro^i/rJo-zcotcv are not quite parallel 
 to the optative irpoa-TaTTot. The sense is not ' if a tyrant 
 ordered . . . and they were spared,' but 'if a tyrant 
 ordered . . . and on his complying they would be spared.' 
 We seem therefore to need av before or after o-w^oti'To. 
 But of what is certain in the future we could by an idiom 
 say in direct form Trpa^avros /xcv o-w^ovrat ( = aroid-qa-ovTat), firf 
 Trpdiavro's 8' aTroOvya-Kova-iv, and it is just possible that the 
 optatives without av represent this. 
 
 ib. 26 Ivia 8' icrtos ovK ^cttlv avayKa<r6r]vaL. 
 
 For OVK €<TTLv not meaning ' it is impossible ' (for clearly 
 it is not) but = ov 8ct cf. Poetics 14. 14536 23 tovs 
 TrapetXiy/x/xcvovs ij.v$ov<s Xvclv ovk tcrTiv : Soph. O.T. 1409 oAA' 
 ov yap avSav (.(xB' a fjiyjSk Spav Kakov : II. 13. 114 rjfxeas y ov 
 
 TTWS €0-Tt /JLeOufieVaL TToXifJiOlO, 14. 212 OVK tcTT OuSc €Ot/C€ T€OV 
 
 Ittos dpviycraor^at, *6. 16. 60, Od. 2. 310, and other Homeric 
 places : ovk co-rt and ovk ecrrt ravra in tragedy (Aj. 470, 
 Trac/i. 449, 709, Ant. 289, ^Zc. 539, &c.) and Plato P/iiZ. 
 60 E. So occasionally ov^ olov re, e.g. Isocr. 6. 91. 
 
 11106 15 See on 1105^25. 
 
 ib. 31 Odd as it seems, ignorance of ra av^if^ipovra must 
 be the same as ignorance Iv rfj Trpoaipia-u and ignorance of 
 TO KadoXov. Otherwise to. o-D/x^epoi/ra should not be 
 mentioned at all, nor would -yap (ov yap k.t.X.) have any 
 meaning, to, o-v/A^epovra are, I suppose, * our true interests,' 
 *our higher interests,' etc., but the phrase is strange, 
 especially as, if any ignorance is olkoxxtlov, ignorance of our 
 own interests is of all kinds the most likely to be so. 
 
 1111a 4 Along with rts, tl, and the rest, one would 
 certainly expect to find rtVa or Trpos rtva in some shape 
 (to avTov Trpdo-WTTOi/ tov irpo'i ov tl<s ttoici o 7roi€t Heliodorus) 
 
6 NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 and line 1 1 seems almost to demand it. cv rtVi is probably 
 neuter, and tl alone can hardly cover the person. 
 
 There is some difficulty too in 18 Kvpiwrara 8* chai Soxet 
 iv oh 7} 7rpa^t9. One cannot well give iv ots 17 7rpa^i<s a 
 different sense from that it bears in lines 1, 16 and 24, 
 and an obscure sense too. Should we read <o> (as in 8, 
 and answering to rt in 4) Kal ov evcKa 1 iv oU is then to be 
 joined with Kvpnarara, its antecedent raiv or c/cciVwv being 
 understood. 
 
 to. S o Sk irpoLTTei ayvoT^cniev av T19, oTov Acyovres <j>a(Ttv 
 eKTTCtrcti/ avTovs- 
 
 olov <ol> k€yovT€<s cf>a(rLV c/c7r€crcti/ atVots seems possible, as 
 a somewhat inexact way of putting 'people say a thing 
 escaped them in speaking.' But on the whole it is safer to 
 acquiesce in olov Xeyoi/ras . . . avrovs. There is no 
 authority for an accusative after cKTriTrro), but cKTrtTTTOj in 
 this sense is not cited as occuring at all elsewhere, though 
 the Latin excido is so used. A closer parallel perhaps 
 than k^ipxpp^ai or kK^aivoi with an accusative may be found 
 in the occasional accusative after i^Lo-TaaOai, fKarrjvai. 
 
 Ill 2{X 9 8o/covo"t Sc ov-^ ol avTol TrpoaipeLcrOat re apicrra *cat 
 So$d^eLV. 
 
 Logic would require the addition of an aei, say after 
 ol avTOL, for without it the statement is much too 
 sweeping. So with ruiv avrdv in 11186 12 on one view of 
 the meaning and in 11526 30, 11536 29. Cf. e.g. Dem. 
 37. 6: Plat. Gorg. 482 a. 1116a 18 hoKovcn yap virofxeveiv 
 
 TOV? KLvSvVOV; OL TToXlTaL 8ta TOl €K TO)V VOflOiV CTTm/Ata K.T.X. 
 
 would in like manner be the better for limitation by ivtore 
 or an equivalent. But we can hardly suppose an actual 
 loss in all these cases. 
 
 ib. 31 Tcov TrpaKToyv koL i<f> rjixtv 1 
 
 Koi TrpaKTUiv after iff) rifjuv is superfluous, for to. i<f> rjfxlv 
 must be irpaKra. 
 
 ib. 33 vov<s KOL Trav to St' avOponrov. 
 
 What can Sta mean here 1 Aristotle is evidently think- 
 ing of any part or element of human nature, practically of 
 
NICOMAGHEAN ETHICS 7 
 
 o/oe^is, whereas hi avOpioTrov, like Sl avrlov in the next line, 
 should mean ' through the agency of ' man. Is it an error 
 due to hi avTwv 1 
 
 11136 30 iav <avTos> atrtos elvai SoKrj, as in 24, 1114a 
 4, 11146 3*? or did the avrS make Aristotle omit avrd? 
 here? 
 
 11146 9 I incline to think that Kac in 10 before to ev 
 should be omitted, tovto in 11 then resumes to /xeyia-Tov 
 . . . €^€i. It is very common, e.g. in Demosthenes, for 
 some person or some thing to be first described in a 
 number of words and then resumed by some part of the 
 pronoun ovto^ : ' the men who etc., they (ovroi) did so and 
 so.' As the passage at present stands, we have as it were 
 the awkward 'A and the possessing A well by nature 
 is true cu^u/a.' 
 
 ib 26 foil. The words appear to be a good deal out of 
 order. First oTt fxio-oTTjTes elcnv kol otl c^ets should surely 
 be oTi l^€ts cfViv KOL OTt /xeaoTTjTes. The species must not 
 precede the genus. Secondly koI ovtws . . . irpocrra.^ 
 should then follow fjie(r6T7]T«; or at the very least KaO* avrds. 
 It is quite out of place where it stands. It may also very 
 well be right to put ov\ 6yu,otoJs . . . Sia tovto eKova-ioi 
 before kolvtj fxkv ow ; but, if it is not, it will be a great 
 improvement for koX otl i<f> rjfiLv kol ckouo-ioi immediately 
 to precede it. It may be observed that Aspasius and the 
 other commentators had the text of all this passage in our 
 present order. 
 
 1115a 8 TavTtt 8' €o-TiV • . . <Ta> KttKtt seems required by 
 the sense. 
 
 1117a 14 We should certainly have expected Trdcrxova-t, 
 not TToiova-i, but ttolovo-l may stand. Cf. Aristoph. Frogs 
 584 oTS ot8' oTi dv/MOL KOI 8(Kai'b)9 avTO Spas. 
 
 ib. 20 ^ may be only a dittograph of v. I agree with 
 Stewart that Bywater's ^v is not much in place here. 
 
 11176 5 KOI kvTTTJpOV [kol] TTttS 6 TTOCOS ? 
 
 ib. 26 8e for ydp 1 
 
8 NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 1118a 29 ov Travv xacpova-i toutois rj ov <Tro\v> ol ye 
 aKoXaa-TOL 1 Better perhaps rj ov <7roA.v> yc ol aKoXaaror 
 
 11186 18 avaTrXyjpwcris yap rrjs evSeias 17 cf>variKr] i-mOvfXLa. 
 
 Read avairX-qpoia-no'i. Even if pleasure is called an 
 avaTrXrjptiiaL^y desire cannot be. Aspasius actually has 
 <l>v(rLKrj iTTtOvfiLa ia-rl rrjs avaTrXrjpwa-ews, though Anon, seems 
 to have found dvaTrXrjpwa-L^. Cf. p. 49 below. 
 
 ib. 24 fjLr) ore for fir] ws "? fxr) ws seems just the same as 
 fxaXXov r) ws 01 ttoXXol, and in 1119a 15, 6 17 we have ore. 
 Ktti fXT] (US Set would be better than ^ fxrj ws Set. 
 
 Book IV 
 
 1120a 31 ovhl Xrjif/ €TaL Srj (not Be). ovSe . . . 81} is fairly- 
 frequent : not so ov8e . . . Se. 
 
 1121a 18 StoTTfp for orTrcp maybe suggested: 'and this 
 is just the reason why ' etc. It is better in itseif and fits 
 e-n-el k.t.X. better. 
 
 1122a 28 6 ev /xeyaXois ovt(i)<s. 
 
 OVTW9 is unusual Greek. A participle {ex<^v 1 TrpaTTwv 1) 
 may have been lost, but perhaps we should read toioCtos, 
 the more so as ovto<s is really the reading with good 
 authority. In their paraphrases Asp. and Anon, both use 
 the phrase ev iiiKpol^ roiovTO'i. 
 
 11226 12 ev TOVTOts 8c TO jxeya rov fxeyaXoirpeirovf;, oXov 
 fxeyedo?, Trepl ravra (or ravTa) ttJs IXevOepioT-qTO'; ova"rj<s 
 (Bywater : often written with no comma after fjLeyeOo<s). 
 
 The chapter on fxeyaXoTrpeTreia, whether written by one 
 hand or two, at one time or more than one, certainly 
 fluctuates between two views. According to one (§ 3) the 
 quality can only be shown iv /xcyaAot?, in great things, on 
 really great occasions. According to the other (§§ 17-19) 
 
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 9 
 
 it can be shown even about small things, involving then 
 something proportionately /xe'ya, but still more something 
 KoKov and irpi-Trov (9—9, 12, etc.), though the fJieyaXoTrpe-n-ea-- 
 rarov is iv /xcyaXo) jxiya. Cf. Cook Wilson's remarks in the 
 Journal of Philology xxxii. 153 foil. 
 
 There has been a good deal of doubt about the meaning 
 of olov /aeyc^o?, whether it has or has not been joined with the 
 following words ; but it has usually been explained more or 
 less on the first of the above theories, and iv toutois made 
 to refer to a B^l koI ws Set just preceding, iv tovtols how- 
 ever seems obscure and pointless on this view, olov /xeye^os 
 weak, especially if it stands alone, and kol airo t^s to-rys k.t.X, 
 inconsistent with /xeyc^os iXivB^pLorrjros (taken together), 
 because la-t]^ means necessarily that there is no such 
 ' greatness ' in that case. I would suggest then <ovx> olov 
 fxiyeOos Trepl TavTo. (probably) t^s iXivOepiorrjTos ovari^, under- 
 standing iv TovTots to refer to the KaXov and irpiirov, in 
 which the /xeya plays only a limited part. 6 /xcyaXoTrpcTr^s 
 iin<TTrjp.ovL Iolkev (5) ; he is an artist in giving and spending ; 
 and, though the amount is often of importance, the taste 
 and fine effect with which the thing is done go for a good 
 deal more. Observe that the excess in relation to jxeyaXoTrpi- 
 TTcta is /Savavaria, a very different thing from dcrcoTta, the 
 corresponding excess in the case of iXcvOepioTrjg. Our words 
 then mean ' it is in these things that the greatness implied 
 in the word /xeyaAoTrpeTn^s consists, and it is not only a sort 
 of liberality, which we are to take as dealing with the 
 same things, on a large scale.' koI diro Trj<; lo-iys k.t.X. runs 
 on naturally from ev tovtol<s to /otcya, though most un- 
 naturally from olov fX€yeOo<s . . . Trj<s iX€vO€pL6Tr)T()<s, and ov 
 yap ri avrrj k.t.X. suits <oux>olov. 
 
 But with the words a few lines below, also a good deal 
 debated, kol ta-TW tpyov ap€T7] /McyaXoTTpcTTCta iv /xcyiOciiin which 
 fieyaXoTTpiireta is sometimes comma-ed off) the other view 
 of the importance of ordinary fiiyeOo^ seems to assert itself, 
 and the excellence of an cpyov is said to be fXiyaXoTrpiTreia 
 {i.e. attention to to kuXov and to Trpiirov) iv fxcyiOei (in a 
 large matter, on a great scale), just as in §17 we have 
 payaXoTT piiricTTaTov pikv to iv fxeydXio /xcya (i.e. to iv payiSn 
 /xcyoA-OTrpcTTcs). In thus explaining ipyov apiTt] k.t.X. I 
 think I am in agreement with Prof. Cook Wilson. 
 
10 NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 1123^ 17 fxeyaXoTTpeiTio^ ttouIv . . . koI ^X^^ '^^'^^ a^iav 
 Should it not be fx€yaXoirp€ires, parallel to €xov 1 
 
 ib. 29 iv jXLKpiti TO KokoV OLTToXtl KoX OTl OLV TTOirj <.irOirj(TtL> 
 fXtWiOV Kol CTKOTTiOV TTCJS aV iX-OLXiCTTOV dl/aXtOCTQl ? 
 
 11236 31 ouSa/xtos T av apfio^OL /A€yaXoi/Au;(U) <f>evy€LV 
 7rapa(reL(TavTL ouS' dBLKelv. 
 
 Without accepting the explanation of Trapaa-iiaavTi put 
 forward in the Classical Beview 24. 48 by Mr. Maclnnes, 
 I think he is right in dwelling on the difficulty of the 
 aorist participle. That is not got over by Prof. Cook 
 Wilson's reference ib. 25. 134 to Monro's Homeric 
 Grammar § 77. Neither Cook Wilson nor Monro recog- 
 nises explicitly that in Homer the aorist participles in 
 question are not coupled with a verb in the present tense, 
 but with aorists and perhaps sometimes imperfects. II. 8. 
 219 TTOiTTvva-avTL Ooa)<s oTpvvat 'Axatov's is the only passage 
 there cited that might give rise to anj'^ doubt, for 
 OTpvvat is not past in sense. But we may notice (1) that 
 it is aorist, not present, and (2) that TrourvvaavTi may refer 
 to action preceding words spoken {oTpvvai). Such cases 
 as Soph. Aj. 207 Ketrai 6oXep(2 ;^€i/>(,wvt voan^aas are not to 
 the point, for aorists like this express the entrance on a 
 state, not on an action. Ajax has fallen ill and is now 
 lying ill. About this there is no difficulty. Nor is there 
 about Soph. Phil. 58-9, where eKXnroiv is an action previous 
 to TrAets and exOr]pa<; is a state of mind entered on before 
 the actions of leaving and sailing. 
 
 In the Aristotelian passage I do not see how -rrapaaet- 
 <ravTL could be right, unless it expressed some action either 
 previous altogether to that of (ftevyeiv {here^ uniii7ig aiuay) 
 or coincident only with the very beginning of it. But the 
 obvious sense, to say nothing of the use of TrapacrtiW else- 
 where (add Theophr. Fragm. 7. 13 6 Oioiv irapaa-uuiv [irpos] 
 ras x^^P^'* ^^^ ''^^^^ x^P^^^ (x^tpolvl) Stacrci'wv in Ar. Rhet. 3. 16. 
 14176 2), seems to require a present tense, describing a 
 continued action of the arms in running. Possibly the o- 
 got repeated in the first instance by accident : Trapaa-eiovTi, 
 
 -(T€L(T0VTI, -(T^ia-aVTL. 
 
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 11 
 
 1124a 29 The Kai now standing before ot would be 
 better at the beginning, koX vTripoirraL 8c. Cf. 1125a 12 
 Kai KLvr)(ri<s 8c. Indeed Kai ... 8c is noticeably common in 
 Book IV (Eucken). 
 
 11246 15 8lO KOI TTjV @€TIV OV XcyCtJ/ K.T.X. 
 
 There is no construction for- the accusative and infinitive. 
 This or something like it is often found in later Greek, 
 but can it be justified in Aristotle, or should we add a 
 ^acTi"? 
 
 11276 12 6 fiev So^rj^ Tj TLfxrjq (eveKo) ov Xiav ^(.Kr6<;, o)? 6 
 dXa^tov 6 hi dpyvpiov . . a.(T)(y]ix.ovi<mpo^. 
 
 (US 6 dXa^toj/ is untranslateable. The words of the Para- 
 phrast ci /xcv ho^rfi r/ TLfxrj?, ov Xiax' i/^cktos 6 aXa^iou, might 
 perhaps be substituted with advantage. It would not be 
 the only place in which 6 and ct have been confused, and 
 J)s might be a dittograph of -09 in if/€KT6<;. The Paraphrast 
 goes on with 6 8e cvcKa apyvptov, and our 6 Si need not be 
 changed. That 6 might give rise to the other. 
 
 ib. 26 I incline to think that irpo<nroiovixtvoi was written 
 by error for aTrapvovfjievoi. Both Aspasius and the Para- 
 phrast use aTrapvou/xcvot here, though the former adds Kai 
 TrpocnroLOv/mvoL firj e^^''^' 
 
 1128a 22 Tots /acV and rots he do not necessitate, but they 
 certainly suggest, that in t8ot 8' av rts Kat €k tu>v KcofnoSttov 
 TO}v irakaiiov kol tojv KaivSiv we should read Ka>/xa)8o>v. 
 On the idiomatic use of kw/awSoi, rpayioSoi see my Aristo- 
 phanes and Others, p. 334 foil. 
 
 Book V 
 
 1129a 8 "5 for KaH d^' ^s . . . ra 8iKaia is only d^' ^s • . . 
 ciVt over again. 
 
 11306 20 Trj<i <oX.r]<s> kuklus seems almost necessary. 
 
 1131a 18 ij 8^ laov, <cV>8vorv? Cf. 15. cv would be 
 easily lost after ov. 
 
12 NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 10. 20 7] avTT] tdTai ia-OTr]':, ols* kol iv oils' w? yap c/ccti/a 
 €;(€t, ra iv oTs, ovtw KOLKilva ix^i. €t yap firj l(tol, ovk tcra 
 
 As oh are the persons and iv oh the shares which 
 they receive, it cannot be right to say that Ka/cetva, i.e. 
 the 019, are in proportion to ra iv oh ' the proportion is the 
 other way round. For to, iv oh therefore we must read ra 
 ols, unless we prefer to move the words and put them before 
 or after the second tx^i. Also, as to-rat precedes and 
 iiova-Lv follows, that ex^t should presumably be e^ci. For a 
 similar reason o-v/jifiiveL in 1133a 12 should perhaps be 
 
 (TV/JLfXiViL. 
 
 In 25 TovTo looks like an error for ravro, thought it may 
 be right; and we should expect to hUaiov <to> iv rais 
 vo/iats. 
 
 1132a 10 acfyaLpiov Tov KepSovs. 
 
 The whole KipSos is taken away. Read therefore ro 
 KepSos. Whichever is the right reading in 1133a 9, 10 — 
 and there the genitive seems to me better, as Bywater 
 cites no parallel for a sense of charige in yueraSiSoVat — 
 that passage shows how easily nominative and genitive get 
 confused. 
 
 ib. 29 should not t^s ful^ovos be tov fiii^ovosl He is 
 speaking not of unequal lines but of unequal segments of a 
 single line. So to /jh^ov Tixrjfia in 26. 
 
 A little below in 1132 6 5, 6 I doubt tov fjieyLo-Tov. 
 There, as here, we want tov fxu^ovos. 
 
 11326 11 foil. The two last sections of this chapter 
 (iX^Xvde . . . va-Tcpov) can hardly be in their right place. 
 They belong to that part of the chapter (§§ 5, 6) which 
 touched on the use of the words t,r]fXLa and KcpSos. But 
 they cannot be simply inserted there. 
 
 As to the difficult words oTav 8c /xt^tc TrAeov /jl^t tkaTTov 
 aXX avTOL Si avToiv yevrjTai, I am not satisfied with any of 
 the explanations offered nor with Rassow's avTo. <Ta> 8i 
 avTiov, what they had made for themselves, adopted by 
 Bywater. Possibly we might read /x,»;tc irXiov fjLrjT lAarTov 
 aXXa TavTo-y of course not the same things, but the same 
 
NICOMAGHEAN ETHICS 13 
 
 * value,' goods worth the same, as before ; what he calls 
 just below TO t(Tov irporepov kol vcrrepov. Then St* avriov will 
 refer to buying, selling, etc. But no doubt to tarov is a 
 more exact expression for this than Tavra or ravro. 
 
 ib. 21 SoKcZ 8e Ttcrt Kttt TO avTiTreTTOvOo^ ctvat d7rA.<us BiKaLov. 
 Do we not want <to> dTrXws (or airXw^ to) SUaiov, just as 
 we have to BUatov in the next line 1 The point is not that 
 TO d. is just, but that it is, i.e. constitutes, justice : that 
 justice is or consists in it. 
 
 In the sentence or sentences beginning with to Sc 
 dvTiTreiTov^os (23-31) the words kglltoi . . . yevoiTo occupy a 
 most awkward position, and the yap following has to ignore 
 them altogether and refer to what stands earlier. Should 
 they be placed after Sta^cpct 7roA.v in 31 1 
 
 The line €t kc Trd^ot k.t.X. occurs with the incorrect to. k 
 in Seneca's Ludus 14 : with to. y in Anthol. Plan. 4. 251 : 
 with TO. T in Julian Caes. 314 a. 
 
 lb. 32 <rw€;^€t TO ToiovTov hUatov, to avTnr€Tr€7rov06<s KaT 
 avaXoyCav koX fxrj kut ia-oTtp-a. 
 
 To TOLovTov SiKaiov, referring backwards, should mean to 
 avTLTmrovOo^ simply, and the rest be added as an explanation 
 or rather as a qualification. We seem to want to tolovtov 
 SiKttiov, TO dvTiTrcTTOv^ds, KaT avakoyiav 8c (or KaTa 8' ava- 
 Xoyiav) KoX jXT) KaT ia-orrjTa. Cf. 11336 32 /xeaoTr]^ tls Icttlv, 
 
 OV TOV aVTOV 8c TpOTTOV. 
 
 1133a 14-16. These lines seem as hopelessly out of 
 place here as at 11326 9. Even if all other difficulties 
 were removed, it is not possible to treat 7rdo-x«v as mean- 
 ing consume or receive in exchange. StSdmi and \a/x^dv€Lv, 
 not TToulv and Trdo-xctv, are the two correlative commercial 
 terms. The natural meaning is what Stewart has pointed 
 out, but that has nothing to do with exchange of goods 
 and services. Consequently the lines should be bracketed 
 here as in Ch. 4. 
 
 11336 1 CIS (T)(rj/xa 8* dvakoyias ov 8ct dycii' k.t.X.. 
 
 On the usually accepted explanation (Burnet does not 
 adopt it) this means that a fair exchange will not take 
 place unless a proper scheme of proportion as to the values 
 
14 NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 of the commodities (or services) is instituted. Identical 
 amounts of two things must not be exchanged without 
 consideration of their respective values. This is of course 
 a perfectly reasonable proposition for Aristotle to lay down, 
 but would he or anyone have laid it down in the words we 
 find, ' you must not institute a scheme of proportion, when 
 the exchange has already taken place : otherwise the one 
 extreme will have both the advantages (or excesses) ' 1 The 
 undesirable result really follows, I take it, not from 
 instituting a (proper) scheme after the exchange, but from 
 never instituting such a scheme at all. If the two men 
 first exchanged identical amounts and then duly rectified 
 the proceeding by taking the true values into account, 
 their method would be clumsy, but the final result would 
 be right. This is enough to show that, ' do not institute a 
 scheme afterwards ' cannot be taken as equivalent to ' you 
 must have a scheme.' Whether it comes after or before 
 does not matter so long as the final result is determined by 
 it. 
 
 Another doubt that presents itself is as to orav cp^tocrt ra 
 avTOiv, ouT(09 tcrot kcu kolvo)vol, otl avrr] rj laoTY]'; SvvaraL ctt' 
 avTuiv yiveaOai. On the usual view and with Bywater's 
 punctuation orav exioai ra avrcov is the opposite of orav 
 okXa^divraL and means ' while they are still in possession 
 of their own goods.' ra avrOiv can mean this (cf. 11326 13) 
 but in view of 1132a 28 and h 17 (cf. Bhet. 13666 9, 
 1387a 25) it is awkward that it should. Nor am I at all 
 sure either that orav t)(Oicn naturally means ' while they 
 still have,' or that kolvwvol can be applied to them before 
 the exchange has taken place, the exchange being either 
 the K0lv^livia itself or its condition (lines 16-18) 
 
 I still therefore do not feel sure that there is not some- 
 thing in the explanation which I offered a very long time 
 ago, that the writer is thinking of a possible re-exchange, 
 in which one of the two men might try to impart his own 
 superior worth to the goods, now in his possession, of the 
 other man. It is on the proportionate worth of the man 
 {oirtp ycwpyos tt/dos ct/cvtoto/xov) that the whole thing is made 
 to rest. afjicf>or€pa<s ex^tv ras vTrepoxo-s with its reference to 
 1132a 33 I understand to mean only that after any unfair 
 exchange one party has too much by just the amount by 
 
NICOMAGHEAN ETHICS 15 
 
 which the other has too little. I ought to have given you 
 ten shillings more, or something worth that. Then I have 
 ten shillings too much and you have ten too little ; these 
 two tens are my two v-nepoxctt ', in respect of the exchange 
 I am better off than you by twice ten. 
 
 ib. 9 The word i^aywy-qv or -rj^ is perhaps an indication 
 of some insertion here. Everything else in the chapter 
 refers to exchange between individuals and presumably 
 within the limits of one community, l^aymyrj^ licence to 
 export, can only apply to foreign trade with governmental 
 sanction and introduces quite other ideas. 
 
 ih. 22 TovTo yap should, I think, be tovto 8c. 
 
 1134a 7 I agree independently with Cook Wilson in 
 reading avicrov for ahiKov. Cf. the v.l. in 1129^ 33. 
 
 ih. 25 That to aTrXois StKaiov and ro TToXiTLKov SiKaiov are 
 one and the same appears not only from other consider- 
 ations but from the plural tovtoi^ in 11346 9 to Sc Bea- 
 iroTLKOv BUaiov kol to iraTpiKov (which might be much more 
 reasonably distinguished from one another but are treated 
 as one) ov tovtov tox'tois dAA.' ofioiov, where tovtois ap- 
 parently means to airXw^ and ttoXltlkov. 
 
 11346 5 SlO CTCpO) TTOVei- KOL BlO. TttVTa K.T.A.. 
 
 The conjecture ttouI is certainly wrong, as tovto or avro 
 would be needed with it. But the singular crcpo) can 
 hardly be right. The ruler does not labour for another 
 man. He labours for others, the whole community. 
 Soph. Ant. 736 a\Xw yap rj *iJL0L -^pri jxe T^aK ap^iiv ;(^ovds; 
 does not really mean any single individual. I am inclined 
 then to think that the dative singular in -wt has been con- 
 fused as elsewhere with the genitive plural in -a>v and that 
 we should read crcpov <€»'€Ka> ttovci. The letters of ei/cxa 
 being like those of trovd Kat, and tt a good deal resembling 
 and being sometimes confused with v, cvcKa might drop out 
 without much difficulty. 
 
 ib. 29-35 The sentences appear very confused in their 
 order and I will write them in the way in which T think 
 
16 NICOMAGHEAN ETHICS 
 
 they should stand. Trap' rffiZv 8' co-rt /xeV tl koI (ftvcreL, KivrjTov 
 fi€VTOL Trav. (fiva-eL yap r] Se^Lo. KpeiTTOiV. KaiTOL ei/8€;(CTai 
 Travras d/x<^t8c^i'ous yeveaOaL' koI ctti rail/ dWuiV 6 avTO<; 
 dpfiO(T€L oiopicr/xos' TTolov 8e (f)va€L ToJv €vS€)(0/xivo)V /cat aA,Xo)s 
 
 €;(€IV Kttt TTOtOV 01) dWd VOfJiLKOV Koi (TVvOrJKYjj CtTTCp dfXffiU) 
 
 Kiv-qra o/JiOLuys, dSrjXov (so Paley for SrjXov)- dA,V op,(i)S ccTTt 
 TO />l£V <f>v(reL, TO 8' ou ^vo-ci. 
 
 11356 2 a/covo-ioi/ is certainly impossible here. It must 
 be due either to a jingle with iKovcrcov preceding or to 
 oLKova-Lov two lines above. Cf. ahUov for dvia-ov in 1134a 7 
 (above), due to dSLKta, and d8tKtas for KaKtas in 1138a 34, 
 due to d8iKeti/ and d8t/cias in the context. 
 
 i6. 33 Should not the difficulty about 6 8' eTrtySouXcvVas 
 ©{•K dyvo€L be removed by putting it after 6 8* oil in the next 
 line 1 
 
 1136<x 13 Aristotle's own words seem clearly to imply 
 that there was something in the passage of Euripides 
 about being wronged (d8iK€to-^at) with your own consent. 
 The verses quoted only ask whether a woman was killed 
 with her own consent, a very different thing and hardly 
 droTTOv at all, unless it was droTrov to seem to suggest that 
 as the most likely alternative. But there is nothing in 
 the lines themselves to indicate any error. 
 
 The opportunity may be taken to protest against the 
 almost universal practice of translating droiros by absurd. 
 droTTo^ does not mean absurd at all : it means strange, odd. 
 Here for instance that is the obvious sense and Aristotle 
 is not taxing Euripides with ' speaking absurdly.' 
 
 1136b 26 dec, which Rassow would strike out as the 
 miswriting of an unnecessary d8t/cet, may belong to the 
 next sentence. It might stand after ov ydp, or before or 
 after dSiKeL. 
 
 1137a 2 €t Tts jxipia-airo tov d8iKyjfjLaTo<s, i.e. get a share of 
 the thing about which or for the sake of which the wrong 
 was done. For this sense of dSUrjixa cf. Plat. Bep. 365 e 
 dSiKTOTeov KOL Ovreov drro twv dSiKrifxaTtov and Laws 906 D dv 
 aurots Twv dSLKrjfxaTdiv ns dTTOTC/xr) : Lys. 27. 6 /xepct twv 
 
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 17 
 
 ahiK-qixaTUiv rov klvBvvov i^errptavTo : Julian Misop. 354 D 
 
 KOCVWJ/€tV l^OV fM€T CUl/OlttS TWV aSiKrjfXOLTOiV '. Heliod. 10. 37 
 
 ov)( o aSLKyaas dA.A.' 6 to d8tKr;/i,a £;(cov ctTroStSoi/ai StKaio?. Eur. 
 Jo?^. 325 dSiKYj/xd Tov ywatKos lyevofx-qv is partly similar. 
 Problems 29. 14. 1 SittAow t^s d^^tas toG KXe/x/xarog. In 
 Latin too furtum is used of a thing stolen. 
 
 ib. 26 Should wSt be <J)8l Ixo^^^a '^ C)f. however 2. 4. 
 11056 8 where ovtu) similarly stands for ovtw^ exotv. 
 
 In the next line is not the second iv tov'tois an erron- 
 eous repetition of the first 1 Cf . the second Sio-irep koX to 
 dSiKCtv irdv eKOvcriov in 1136a 17. 
 
 1138a 6 ov Kekevei aTroKTLWvvat iavTov 6 vofxos' a Se fxij 
 K€\€V€L, oiTrayopeveL. 
 
 This statement will be to some extent less strange, if 
 we realise that ov or fxr] KeXeveL means ' does not explicitly 
 permit.' Thus in Herod. 3. 31 Cambyses asks ct tis cort 
 
 K€\€VO)V VOfJiOS TOV /BovkofXiVOV dBeX.<f>€rj CrVVOLK€€iV, where TOV 
 
 /ioyXo/xevov makes the meaning perfectly plain. Cf. Thuc. 
 1. 26. 1 OLKrjTOpa TOV fSovkofxevov Uvat KcA-cuoi/res : [Xen.] 
 a. A. 2. 18 IhCa. Se K€\(.vov(Ti {KbifJiOihiZv^ €t rt's tlvo. /SovAerai : 
 Lys. 1. 49 : i)em. 48. 10 : Plut. Solon 23 (end). Dem. 
 23. 35 ovK Iv Ty rjfxeSaTry dyeiv kcA-cuovtcdv twv vofioiv (cf. 
 § 60) is another clear instance. See also 40. 59. When 
 the prison- warder in Phaedo 59 e iKtXevaev r}p.d<; cio-tcVat 
 bade us enter, he may very well have said cto-irc, but it 
 was only a ' permissive imperative ' and meant ' you can 
 come in, if you like,' similar to 'by all means do so,' &c., 
 just as in Chaucer's Clerk of Oxford's Tale, 742, the pope 
 
 Bad him to wed another, if hym leste. 
 
 Indeed in English ' I told him to do it if he liked ' etc. 
 is extremely common. In Latin too iubeo is so used. 
 
 No doubt it is still to us a surprising statement, that 
 the laws forbid whatever they do not expressly sanction ; 
 but this position has certainly sometimes been taken up by 
 persons in authority. In January 1848 for instance the 
 French Minister of Justice declared from the tribune that 
 every act not expressly permitted by the charter was 
 thereby forbidden (Ashley's Palmer ston i. 72). In Dem. 
 
 c 
 
18 NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 22. 5 lyio 8* avTo . . . St^ttov I find the argument very 
 obscure, but cttci . . . Siyirov appear to mean precisely 
 what I am supposing in Aristotle, and kcXcvovo-lv ol v6/xoi 
 may be ' the laws permit ' (so Kennedy). 
 
 ib. 22 <6> auTos 8' avrov 1 
 
 11386 7 ov TTttv 8c SUaiov evidently does not mean 'not 
 every kind of justice' (as e.g. in 11426 18), but 'not 
 justice proper, not justice in the full sense.' This is in 
 any case an unusual use of ttSs, but I think <To>7rav would 
 make it easier, to follows with the contrasted words. 
 
 Book VI 
 
 11386 25 The /xev with to elnelv here and that with 8ia 
 ravra in 1139a 24 are quite superfluous, if not entirely 
 unmeaning, and have nothing corresponding to them. We 
 might be tempted to think that they were accidental 
 anticipations by a copyist of a jxev immediately or closely 
 following, were it not that in this same book there are at 
 least two other apparently meaningless uses of /xcv, 1142a 
 25 and 1143a 29, where no Be follows. The explanation 
 need not of course be the same in all four cases. 
 Cf. 7. 5. 1149a 12, 13 with a doubtful double fxev. 
 
 1139a 29 I do not see how By water can be right — and 
 Burnet practically follows him — in making tovto yap . . . 
 ipyov a parenthesis. The next words, tov Se rrpaKTiKov k.t.A., 
 are continued from and opposed to Travros SiavorjTLKov, and this 
 is inconsistent with the latter being parenthetic. Also, if 
 TOV 8e TrpaKTLKOV K.T.X. went back to T^9 Be Oe(opr]TiK7J<s . . . 
 ^ev8o<s, it should contain something corresponding to if/evSos 
 in its own case. 
 
 11396 5 Omit rj before TOLavrrjl avOpoiiros must be the 
 subject. 
 
 ib. 10 Nauck {Trag. Gr. Fr. p. 764) cites Blaydes' 
 conjecture /xovov Be tovtov for /xovov yap avrov, and certainly 
 avTov referring to something only stated in the following 
 line is very unusual. We may compare Eur. Tro. 667 
 
mCOMACHEAN ETHICS 19 
 
 dTrtTTTuo-' auTi^v rjTL<; k.t.X., where curiously enough Nauck 
 bracketed the couplet, apparently on other grounds. 
 
 ih. 15 Perhaps readers do not always understand 
 sufficiently the exact force of aX-qOtvuv here and elsewhere 
 and the exact relation to truth in which therefore the 
 five intellectual states stand. aX-qOivta does not refer at all 
 to discovering, ascertaining truth. It means either saying 
 something true or being in possession of the truth, in a 
 * true ' state of mind. The five c^cts may be said akrjdivnv, 
 as here, to) Kara^avat 17 airof^avai, or in the second sense as 
 being in the possession of truth. But not one of the five 
 is spoken of in this book as ascertaining it. Of iTna-Trjfjiri 
 this is obviously true. It is a certain state or attitude of 
 mind towards a certain kind of already ascertained truth. 
 But each of the other four is a corresponding state of mind 
 about another kind of truth, rexvi] is as much a ' true ' 
 state of mind as iTna-r-qfxr) or <^p6vri(Tiq. So in the famous 
 statement (1141ft 7), found also at the end of the Posterior 
 Analytics, vovv eivai riav ap^dv ', here at any rate vovs is 
 affirmed to be the way of holding the ap-)(at, our mental 
 attitude towards them as ascertained, and nothing is here 
 implied as to how we get them. 
 
 ib. 29 The Kat before tov Kadokov (reading dpxv) is a 
 difficulty and I cannot feel satisfied with Burnet's explan- 
 ation of it. May one conjecture that it should stand 
 before rj fxev S-q "? 8?; will not be a particle of connexion, but 
 ft€v 8>7 will go together. 
 
 1141a 6 <Ta>Tpia1 
 
 ib. 10 We badly want a ^a/xcv or a kiyovres with otov 
 ^€i8tav K.T.X. Cf. however the imperfect phrasing of 1143a 
 19, 20 and 27, 28 and of 11446 5, 6. 
 
 11416 22 €tr; 8' av Tt? koL ivravOa apxyr^KTOvuirf is very 
 evidently out of its proper place. Kat ivravOa implies that 
 some other apxynKToviKri has been already mentioned. That 
 is not the case, and the reference is clearly to the one 
 which occurs two lines later, tl-q 8* av koX ivravOa must 
 apply to 71 TTtpX avTov KoX €va <f>p6v7)(rL<s in 30, and the words 
 
 c 2 
 
20 FICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 should perhaps follow ha there ; they might also stand at 
 the end of 34 after Sia<^opav iroXk-qv. A few lines earlier 
 another group of six words is out of its place. koX iv rots 
 aXAois 01 efiTretpoL makes no sense where it is and should 
 follow TTOLT^a-et fiaWov in 21. rots aA,A.ots means all other 
 cases like that taken in 18-20. With ol eixireLpoL supply- 
 either something vague from TroiT^crct fxaWov or irpaK- 
 
 TtKWTepOt. 
 
 1142fl^ 10 TToXiTcias should be 7ro\iTLKyj<i, as in 1141& 23 
 and 32. The Paraphrast uses ttoXltlk-^, and TroAiTcta is not 
 appropriate here. Cf. on 10. 9. 11816 14. 
 
 ib. 21 This sentence may possibly belong to Ch. 9. 11426 
 17-31. 
 
 ib. 31 Rassow is right in demurring to to ^rjrelv . . . 
 icrrtv. It is 8et Se k.t.\. which should begin the chapter, 
 TO ^yjTelv . . . iarrtv may stand very well four lines below 
 after A.oyt^€Tai. In spite of Bywater's contention in his 
 note on Poetics 14576 111 think ti qualifies ^rjTeiv and is 
 not its object Hence the words are much in place where 
 
 I would put them. 
 
 11426 7 6 fxkv KaKws jSovkcvo/xevos afxapravu, o 8' cv 6p6^<s 
 ^ovXiViTat. 
 
 So tautologous a statement as that 6 ev (jSovXevofievo^) 
 6p6(o<s fBovXtverai cannot surely have been intended. 
 dfiapraveL is no parallel, for it probably means goes wrong 
 in action. Is not /SovAcvcrat one of those words repeated or 
 anticipated from the context and taking the place of the 
 word really meant 1 Cf. on 5. 8. 11356 2. I conjecture 
 that we should read 6p6u)<s ttpolttcl. 
 
 ib. 19 o irpoTLOirai hiiv <7rotctv>'? Cf. Set irovfjcraL in 23. 
 dKpar^s can hardly be right. 
 
 1143a 12 After o-wco-ts put a comma only. The Io-ti of 
 
 I I is carried on with dXA.' . . . ovtws iv t(3 xPW^"-'- 
 
 ib. 20 Should not yvw/xyv be a-vyyviofxrjv'i yvwfJLrjv KaO^ 
 ■^v . . . ^x^iv (fiOLfikv yv(jifX7)v does not mean much, and the 
 whole section favours the change. 
 
NICOMAGHEAN ETHICS 21 
 
 11436 28 €1 he fXY) TOVTWV X^P^^ (ftpOVLflOV pY)T€OV (OeT€Ov) 
 
 dXAa Tov yLvea-Oai, rots ovai cnrovSaioLS ovdkv av etrj xRV^^^h-oq 
 {i.e. tj (ftpovrjaLs:)' tri 8' ovSc toZ's p.y] e)(OV(TLV. 
 
 If these words and those following stand as the author 
 wrote them, they are singularly ill written and conceived. 
 rovTwv x^P^^ ^^^ ^"^^y ™6sin with a view to this {i.e. in- 
 tellectual perception of moral truths), not on account of 
 this, because (1) tov yivea-dai requires this sense, (2) in 
 Aristotle X'^P'-^ probably never means on account of, by 
 reason of Oeriov cannot be right (' we should make a 
 man wise'), if only because this use of rt^eVat = Trotctv is 
 almost wholly poetical and is not Aristotelian. But 
 <f>p6vLiJiov p-qriov makes no sense in the context unless we 
 force it into meaning 'say that a man should be wise,' 
 which is more than the words will bear. From the be- 
 ginning of the chapter we might suppose that yivio-dat 
 meant tvhaCp,ova yivecrOaL, but close examination shows that, 
 as the Greek commentators explain, it must mean anrovSoLov 
 yivea-OaL or something like that. Then again rots fxr) exovcri 
 corresponds very badly to rots ovai airovSaLOLs, but here 
 again it is clear that we have with Eustratius to under- 
 stand dper-qv (certainly not fjipovqcriv) with exova-iv. Cf. 
 11446 5, 6. As another Aristotelian work tells us, dper-^ 
 the substantive and o-7rov8atos the adjective go together. 
 Wisdom {<f>p6vr](TLs) then is of no use to the o-TrovSatoi, those 
 in possession of moral excellence, because they already 
 have all that is wanted. The writer adds that it is also of no 
 use to those who are without virtue, and from lines 22-28 
 we should expect him to give as a reason for this that the 
 mere intellectual apprehension will not make them act 
 virtuously. Instead of this he gives the unexpected 
 reason that they can be guided by the wisdom of someone 
 else, forgetting that, if they are without virtue, they will 
 not wOint to be guided into virtuous action at all. 
 
 But my main reasons for dwelling on the shortcomings 
 of this passage is that I think <f}p6vL/xov p-qriov (or deriov) is 
 not what the author wrote. All through this chapter he 
 is speaking of <j)p6vrj(Ti<;, not of 6 ^povip-os. ^pdvi/xos does 
 not otherwise appear till 1144a 27, and I think only twice 
 in Ch. 13. It seems likely that ^pdvi/xos here is a mistake 
 for another word of similar termination and that we 
 
22 NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 should read xPW'-H'^^y ^^ i^ 1^ ^^^ 29, with <f}p6vr}(TLv 
 understood as the subject. ' If anyone says we are to call 
 it useful €V€Ka Tov yLvearOaL, it may be answered that it is 
 not really useful either to those who already have or to 
 those who have not a virtuous c^ts.' 
 
 The meaning of iroLova-a in 35 is certainly obscure. I do 
 not feel sure that Trotovo-t (twice) in 1144a. 3 helps us or 
 that it is general in meaning. One might naturally under- 
 stand the words to mean rj Trotovara (eKaa-rov) apx^L /cat 
 ■liTLTaTTei TTcpl c/cacTToi/, and this is much supported by 
 1145a 8 where we read ov XPV^^'- {<l>p6vr)cri<i) avrrj (i.e. 
 <ro^ia) dA.\' bpa. ottcds yivrjrai (or in other words iroul 
 fivTrjv iy cKciVrys ovv cveKa eTrtTarTet, dAA.' ovk iKeivr). 
 
 1144a 18 ea-TLv ouTcos (for to ttws) e^ovra TrpctTTCiv (ocrre 
 
 K.T.X. ? Or OVTiO TTWS 1 
 
 TTOis . . wcTTc is a somewhat odd combination ; and, though 
 ecTTL with an infinitive is extremely common, to is seldom 
 if ever added. [In Heylbut's Eustratius here (p. 391. 45) 
 TTpaTTeLv is presumably a misprint for TrpdrTci.] 
 
 1144& 10 What is the point here of ttX-^v but, only 1 
 
 ib. 13 7} 8' c^is ojxoia oScra tot co-rat /cuptws ap^Trj. 
 
 Previously it has only been something like virtue ; now 
 it will be virtue in. the full sense of the word, op-otos, KaO' 
 ofxoLOT-qTa, etc. are markedly common in the Ethics (see on 
 8. 3. 11566 19) in this sort of use, applied to something 
 which is not strictly and properly what it is often called, 
 something which is not hUatov or <^tAta or avSpeia proper, 
 ovo-a does not refer to the same time as co-rat, but to time 
 previous. Cf. 9. 1. 1164a 5 Trporepov iirayyeWofJiCvos iravTa 
 vvv ovhlv cTTtrcXet. Such a use is most frequent in poetry 
 (often in irapoiv having been ^present) and Euripides has 
 many examples, e.g. H.F. 1236 cyw 8c Trdcx^v cv tot 
 oLKTetpu) o-e vvv, Med. 1329 vvv ffipovOi tot ov <j>pov(iiv. We 
 may call it a participle, as ctvat etc. are often infinitives, 
 of the imperfect tense. 
 
 6p,oia ovo-a then does not refer to the illustration just 
 preceding. 
 
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 23 
 
 Book YII 
 
 11456 1 ouT€ yap a)s Trcpt toji' avruiv c^ewv T^ aptrrj koX rrj 
 ^o\6r}pia cKarepav aurwv vTroXyjirreov ovO* w? trepov yei/o?. 
 
 The irregularity of construction in this has of course 
 been noticed. The worst of it may be easily removed by 
 reading cKarepas. We then get thoroughly idiomatic 
 Greek, by which the preposition (Trcpt) is put into the 
 clause with to? or loa-mp and not with the case primarily 
 dependent on it. In full it would be here Trepl c/carcpas 
 0)9 (TTcpi) Ttov avToiv e^ettiv, but the idiomatic phrase is w? 
 irtpi Tu)v avToiv . . . cKarepa^. This is quite common, and 
 in Aristotle Bhet. 2. 18. 13916 17 may be cited, ^cnrep yap 
 Trpos KpiTTjV Tov Biiiipov 6 A.oyos (TvvecTTrjKeVy t.B. Trpo? tov Oeiopbv 
 oiCTTTip (irpb^) KpirrjV. 
 
 (OS €T€pov yeVos need not be changed to a genitive : 
 Aristotle shifts, as often, to another construction, but 
 much less awkwardly than with kKaripav. 
 
 ih. 12-14 Read irpaTTfiv and aKovKovd^lv^ dependent on 
 SoKet. The whole of §§6, 7 gives what various people 
 think or say. Without a on no statement of fact in 
 the indicative is possible. 11526 12-24 is not parallel, for 
 the oTL there in 13 practically goes on with the succeeding 
 clauses : cf. 21, 22. The confusion of -« and -ctv in verbs 
 is not uncommon; cf. for instance 11106 10, where K** 
 has dvayfca^et, though for the same reason as here the 
 infinitive is required. The Paraphrast had perhaps infini- 
 tives before him. 
 
 ih. 28 Here and in 1107a 32 there is no sufficient 
 ground for doubting 8eW = 8€t. It occurs in Hyperid. 
 Epitaph. 39 d hiov ilirdv (cf. Dem. (%) Phil. 4. 19 ; 01. 
 3. 1 seems different) and becomes commoner in later Greek. 
 Without reckoning several cases of Trpoo^/cov and l^6v 
 which might be errors for irpoaijKiv and k^v, we have in 
 Thuc. 3. 44. 2 ct /x^ ^/xcfiepov and 59. 2 ws Trpiirov. Aris- 
 totle himself has xp^wv several times. 
 
24 NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 1146a 8 The tc of M^ seems to me better than ye. On 
 the other hand in 1147a 8 I would accept Coraes' Kara ye 
 hr] TOVTOv<;, 
 
 Is Toiv yap i(rxo.TOiv tis (6 ^povt/Aos) right 1 In Book 6 
 an abstract substantive like ^povrjo-i^ or vovq is thus con- 
 structed several times with a genitive {e.g. 1142a 26 
 <f>p6vy](TL<i is Tov i(Txa.Tov. Of. 1141a 7, 11416 14, etc.), but 
 not, I think, 6 (f>p6vLfjio<i or anything like it. I am inclined 
 to suggest Toiv yap ctr^aTODV rj e^ts or twv yap icrxo-Tiov Tts 
 l^ts. Anon, has here 7} yap (f)p6vr]crL<s avTiXyjirTiK-^ tls iari 
 T<x)v i(rxoiT(ov which supports rts but not 6 <f>p6vLfjios as the 
 subject, or perhaps suggests a missing adjective. 
 
 ib. 23 tva SetvoL wariv orav iTnTvxwcnv. 
 
 For this rather odd use of <oori = Sokwo-i be thought cf. 
 Eur. Hipp. 700 el 8' iv y e-n-pa^a, Kapr av iv (roffiOLaiv rjv : 
 Thuc. 3. 42. 4 Trctcras tc VTroirTO<i yiyvcrat koX firj tv)(wv jxeTa 
 d^wecrtas Kal aSiKos : Plat. JRep. 426 C aya66<; re co-rat dvrjp Kal 
 crocf)6<; . . . Kal rip,r](r€Tai viro (r<f)5)V : Lucian 9. 13 o-kottt^- 
 (TOfxaL Kal SiKaca taojxat (in my own judgment) ttcttov^ws. 
 Antiphon Tetral. 2. 3. 10 and twice elsewhere has ^ovca 
 clvai =' being held, being by law, a murderer.' Tac. Dial. 
 36 cum . . . orator saperet ' was deemed wise ' : luv. 
 6. 628 iamdudum . . . fas est 'has been deemed proper.' 
 
 In the next line the aorist participle yevd/x,cvos puzzles 
 me and should, I think, be present : ' the argument which 
 is constructed or which follows ' (o-u/xySatVet 27). ytvo/xcvos 
 and ytVerai naturally go together. Should we read ytvd/xtvos 
 for \j/€vS6iJ.ivo<s in 22, or does {(/. represent nothing? Cf. 
 11576 34 etc. 
 
 With SeSerat . . . tov \6yov cf. Hume's Inquiry con- 
 cerning Human Understanding, note N, 'that all his 
 (Berkeley's) arguments . . . are in reality merely sceptical 
 appears from this, that they admit of no answer and 
 produce no conviction..^ 
 
 1147a 14 aXKa fx-qv ... ye is a regular phrase, used by 
 Plato and Aristotle, and I suspect we should here put the 
 ye after ovtw or possibly after StaTtOevTai. 
 
 1147a 33 evepyet should undoubtedly be ivepyfj. It 
 cannot be an independent parenthetic statement of fact, 
 
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 25 
 
 for that is not appropriate here. The particular premise 
 is not always actively present in the mind, and Aristotle is 
 only putting the supposition of its being so in a given 
 case, just as in ev^ and rvxxi- 
 
 An even worse case of the same mistake occurs in a 
 similar passage, Eur. Bacchae 311 yv SoKfj<: fiiv, rj 8e So^a 
 crov voo-ct, for so the MSS. have it and so several editors 
 (Tyrrell, Sandys) still give it. The case is worse, because 
 fiiv and 8c make it plainer that the two verbs go together 
 and that a subjunctive is necessary. 
 
 In Lysias 10. 9 and Anthol. Pal. 7. 694. 1 will be found 
 real parenthetic indicatives, which are very different. 
 Hippocr. de Vet. Med. \0 rjv apia-Tav iJi€fia6Y)Kw<i ns — Kttt 
 ovTit)^ avTw (Tvix<f>epov yv — fxr] apiCTTrjcrrj is difficult, for 
 (TVjXf^ipov ^v is odd of an imaginary case introduced by 
 iqv ; but it is clear that Kat • . . ^ would be impossible, 
 because there is no preceding subjunctive after y^v for 
 KOLL ... Tj to follow on. I take koX ot;TO)s k.t.X. as tanta- 
 mount to KoX 6(i)jj.ev OTL ouTo)s avTio (rvix<f>€pov ^v, and ^v 
 as referring to the previous time implied in fx€fjLa67}K(i)<s 
 accustomed. 
 
 11476 17 €iSoTa may be due to elBora following and stand 
 for eiSoros or ciScVai. 
 
 ib. 33 Should to be ti ^ " The various possibilities {xPV' 
 fxaTtovj TLfx^s, OvfjLov) mako tl natural, though not necessary. 
 
 1148a 7 I certainly think that ra ^irpia (19) or some- 
 thing similar must be inserted (Rassow) with Tuiv Xv7rrjpu)v. 
 Excessive pain is a thing we need only resolve to undergo 
 (and not avoid) in rare cases, whereas Aristotle is speaking 
 not of rare cases but of ordinary life, in which avoiding 
 great pain is assuredly no evidence of aKpacria or weakness. 
 
 ib. 29 77 KparovvTUL 17 Skokovoti k.t.X. implies a difference 
 between the two things which does not exist, to Kparela-Oai 
 appears in the very fact of to Siojkciv, and to huoKnv is 
 only distinguished from KpaTeto-^ai,4f at all, by opportunity. 
 Perhaps then the second ^ should be kul and the first is a 
 dittograph of v (H N) in Xoyov. 
 
26 NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 11486 29 yj T(i)v a<f)poBi(TLO}v ■<6/xtA.ta> or <.(rvvov(rid> toi? 
 iJppco-iv. Cf. Pol 2. 9. 12696 29; De. Gen. An. 1. 18. 
 7236 33; Plat. Sympos. 192 c. Without some such word 
 the sense is not clear. 
 
 1149a 2 <iJir)> Kparelv rj Kpardcrdai, a distinction more or 
 less like that in 1150a 34, 35"? Otherwise we have very 
 harshly to supply cyKparcia KaC in our minds before 
 oLKpaa-La. Cf. however 12, 13, 15 where KpaTeicrOai alone 
 is opposed to €;(£tv. 
 
 ih. 4 Tov ttolOov'; aKpar^, <d7rXa)S> 8' ovi Cf. 11526 31. 
 
 1 1 50a 6 TO) for to '? So in 3 ofxoiov oicnrep. Cf . on 
 1107a 18. 
 
 ih. 11 ovK at i\Xeiij/eL<s, strictly speaking, hardly makes 
 sense here, for what is the sense of saying that some 
 pleasures are necessary up to a certain point, but not 
 beyond it nor short of it ? It seems however to be a con- 
 fused way of saying that both these possibilities are faulty. 
 
 11506 2 If an infinitive is missing, as seems probable, 
 with Bvvavr ai, it may well be avrex^iv. Cf. BvvavTaL 
 ai/T€;(€iv in 12. 
 
 ib. 22 wcTTrep 7rpoyapya\L(TavT€<s ov yapyaXi^ovrai, ovto) kol 
 TrpoaLaOofievoL kol Trpo'i86vTe<s kol -TrpoeyetpavTCs eavrous Kat rbv 
 XoycafJibv ov;^ rjTTiJiiVTaL vtto tov 7rdOov<s. 
 
 It has been a question whether iavTov<s or aXAovs is to be 
 understood as the object of irpoyapyakla-avTeq. Neither 
 really makes very good sense in itself, and there is the 
 further objection that the illustration is not properly 
 adapted to the subject. TrpoyapyaXia-aL does not correspond 
 clearly enough to TrpoataSea-OaL etc. Observing this and 
 taking into account Problems 35. 6. 965a 11 8ta rt auro? 
 avTov ovOcls yapyaXi^u; r} otl kol vtt aXXov rJTTov, iav 
 TrpoaicrOrjTaL, /xaXXov 8' av fJirj bpa- waB^ rJKLCTTa yapyaXtaOrja-tTaL 
 oTav fi-T] XavOavrj tovto 7ra<r;(0)v, I cannot help thinking Trpo- 
 yapyaXtaavTe'i is a mistake for some other word more nearly 
 resembling TrpoataOofxevot. or Trpo'iSovTcs. That is to say, the 
 true word has been altered under the influence of yapyaX- 
 t^ovTai. Cf. on 5. 8. 11356 2. 
 
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 27 
 
 So in 11516 20 I think that koKov has been written for 
 yjhv because of KaXrjv preceding, rjhv is essential to the 
 sense, and, if we do not substitute it for KaXov, it must be 
 added in some such form as Kakov ov rj^v rjv. E-arasauer 
 r]hv ov KaXov rjv^ but koKov is not in the least necessary here. 
 
 11516 17 Was something now lost said here about the 
 Afiadiis and aypoiKOL of 13? /xeV there and the account 
 given of the ISioyvdifjLovc'; suggests it. 
 
 ib. 24 I do not think rj toiovto^ would be as unmeaning 
 as Bywater suggests. Might it not enforce the point that 
 this man too ovk ifx/xevei t<3 Xoyw, but for another reason 1 
 ovK ifjiixiviov T(a Aoyw' alone seems imperfect. But possibly 
 6 represents not fj but on, tl having been lost before 
 Toi. Cf. my suggestion on Plato Bep. 592 b {Platonica 
 p. 147). 
 
 1152a 6-15 This passage would be greatly improved by 
 transposing tov Sc Scivdv . . . Kara rrjv Trpoaipeaiv to stand 
 after SeSciKxat oV in 8. The change brings ovSk Br] ws k.t.X. 
 to follow immediately on 6 8' aKparr]^ ov <jip6vLixo<s to its own 
 great advantage without the awkwardly placed parenthesis 
 or interposed remark between the two. 
 
 T<3 TrpaKTtKos without €tvat seems hardly possible ; but cf. 
 11536 2, 3, if that is right. 
 
 ib. 20 €Ot/c€ hr) 6 (TTTOuSatos 7roA.€t ^ ij/7]<fiL^€TaL fJikv airoLVTa to. 
 Seovra kol vo/movs ^xeL (nrovBaiovs, xprjxai Se ovStV, tocnrep 
 'Ava^av8pt'8r;s e(TK(i)il/€V, 
 
 Y] TToAts i^ovXeO* y vo/awv ov^ev iieX.€L. 
 
 Editors and translators seem to take this quotation as 
 complete. It is not so and the whole, given or re- 
 membered, had much more point than appears at present. 
 Anonymus in his commentary tells us 'Ava^avSptS?;? . . . 
 dTrocrKWTrTOJV 7roA.iv two. . . . itirev rj Tro'Ats rj ovSkv jxekei roiv 
 vojxiov Tiov ayaOiav r)(3ovk€TO vofxovf; ex^tv ayaOovs kol if/rjifii- 
 cTfiaTa dya^a iJ/r]<f>i^€(rOai. The verses therefore, two at least, 
 must have run in some such form (say) as 
 
 VO/tOVS T€ KOL lf/r)<fil<TfJia6i' WS KttA.AtCrT' €;(€«/ 
 
 17 TToAis i^ovXid* y vofJLwv ovB^v fiiX.€i. 
 
28 NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 It is curious how often verses quoted in the Ethics are 
 imperfect (11536 28, 1142a 2 foil.) and this is a case in 
 point. To the places, cited by Nauck on Eur. Frag. 
 920, in which tj vofxwv ovSev /Ae'Act is used, may now be 
 added Menander Epitr. 583. 
 
 The same Anonymus shows that in the quotation at 
 32, ^>7/xt TToXvxpovLov K.T.X., the subject of €/x€vat is c^os 
 and TT. /jLcXeTrjv is the predicate. This also seems to have 
 escaped some interpreters. Cf. Nauck dSco-Tr. 516 fieXerr} 
 ypovLo-dilcr cts cf>v(rLv KaOia-TaTai. 
 
 1153<x 12 ayoixevoiv is perhaps a corruption of ayova-atv, 
 due to yLvofjL€vo)v and -^pwfxivinv preceding, as in Thuc. 8. 7 
 I have conjectured iTretyo/xevioif to be due to eTriytyvo/xcVov. 
 Cf. on Fol. 1271a 3 and 1325a 39. 
 
 11536 6 <Kat> Tw iXdTTovLl Cf. 1173a 8. 
 
 1154a 1 The argument seems to require el fx-r] rj rjSovr] 
 ayaOov kol t) ivipyeia <y)hovr}>. It is made up of three 
 steps. ^vSaL/xovia consists in ivepyeia : ivepyeua is or gives 
 rjSovT^ : rjSov^ must be good. 
 
 ib. 24 orav evXoyov (fiavrj to Slol tl ^atvcrai aXrjOh ovk 
 ov aXrjdes. 
 
 This Greek involves our taking tl in Sia tl as though 
 it were the relative pronoun o, when the cause, or reason, 
 seems a platisible one. But to the best of my belief 
 (to) Sua Tl and (to) Slotl in Aristotle never loses its 
 direct or indirect interrogative force. It always depends 
 on such words, expressed or understood, as Xiyeiv, dwo- 
 SeLKVvvaL, dSevaL, ^rjTelv, SrjXov. He would not say the 
 8ia TL of a phenomenon was so and so, but the oltlov. 
 Nor could it very well be otherwise without complete 
 confusion of tl<s and 6<s, of which indeed there are a 
 few traces, but hardly in Aristotle. In Eth. Eud. 7. 1 
 12356 15 we find orav evXoyws f^aivqTai to. ivavTia SoKovvTa, 
 where evAoycus must be taken with Sokovvtu, not with 
 <f)aLvr]Tai. In our passage evX6yoi<s ^av^ might perhaps 
 stand for when we have made out plausibly why etc., 
 though analogy to the Eudemian words would require 
 tvAoyws ^atverai a.XrjOis'i 
 
NICOMAGHEAN ETHICS 29 
 
 11546 4 Has rcves for rivas ever been suggested 1 
 It seems clear that 8tj/^as must be understood literally. 
 I cannot think that the writer would then stop to dis- 
 tinguish carefully two sorts of artificially produced thirst ; 
 dy8Aa/3€ts and ^avtpas must therefore refer back to the 
 cr<f>o8poL TjSovaL of 2 (dySAaySi^s is used elsewhere of 
 pleasure), and, that being so, ^avepai, for which there is 
 some evidence, is required. The sentence stands awk- 
 wardly before the yap of 5, which ignores it and refers 
 to 2. 3. Perhaps something might be said for putting it 
 before avroi . . . Trapa(TK€vd^ov(TLV. 
 
 ih. 9 The editors do not explain satisfactorily how this 
 remark about youth and the pleasantness of it fits 
 the context. Something about effort and pain would be 
 more suitable to that. How can 6/xotws be justified? 
 
 1154a 31 — h 2 (koX ov . . . o-TTovSatat) is also very dis- 
 turbing to logical order. 
 
 ib. 30 Spengel's deletion of 6 before Trovrjpos ought to be 
 accepted (or 6 put before cv/AerdySoXos : cf. the variation 
 in Met. 1. 2. 9826 18). The predicate of ^ <^uo-ts tj 
 Beofxtvrj ix€Ta^oX.rjs is evidently Trovrjpd, and the previous 
 statement should be that a changeable man is faulty : that 
 follows naturally on 8ia novrjpCav rtvd. So Anon, under- 
 stood it. 
 
 Book VIII 
 
 1155a 14 jSorjOel seems distinctly better in itself than 
 fiorjOeias : (1) it explains the datives veots and 7rpe(r/8i;T€pois, 
 which have otherwise no proper construction, and 
 (2) ftorjOeLas is quite superfluous and very cumbrous. 
 
 ib. 27 StKaiot 8' 6vT€<: irpoa-hiovTai <^iA.tas, koX t(ov SiKataav 
 TO fidXicrTa (fakiKOV elvai Sokcl. 
 
 tS)v SiKatwi/ TO jxaXia-Ta can hardly be, as Burnet says, 
 the completest justice in a general way. That would 
 surely be to fxaXtara St/catov. The genitive plural would 
 seem necessarily to refer to the various SUaia or kinds of 
 justice distinguished in Book V. But it cannot be equity. 
 
30 NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 for that would never have been mentioned so obscurely ; nor 
 again the ttoXitlkov SUaiov, SUaLov dirXws, because that is not 
 more but really less markedly (JuXlkov than the -n-arpLKov or 
 the oLKovo/jLLKov. Also it does not on any of the interpre- 
 tations seem very logical to say that besides justice men 
 need KJuXia too and the completest justice is cfuXcKov. The 
 more <^lXik6v it is, the less (fnXia as a distinct thing is 
 needed. Observe however in Eth. Eud. 7. 10. 1242a 11 
 IxdXiCTTa St/caiov to iv Tjj rwv xprjaL/xwv <f)LXt^ 8ia to tovt elvat 
 
 TO TToXtTLKOV BiKatOV. 
 
 Is there any good reason against joining to fxaXiaTa with 
 ^k-Xlkov and making twi/ SiK&twi/ masculine, running on from 
 StKaioL ? The Greek commentators take it the other way, 
 but we need not follow them. The general sense will then 
 be what is expressed three lines below by roi^s avTov? oiovTat 
 avSpa^ dyaOov<; cTvat koI <f>tXov^ and in 11566 24 by rj <f>LXia 
 iv TOUTOis {i.e. To7s dyaOoU) fidXta-Ta koI dpia-T-q, though of 
 course Sixaios is less wide in meaning than dyad6<s. Eth. 
 Eud. 7. 10. 1243a 34 ZiKaiofrvv-q <^iAik/;. In 1158a 4 we 
 have fxaXiCTTa (faXiKa (our very words) koL TroL-qTiKo. (ftiXtas. 
 The Kat in 28 may still leave something to be desired in 
 respect of clearness, but it is less strange than on the 
 other view. 
 
 So in 6. 11. 1143a 31 I incline to think tu)v dyadiov 
 masculine. If it V7ere neuter, we should have had to iin- 
 61KCS, not the plural. 
 
 11556 19 <t6> dyaOovl So Aspasius and the Paraphrast, 
 and logic calls for it. Cf. the articles in 21. 
 
 ib. 25 KfuXciv'^ cf. on 11456 12, though this is not, like 
 that, a clear case. 
 
 1156a 1 TovTo TO a^To is very dubious Greek for to avTo 
 TovTo. See my Aristophanes and Others p. 34. 
 
 *6. 16 rj <7roios TL<s> or <toio5tos> 6 (fiiXovfxepos Icttl sug- 
 gests itself. The Paraphrast uses TotovTos here ; iroiovs Tiva? 
 we have in 13. <dya^ds> might also stand here : cf. 
 11566 8. 
 
 In 17 I do not feel quite sure that oTdo-Trcp should not be 
 read for ocnrep. The sense is not the very man but jtist 
 the sort of man. 
 
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 31 
 
 ib. 24 should not Udva be Ufivo ? 
 
 11566 19 TToicra yap cfaXia St' ayadov iariv r) Sl rjhovrjv t/ 
 
 aTrX(0<S T] T(3 (jiLkoVVTL Koi Ka$ bfXOLOTTJTa TLva. 
 
 What seems conclusive against Ka6' o/xoLorrjTa meaning 
 by reason of similarity (as in 1139a 10) is, besides its use 
 in 1 1586 6 in the other sense, that the very existence of what 
 are called the avofjLOLoeiSeh ^i> tai is incompatible with this 
 translation. If they are possible, similarity cannot be a 
 requisite. The question as to similarity was raised in Ch. 1 
 but not decided, and, though in 9. 3. 11656 17 we read 
 etprjTai S' on rb b/xoiov Ttu ofxoiio cfiiXov, no such statement is 
 anywhere made, unless it be here. But even then it is one 
 thing to say to o/xolov ^lAov and another to say that noth- 
 ing else is, or at any rate that similarity is an essential 
 condition of every ^tA.ta. Perhaps we ought not to press 
 the point of family <j!>iXtai, that is f^iXiai between parents 
 and children etc., but it is plain that they again do not 
 require similarity of character. 
 
 Kat Ktt^' ofioLOTTjTa then should probably be taken as 
 going only with hi ySov^v and meaning that (faXia Sl 
 ■fjSov^v is not <f}iXia proper but only something like it. ravrrf 
 yap (or Sc) ofjLoia Kal ra Xolttol means the same thing ; with 
 Ta A.oi7ra we may or may not understand the definite word 
 ctSry. And, if this is so, ravTrj ofioioL ovtcs in 11576 3 must 
 almost certainly have the same meaning, Tavrrj referring 
 with a little awkwardness to line 31 preceding. Against 
 Tavry there meaning in this respect we may notice 
 incidentally that the two inferior or imperfect friends may 
 have different motives or grounds respectively and need not 
 therefore be i7i this respect alike, unless we make ravrrf 
 merely negative = not 8t' dya^o'v. The words in 1157a 32 
 dya^oj/ Ti Kal ofxoiov ri are to be interpreted in the same 
 way. 
 
 1157a 15 afxa T<3 crvfif^ipovn <A,r)yovTi>, as in 8—9, or 
 <7ravo/xevu) 1 We cannot understand StaXvo/xcVo), because the 
 word is inappropriate. 
 
 11576 26 It would seem as though dTrXws must be added 
 somehow to KJaXrjTov p.€v Kal alptrov. Aspasius apparently 
 had it ; at any rate he uses it himself. 
 
32 FICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 1158a- 27-36 There are two difficulties here. Let us 
 take first the second and more generally recognised of the 
 two, vTrepe^ovTL ov yiVcrat 6 tolovto^ (i.e. 6 anrovSaLos) <^tAos, 
 €av fxr) Kol rrj apfrfj vTTipixqTav et h\ /x-^, ovk icra^ct avdkoyov 
 VTrepexo/iievoq. Who is the subject of vTrepexrjTaL 1 The Greek 
 commentators say 6 vTrcpep^wv ; all recent editors who give 
 an opinion agree that is 6 a-rrovBalo^. To my mind there 
 can be no doubt that the former are right. First there is 
 the close analogy (still closer, if with Fritzsche we insert 6 
 before vTrepexo/xivos) of the opening words of Book 9, iv 
 Tracrats 8e rats avofxoioeLSecn ^lAtais to avdXoyov tcra^et /cat 
 <ra)^€t TTjv (fnXiav and of 11626 2-4. Besides this there are 
 three or four strong arguments in their favour. (1) It is 
 a reasonable principle for the o-TrovSaio? not to form a 
 friendship with someone who in an important respect is 
 decidedly superior to him, unless he has himself a counter- 
 balancing superiority of another kind. If he did, he would 
 be entirely at a disadvantage and in an inferior position, 
 disagreeable to his self-respect. Cf. vTrcpexofievo^ ^tAos 6 
 KoXa^ 1159(X 14. But there is really no reason apparent why 
 he should take up the very opposite position, not only 
 acquiescing in complete inferiority but requiring it as a sine 
 qua non. (2) Even if it is thought a reasonable position, 
 i;he phrase ovk la-d^eL dvaXoyov vTrepcxofJi-cvos is obscure and 
 difficult to adapt to the theory : its upholders do in fact 
 interpret the words differently and some (Jackson, Stewart) 
 very strangely. (3) If 6 o-TrouSatos is the subject and he 
 has the worst of it in both respects, the friendship is one 
 of those said to be €v virepoxQ- Yet we are immediately 
 told €t(ri S' ovv at elprjjxcvaL (fyikiaL iv iaoTTjTi, and it is not 
 till Ch. 9 that those KaO^ virepoxrjv or ev virepoxo ^^^ reached. 
 (4) There is no reason for saying that Aristotle would think 
 it possible for 6 o-7rov8atos to be surpassed in dper-^. He 
 must be thought of as possessing all the dperrj anyone can 
 well have. If a man is distinctly o-TrovSatos, Aristotle 
 draws no further distinctions, except in the case of rjpwLKr] 
 Kal Oeia dperrj (7. 1. 1145a 20). 
 
 On the subject in general the argument of the little 
 Plutarchian tractate Ilept rov on fxdXca-Ta rots rjyefMoarL Set 
 Tov <l)LX6a-ocf)Ov StaXiyea-Oai deserves to be considered. 
 
 In the Kat of idv kol rrj dperrj v7repexr]TaL there is no great 
 
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 33 
 
 difficulty. The superior is also an inferior. With an 
 explanation, ' he is also, in excellence, inferior.' ov rrdw 8' 
 duiOacTi TOLovTOL yivccrOaL is a little harder to deal with, but 
 oi TOLOVTOL may be either ol (nrovBoLOL (cf. 3. 11566 25 oXCyoL 
 yap ot TOLOVTOL, i.e. oL ayaOoi) or such pairs of friends. 
 
 The other difficulty presents itself a few lines above, 
 where ovt€ yap . . . to. KaXa is offered as some sort of 
 explanation or confirmation (yap im{)lies tliis) of the 
 statement that friends for pleasure and friends for business 
 purposes are kept distinct. Yet ovTe yap . . . KaXd makes 
 another and quite different point, that dpiTxi and ro Kakov 
 is not considered in either of these cases ; and then aXka 
 K.T.X. returns abruptly to the former one (javTa 8' ov irdw 
 yiVerat eV to) auToJ). To harmonise with 28—30 we might 
 have had ovtc yap lySets /xer' axj^eAeta? l^-qTovaiv ovtc )(^prj(TLixov<; 
 €is Tr)v YjSov^v. I cannot think of any transposition of 
 clauses, or other change, that would be quite satisfactory. 
 The sense would be much improved, if we had (say) after 
 Tois <f>L\oLs in 28 first ovre yap . . . KaXd, then aAAot 8k (for 
 yap) avTois . . . ov Trai'v, followed at once by dAAa tov^ 
 jxkv cvrpaTTcA-ovs (understanding ^-j^tovctii/) . . . Iv toJ avTw; 
 but of course this is by no means convincing. 
 
 11586 18 Either rj apeTrj and to epyov, or an article with 
 neither. In 19 the article is used. 
 
 1159a 15 It is difficult to believe in 17 Trpoo-Troictrai 
 ToiovTos without an elvai. Perhaps ^ Trpoa-iroLeiTaL <y' o> 
 tolovtos : cf. 1180a 32 etc. y 6 would easily be lost before 
 
 ib. 28 li/tat yap (some mothers) StSoaori to. kavToiv 
 Tpi<f)(.(r6aL. 
 
 8i8oao-t alone can hardly be right. Should we read 
 <aA.Aats> hihoaa-Ll Asp. and Par. both add oAAat? in 
 their versions. Or cVStSdao-t without aXkaL<i % 
 
 1160a 14-25 In this difficult passage Muretus' trans- 
 position of sentences seems to me to deserve very serious 
 consideration. He put o/Aotoos . . . Sry/Aorat after o-ui/ovcrias 
 in 20, and then IvLaL 8c . . . 8/;/xoTat (in its new place) 
 
 D 
 
34 NICOMAGHEAN ETHICS 
 
 after rov f^iov in 23, thus making Trotowrcs etc. agree 
 properly with ^vXcVat koX SrjfxoTai. With the nominatives 
 <!>. Kot 8. we easily understand Bl -^Sovtjv crvyycvovraL out 
 of 19. 
 
 Before diaa-oiroiv should we not insert olov ? 
 
 Soldiers are described in 17 as dre xp>7/>taTa)v eirc vt/cr/s 
 17 TToAeo)? op€yo/x.€j/ot, and editors are put to it to explain 
 7roA.£0)s. Colonisation, a siege, and so on are suggested. 
 I would rather think of ttoAcws <a(oTr)pLa<s>. That is by 
 no means tautology after vlkt], for, though you can hardly 
 secure it without victory of some sort, much fighting and 
 many victories have no reference to ttoAcojs a-wTrjpta, e.g. 
 the victories of a great conqueror. Cf. such passages as 
 Plato Prot. 354 B vyuiaLTC air avrCJv ytyvovTaL koI cvc^iai Tcor 
 
 (TWIXOLTOiV KOL TuJv TToXeWJ/ CTWTTypiat Kttt ttXAcov dp^^ttt Kat 
 
 ttXovtol : Laws 647 B rrjv iv to) TroXe/xu) VLKiqv koX cnoTrjptav : 
 Xen. Cyvop. 3. 3. 34 vlkt^v StSoaat Kat crwTrjpiai^ vTn(r)(yovvTai. 
 
 11606 7 In further illustration of KXrjpoiTog jSaa-tXev': 
 might be quoted Xen. Mem. 3. 9. 10. Socrates did not 
 think Tov<s KX-qpio Xaxovras real kings. In 3 ovSc for ov 
 would be idiomatic (ovhe yap Icttl /8ao-tAci;s). 
 
 1161a 8 eorrt 8e or yiVcrat 8e seems wanted before Kat ev 
 ats. Par. uses ytVcrat Se. 
 
 ih. 18 ravrdl So in 1164a 18 ravrd seems probable. 
 
 11616 18 The words would be much better if we 
 omitted ovra in 18 and n in 19. Cf. 20 and 29 : also 
 11346 11. Repetition accounts for the present text. 
 
 1163a 1 foil. I doubt By water's proposed 6 in 6, for rrjv 
 a^iav is too far off: but Kai w/xoXoyj^crev (or w/xoXoyrjcre 8') av 
 is pretty certainly to be read. The words that follow, 
 dBwarovvTa 8' ovB' 6 Sov<s Yj^Lioaev dv, do not (I think) mean 
 that the giver would not now expect him to repay. The 
 aorist indicative is incompatible with that. If it is 
 suggested that the giver has called upon him to do so, 
 not knowing his inability, the answer is that this would 
 require dBwarovvra 8' 6i8<os, not dBvvaTovvra simply. The real 
 meaning is that he would have promised repayment if the 
 
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 35 
 
 promise had been required, and the giver would never have 
 helped him, if he was not in a position to repay. €i8ois 
 might perhaps well have been added in this case too, but 
 it is much less necessary. The infinitive to be understood 
 after rjiiwa-ev is cuepyerciv (5) or axfjeXclv, unless we read 
 aSvvaTovvTL and understand Sovvai. This is roughly As- 
 pasius' interpretation. 
 
 In 4 ovSe 8l avTo tovto 8pu)VTo<i I suspect we should read 
 Sl avTov for his own sake, as in 1171a 19 etc. 
 
 ih. 32 As the participle follows the verb, we might 
 rather expect a-v/x^aXofxevoi. 
 
 Book IX 
 
 11646 7 TYjv avraTTo^oa-LV yivtcrOai <tt/v> SoKOvcrav, or rrjv 
 before hoKovaav only? 
 
 11656 13 In view of yivyjrai following and the aorists 
 in 8 and 10 I think we should read aTrohi^ryrai. 
 
 1166a 21 The point of tx^t yap koL vvv 6 ^cos rayaOov 
 seems to me frequently missed. It must be (whatever we 
 do with dW . . . ccTTtV) that a man has no more im- 
 mediate interest in the supposed new self than in the 
 existing personality of God. As he himself gains nothing 
 by God's being now in possession of absolute good, so he 
 would gain nothing if every possible good was given to a 
 new self that would no longer be he. Cf. Hazlitt On 
 Personal Identity in Winterslow, ' no man, if he had his 
 choice, would be the angel Gabriel to-morrow. What is 
 the angel Gabriel to him but a splendid vision 1 ' ; aud a 
 noticeable passage in the third Dialogue (p. 113 in Vol. 2, 
 1772) published by Mandeville with the Fable of the Bees. 
 With the doubt as to the reference of dA\' wv 6tl iror 
 toTiv compare the similar doubt about aXX orav txiaa-L 
 Ttt avToii/ in 5. 5. 11336 3. ycvd/Aci/os aA,A.os seems almost 
 a regular phrase; cf. Pol. 2. 2. 12616 5 locnrep av aAAot 
 y€v6fji€voL: Plato Phaedr. 241a twice, Theaet. 168 a, 
 Laws 798 c : Plut. Galba 28. 
 
 D 2 
 
36 NICOMAGEEAN ETHICS 
 
 1167a 11 o.pyr} <f>LXia is one of the metaphorical phrases 
 described in Poetics 21. 14576 35, 36, apy^ (dtpyo's) answer- 
 ing to aoivos there. 
 
 ib 34 <t6> to avTo, as we have to in 35. 
 
 llQ7b 20 (fiaiverat on is not good Greek for it seems 
 that. OTL therefore must be because, and </>aiveTat ap- 
 parently means ^atverat ytveaOaL (from yivofxevov in 19), un- 
 less indeed something like aiTtov with ^atVerat is missing. 
 
 ib. 27 a/i,v^/x,ov€s yap ot ttoXAoc koL fiaWov ev Tratr^civ 
 ^ TTOieiv icfiievTau 
 
 It is not a question of memory but of right feeling, and 
 ayvu)fJiov€'s would be much more suitable : cf . e.g. Xen. 
 Mem. 2. 10. 3. Michael has d/xv^fjiove^ in his lemma but 
 uses dyv(afxoi'€<s in his exposition, and so the Paraphrast 
 (lines 38 and 40). In Thuc. 7. 8. 2, Lys. 2. 3, Isocr. 9. 74 
 fjLvrjfir] and yv(i>ixr} are variants : in the Rhetoric 3. 7. 
 14086 16 fxvYJixrjv for yv^jx-qv is now read (from Isocr. 
 4. 186), and in Theognidea 832 fxv-qfx-q (Ahrens) for 
 yvu>ixr} ought to be : perhaps also in 60. On the other 
 hand cf. Ar. Peace 761 aTroSovvat /xol ttjv x^P'^ v/aSs cikos 
 Kol /xvr^/Aovas ctvat and Xen. Ages 11. 13 ; but these passages 
 do not prove much. 
 
 With €K TTovTjpov Oeio/jLevoxx; in 26 I do not know whether 
 Plato Soph. 236 B rrjv ovk ck kuXov Oeav has been compared. 
 
 1168a 7 It seems much best to make epyov accusative 
 after irocrja-as. ivepyeia €(ttl goes naturally with iafxev 
 iv€py€La, whereas to Ipyov io-Tlv 6 irovqaa^ does not follow 
 naturally at all. Another objection to the latter explan- 
 ation is the order of the words : it ought to be to tpyov 6 
 iroirjo-a^. as I have written it, not 6 TroLr}a-a<i to tpyov ', to 
 say nothing of ivepyeia having little meaning. Burnet 
 asks what ttcds means. Probably that a man ea-TLv cvepycto, 
 properly speaking, only while the action is still going on, 
 but that he Ivtpyda ea-ri ttcos afterwards, as long as his 
 Ipyov lasts. Again on the opposed view should not to cTvat 
 in 8 be avTov 1 
 
 11706 29 <(J)s> TrXcto-Tovs, as in 201. Cf. 1171a 9. 
 
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 37 
 
 Book X 
 
 11726 28 hi would be more suitable than Siy. 
 
 ih. 33 Is T<ov KaO' avTo dyaOSiv really Aristotelian or 
 Greek for kuO' avrd ? 
 
 ib. 34 Tt ovv . . . €Tn^r]T€iTaL seems entirely out of place 
 here. Assuming tolovtov to refer to 31-2, though the 
 intervening words make that awkward, we have still two 
 things to notice. (1) The only question really being 
 considered is whether pleasure is the good or even a good 
 at all. We are not supposed to be considering generally 
 what the good is (tl co-tI tolovtov). It is not very clear 
 what Par. had before him here. (2) To the irrelevant 
 question no answer is returned, but the writer turns to 
 speak of the theory that pleasure is not a good thing. 
 
 1173a 2 I do not see how such a protasis as By water's 
 €1 (or iJ) opeycrat can harmonise with the apodosis rjvdv k.t.A.. 
 Grammatically they are incompatible and he gives no 
 parallels for such a construction. 
 
 ib. 4 Agreeing that (^vctlkov dyaSov cannot be right, I 
 think it unlikely that both words are a gratuitous insertion. 
 ^variKov is quite in place ; dyaSov seems an erroneous 
 anticipation of dyaOov in 5. But in that case it has pro- 
 bably taken the place of another word, and eTcpov or dXXo 
 may be suggested. Cf. 7. 14. 11546 22 eveivat rt koI eTcpov, 
 KaOo <f)0apTOL K.T.X. and 9. 4. 11660- 35 ^ co-rt Svo -^ TrAei'w. 
 
 ib. 19 KaO' as {i.e. ras dpera?) ivapyw<s <f>aaL fxdWov Kal 
 rJTTov Tov<s TTotovs v7rdp)(€Lv Kol KUTa. Ttts apextts (By water after 
 Vermehren inserts TrparTctv between Kat and /cara). 
 
 Bonitz and others join cVapyws with cfiaai, but it certainly 
 must be taken with virdpxeLv. ' People obviously say ' 
 would be a very strange phrase. The real difficulty how- 
 ever is elsewhere, partly in Kai . . . dpcras side by side with 
 Ka6' as, and partly in earlier words. Is KaO' as . . . tovs 
 TTotovs vrrapx^i-v (in which tovs ttolovs must be the subject of 
 virdp)(€Lu) right 1 A man can act Kar* dpcr-^v ; his actions, 
 feelings, disposition, etc., can be /car' dpeTrjv ; but can he be 
 
38 NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 aaid to be so himself 1 In English certainly a man cannot 
 be 'in accordance with virtue/ nor, I think, in Greek. 
 One way of remedying the defect would be to add a 
 participle to vTrdp)(Siv, reading (say) virdp^^tiv SiaKci/xcvov? or 
 KttXws exovra^, or possibly we might read tov<s <dvBpd)Trov^> 
 TToiovs virapxitv. But it seems to me not less plausible to 
 suggest Ka6 as evapycos ffiaai ■<.t6> fxaXXov kol tJttov rots 
 TToiots vTrdpxcLv, for TO /xaA-Aov kol '^ttov occurs several times 
 in the context and this use of vTrdpx^i-v would be perhaps 
 more natural than the present one. 
 
 Ktti Kara ras dperas seems to have arisen from some con- 
 fusion with KaO' as or rather perhaps with koX ras aXXas 
 ttperas in 18. In this book there are some other examples 
 of such confused double appearances. See on 11776 14 
 etc.: also on 5. 9. 1136a 17 : 7. 2. 1146a 22 and h 34. 
 
 ib. 31 ovK eivai Kiviycrtsl Understand Ioikc from coiVao-i, 
 as in 11726 17. eSoKci with a new subject governs ovtcos 
 €x€tv. K"^" has Ktv>yo-€is : other MSS. KLvrjaiv. Cf. the 
 various readings (dTroSct^is, -ei9, -iv) with SoKct caat in Anal. 
 Post. 726 6. 
 
 In 32 must we not add Kiv-^a-et to Trda-t} ? 
 
 11736 11 ov8' IcTTiv apa rj dvairX-qpoio-Ls rjSovrj (so By- 
 water with K*'), dA.Aa. ytvoiJi€vr]<s p\v dvaTrArypwcrcws rjhoLT dv 
 
 TIS Koi T€]J,v6jX€V0S XvTTOtTO. 
 
 The reading rj dvairX7Jpo}aL<s rjSov^ gives an entirely wrong 
 sense. Either d. y r). or rj yj. d. would be right. Tifxvopievo'i 
 has been a good deal emended {TrjTiofjbevoSf etc.) and By- 
 water suggests <cV8£^s> yivop-cvos. In Ar. Pkit. 1110 
 jLveraL is a -y.Z. for repveraL, and yevcV^ai in Andoc. 2, 11 is 
 now always emended to Ttp.v€(r6at (Dobree). But ytVo/xat 
 is more likely to be written for Tip.vop.aL than the converse, 
 and the substitution of one word for another, going along 
 with the loss of a third, is a rather complicated hypothesis. 
 Also T€p.v6p€vo<i is not really inappropriate, because, if we 
 may trust Categ. 2a 4 re/xvo) was something of a stock 
 example in the category of irda-xy^- Finally, if these words 
 were meant as a direct antithesis to the preceding, we 
 should certainly expect 8e, not KaL I think the explan- 
 ation is that a word is missing. Write <(o(nrep> KaC (or 
 
NICOMACUEAN ETHICS 39 
 
 more probably kolv), the point being that the actual process 
 of replenishment is no more a pleasure than the process of 
 cutting is a pain, and that the pain or pleasure only follows 
 upon the process as a distinct thing. /acV does not look 
 forward to a 8e or anything else coming. It is a case of 
 the (xAAtt . . . fxiv, examples of which are given in Kiihner- 
 Gerth § 503 e, e.g. Plato Sojph. 240 b ovhafJiQ)<s dXyjOtvov ye 
 a\y €oi/cos /xeV (which in full would be a\A.' coikos fxev, 
 a\r]6Lv6v Se ov). In the Ethics I think another example 
 may be found in 5. 5. 11326 31 dA.X' iv fxkv rat? Koivwuats 
 K.T.K. (which again in full would be something like dAA.* 
 
 iV flkv K.T.X.. CrW€^€t TO TOiOVTOV StKaiOV, CTTt St TO. dAAtt OVK 
 
 i<f>apfx6TTei (23), for what else could be the force of fxdv 
 there ? So in our. present passage /xev implies, if we press 
 it, an understood repetition, lo-rt 8c dvairXT^pwcrt^ ov. 
 
 1174a 22 ev 8e rots fxepea-i /cat raJ XP^^V [' -^' • "^^^ XP^^^^ 
 vulg. (fort. TO) XP'^^V secludendum) ' By water] Trao-ai drcAcis, 
 Kal erepai tw €i8ci t-^s oXrjq kol dW-jXuiv. 
 
 Certainly t<3 xP^^V ^^ ^^^ satisfactory ; on the other hand 
 Tois fiepea-L must be contrasted with t^<; oXrjq and not mean 
 parts of time. I do not understand if Bywater would 
 omit Ktti along with toJ xp^^*^- ^^J we not put kol t<[» 
 Xpoi'to after tw ciSct ? These processes vary ciSct kol Xpo^<{»> 
 as the locomotions next described may be said to vary 
 
 €tSci (31) KOL TOTTO) (32 b 2). 
 
 In 24 should we read avTYf 1 avrai alone can hardly 
 mean both these, and we might expect d/A^drcpat. 
 
 ib. 29 foil. €1 yap . . . iK€Lvy}<s (b 2) seems to me one long 
 protasis, to which Sl aKpt^Scias k.t.A.. is the irregular 
 apodosis. 
 
 1175a 36 81; for Sel So, I think, in 1177a 34, ^tkriov 
 B-q, where S^ will mean no doubt, of course. 
 
 1176a 13 TO avTO for rd avrd, or Sep fid for OepfjLOvl Or 
 again to avro might be added in 14. 
 
 ib. 22 dk\d should be dXX' 17. Cf. irXrjv in the same 
 phrase in 11736 23. 
 
40 NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 Wlla 1 So/c€t 8' 6 €vBaLfX(i)v /3lo^ Kar aperrjv clvai. ovtos Se 
 ixera Gnrovhrjs. 
 
 What we need is the converse, o kut apeTrjv ^io<s ivhaifjMv 
 ehai or cvSai/xwv ^io^ 6 Kar' aperi^v elvai. Cf. particularly 
 WlSa 8 ovTO^ apa KOL evSai/JiovecrTaTos. Sevrtpcos 8' o Kara 
 Tr)v aX\r)v dperr^v : but the whole argument makes it plain. 
 
 ib. 6 foil. Can it be meant to identify amusements with 
 pleasures ? Many amusements involve no bodily pleasure, 
 and, even if present, it need not be the only or chief thing. 
 But otherwise what is the point of these sentences 1 
 
 ib. 13 avTT] 8' av €177 tov apiaTOv. 
 
 The -q of €17/ should be duplicated, <rf> to apidrov. 
 
 11776 14-15 irepav ovo-ai/ seems to have got written 
 twice over by some accident (cf. on 1173a 19 and 118.0a 
 30) and other words to have been deranged. I suggest 
 ry]V ye evSaifxovLav avTia koI rots TroAtrat?, r]v kol SrjX.ov w<s 
 ^rjTov/xev irepav ovaav rrj<; TroXiTLKrj^. In the present order 
 there does not seem much point in o)?, as going with 
 krepav ovcrav, and otl must be inserted before it. ^rjXov 
 ws is not used adverbially or parenthetically like hrfXov otl. 
 In the next line fxev is quite out of place with twv k.tA. 
 irpd^eiov : we should read al fxkv TroXiTiKai, or possibly 
 KttXAei fxiv. 
 
 ib. 25 Other passages (1. 7. 1098a 18 etc.) strongly 
 suggest fiiov TeXiLov. 
 
 1178a 12 Rassow's transposition, ev re rots TrdOea-L kol 
 rais Trpd^ea-L or something similar, is extremely probable. 
 Cf. on li74a 22 above, U77b 14, 1179a 11, and elsewhere. 
 
 11786 12 Ttts dvSpdov^ is shown to be right by the three 
 corresponding feminine adjectives with ras or at. The 
 slightest insertion we can make would perhaps be Troiowras 
 before or after vTrofievovTas. TroiovvTas would agree with 
 the subject {rjfjiaq) of d-Trovdixai and its loss be due perhaps 
 to homoeoteleuton. 
 
 1179a 11-12 Put o)s ^^To after ivSex^Tai yap, comparing 
 KaOoLTrep Aeyerat in 35. 
 
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 41 
 
 ih. 22 foil. On this § see Class. Quart. 6. 139 (note), 
 where I have pointed out that it cannot be in its proper 
 place. 
 
 11796 2 ouSc 8^ irepX ap€Trj^ iKavov to eiScvat, dXA.' €;(€iv 
 KoX ■)(pr)<TBaL Tretpareov y] el ttods aXAws dyaOol yivofxeda. 
 
 ex^iv (dp6TT/v) Koi ■^(prjcrOai is not a way of becoming 
 good. €t TTwg ctAXws implies that some specific way has 
 been mentioned, i.e. that some one word at least has been 
 lost. The three possible ways are given in 20-21 (^vVci, 
 tOiL^ hihaxxi) and any one of them might have been specified 
 here. I suggest for instance Treipareov <fxaB6vra<;>. Cf. 
 Plat. Meno (beginning), etc. 
 
 ih. 22 vTrapxet would be better omitted : it seems to have 
 come from the next line, as 6 cyKparrys has in 11516 9. 
 Of., on 1173<x 19 and elsewhere. 
 
 ib. 27 av seems too antithetic and distinguishing for its 
 place here. ovS' av (some MSS. and editors) or ovhk Brj 
 (1180a 20, 1181a 9) would be more suitable. 
 
 1180a 2 In Greek there is no great difficulty in re- 
 fering them (avTo) to the actions etc. implied in rpocfirjs 
 Kttt cTt/xeAcias opOrjs- The reference of aurd? etc. is often 
 extremely loose. Consider for instance in Isocrates, who 
 is an unusually careful composer, 4. 110 <^do-KovT€s fxkv 
 A.aK(i)i/i^€ti/, ravavTca 8' cKeiVots {i.e. rots AaKeSat/xovtots) 
 iiTLTriBevovTes, 15. 195 aK/xd^oDV kol 7raud/>t€V05 avTTJq (t^S 
 aKfi^s), Ep. 8. 4 7rdA.tv . . . fxovcnKiOTOLTrjv kol tovs ovofiaa-ro- 
 rdrovq iv avrfj (ry fxovcTLKy). In Aristotle Eth. 3. 11 
 III80 20 yaarTpLfxapyoL . . . Trapa to Seov irXypovvTeg avrrjv 
 {t7]v yacTTepa) is perhaps less noticeable. Cf. tovtovs in 
 6. 8. 11416 28. 
 
 ib. 1 2 <8€tv> KoXa^ea-OaL ? The statement seems to be one 
 of theory rather than practice. 
 
 ib. 30 Bywater proposes to put kol 8pav avTo Svvaa-Oai 
 before ^ Trpoaipiladai yc. Though better there than here, it 
 would still be very pointless and add nothing to irpofrrjKtLv 
 . . . avix^aWi^Oat. I am inclined to think that it and 
 
42 NIGOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 rovTo hvvacrBai in 33 are two versions of one thing (cf. on 
 1173a. 19 above), and that we should read there fxaXkov 8* 
 av KoX Spav avTO SvvaaOai So^ciev. 
 
 11806 13 Anyone who follows carefully the course of the 
 argument will see that dA.\' i-mfx^X-qOeLr) fxlv <dv> . . ., ov 
 fir)v dA.Aa K.T.X. could only be right, on the principles of ueV 
 and 8e construction, if after akXd the fxiv clause were in 
 harmony with the idea expressed in the words preceding, 
 and the 81 clause dwelt on something opposed to it, which 
 here would be the importance of the universal. But, as a 
 matter of fact, it is the first clause which emphasises the 
 universal, while the second goes back to the particular. It 
 follows that dAA' iTnixeXyjOeirj fxiv <dv> cannot be right. 
 Either koI I. fxkv dv or dA.A,' i. dv without /xeV would give 
 the proper sense. As dAA.d is not likely to have ousted 
 Ktti, I infer that /xeV is wrong. Perhaps it is dv miswritten. 
 
 In 14 Ka6' eva, perhaps an old variant (Mich .and Par.), 
 seems better, as the reference is so distinctly to persons. 
 
 1181a 8 TrpoetkovT dv is preferable, as harmonising with 
 KariXLTTov dv and the other past tenses. 
 
 11816 14 TTcpl TToXiTiK^sl cf. on 6. 8. 1142a 10. This is 
 a less clear case, but cf. 11806 31, 1181a 12 foil, and 23. 
 TToXiTeia in 21 is very different. 
 
II 
 
 THE MAGNA MORAL lA 
 
 1181a 25 TO riOo<i is wrong in sense (cf. 11816 25-26) 
 and would be better away. 
 
 1182<X 28 Trjv aperrjv KarijXii^ev €ts tijv Trpay/Aarcmv r7]v 
 inrkp TayaOov, ov 8t/ 6pdC!)<s. 
 
 It is surely quite impossible to find fault with anyone for 
 introducing the topic of d/ocT?^ in a discussion of the good. 
 Moreover the writer immediately proceeds to do so himself, 
 for he discusses the good and gradually by subdivisions of 
 it brings aper-^ in. The next and the following sentences 
 show quite clearly that Ta\.r]Oov<s, not rayadov, was the 
 word used. 'Aper-j and truth, at any rate abstract truth, 
 ought to be kept apart. 
 
 ib. 36 Write to for, or after, Kai. 
 
 11836 13 tax/oiKos would be more proper than larpds, for 
 a man is not really a doctor unless he practises, but cf. 
 Eth. Evd. 12166 9 and still better Xen. Mem. 3. 1. 4 6 
 fiaO(i)V iaa-Oai kolv firf iarpevri ofitas larpos ecm. 
 
 ib. 17 a-vfx^atvci ovv Kal fidrriv ras apeTa<s etvai Kai fJLr] 
 €Ti/at €7ri(rTry/Ltas. 
 
 If this is a statement of Socrates' view, the firj must be 
 wrong. If it states the writer's own view, fxdrrjv . . . ctvai 
 is wrong. But the latter supposition seems the correct one, 
 and we should therefore read Kal </u.^> jxaTrjv. 
 
 ib. 23 dpxYJ is supported by Eth. Eud. 12326 21. 
 
 11846 7-9 We need either tovtw ravrd or t<3 ev Trpdrruv. 
 It is not easy to see the construction of ^ iiSaijiiovia. It is 
 
 43 
 
44 MAGNA MORALIA 
 
 not simply in apposition to the subject (o nominative) of 
 SoKci, for then rjhy] . . . ^a/AcV would be the predication, 
 whereas Kat . . . ev t,rjv is clearly only appended. Some- 
 thing may be lost, e.g. a simple eVriV after to ixeroL tovto. 
 
 ib. 19 dkXa </xtai/> rrjv oIkoSo/j-lkt^v. 
 
 ih. 25 TToici <aya66v> or <(r7rovSatov> would seem to me 
 better than Spengel's iroul <€v>, adopted by Susemihl. 
 Cf. too Eth. N. nOQa 15-20. 
 
 In the next line koI xaAAa /xev means nothing. Perhaps 
 the least change would be kol aA.A.a /acv <TroLel>. Cf. 
 11896 36 Kol TOVTO Svvarai Trparreiv Kat aX.X.a. 
 
 1185a 7 Set Tov evSaLfxova iv to) fieyicTTio ^povta tov ^lov 
 Kpiveiv. 
 
 Is not this a misuse of tw fxcyia-Tio 1 t<5 jXiyLorTto ypovia 
 can hardly mean ' the greater part ' of life, or ' as great a 
 part as possible.' TrkeiaTw would be the usual word and 
 should perhaps be restored. Cf. Schaefer's Greg. Cor. 
 p. 919. 
 
 11856 8 otrat aXAai tov rjOcvi <€^€i5> ? 
 
 We cannot understand dpcrai, for then the words would 
 imply that some excellences of character were not praise- 
 worthy. Even if c^eis is not inserted, it would seem 
 necessary to understand it, as some feminine noun is 
 required. It is true that e^ts is not explained and regularly 
 used till 1186a 11 foil., but it has occurred in 1185a 38, if 
 not elsewhere. Cf. Politics 12596 24 dlov au)(f>poa-vvrj /cat 
 (IvSpeia Kat BiKaioa-vvYj kol twv dXKoiv twv TOLOVTmv €^co)v, where 
 also by coincidence something is lost. 
 
 ib. 15 TOVT iBeLV ecTTLV e/c Tciji/ tjOlkiov. 
 
 For r}OLKu)v, which is manifestly wrong and merely taken 
 from 7]6lk^ two lines above, Spengel suggested aiaOrja-eiav. 
 But Eth. N. 1103a 28, which he cites, is no parallel, for 
 there the examples given really are from the bodily senses, 
 while here they are from other things, exercise and food 
 (cf. Eth. N. 1104a 13 foil.). I suggest atofiaTiKwv. So 
 
MAGNA MORALIA 45 
 
 olov irepX TO o-a>/Aa in the corresponding passage Eth. Eud. 
 1222a 29. 
 
 In 17 perhaps iroXkoiv <t€>. 
 
 lb. 27 OL Xiav <^o/?ot Kcu irepi iravTa cfyOeLpova-L, as in 25 and 
 26 Kpo/Sovjxevov TTOLVTa 1 Or ttoWol for 7rdvTe<s 1 
 
 1186a 12 etr) <^> dperyj. Cf. on Eth. N. 1177a 13. 
 
 1186a 38 foil. The final words j) /cat o k.t.A.. are obviously 
 very incomplete as well as probably themselves wrong. 
 But even earlier there seem to be omissions. Read ovk 
 tcTTLV <yap> ovTos 6 fxakkov <-^ 8et> ras eAev^epas hiacfiOetpiov. 
 rovTo in 6 1 would naturally have a irav or airXws {Eth. N. 
 1107a 17) with it. 
 
 1187a 39 ^iorSi'l 
 
 11876 29 The context points to 6 Trpoatpov/xevos <aya^6?> 
 (or cTTTOvSatos) ctvat. 
 
 11886 8 iv should be omitted before oh, or less probably 
 before avTols- 
 
 1189a 29 Read o av for orav. (fiavfj wants a subject and 
 TovTo something to refer to. 
 
 11896 12 €K T^s apX^5 wpia-fievr]^. 
 
 The order is odd, nor is rrj^ very clear in sense. Read 
 Ttvos, comparing 11876^5 and 11 Ik tlv<ov a.pxo>v. In 6 
 there the Aldine has nvcov for twv (though that may be 
 due to TLV'jiv in 5) and in 1201a 17 nvuiv is again a 
 plausible conjecture (Rassow) for tcov. The confusion is 
 found elsewhere. ck t^s ^PX^5 <t^s> wpifr/McViys also 
 suggests itself. 
 
 1190a 30 avTTJs or t^? avr^s might have been expected. 
 
 ib. 35 Here on the contrary t^v avrrjv gives a faulty 
 sense. Read avri^v without r-qv, the c^is by itself, *.e. with 
 no iv€py€ia. Cf. on 11926 38 below. 
 
 11916 14 avTov should, I think, be rovrov. 
 
46 MAGNA MORALIA 
 
 11926 1 ccTTiv S' rj fX€yaXoTrp€7r€ia -rrepl SaTrdva^ as t<i> 
 TTpcTTOVTi yivea-Oat Trpocrr/Ket. 
 
 The dative t<3 irpi-rrovTi might be questioned, but is 
 probably right, a dative of the motive, cause, or reason 
 why. Cf. 1194^!' 27 rj ^iKaiocvvq av etr) rrj c^et 6p/xrjv i^ovcra 
 and 12096 31 KOLvmaafJi^voL ovv rjBov-fj ap€TY]V ^rjTOv/xiv {for 
 pleasure, on account of pleasure, if it is really right ; but 
 the pleasure's being all in the future makes the phrase 
 very noticeable, as well as the absolute use of Koivuta-afxevoL. 
 Should we read <i<f>> rjSovy, or Koivwadixevoi ovv rjSovqvl) 
 With ocTTLs p-^v ovv hairava. is not /xcyaXciws needed, as in 5 1 
 
 ih. 5 I would write 6 ov Sei /xcyaAeiws 8a7rav^o-at tovto p.y) 
 TTOLwv or OS ov Stt . . . p,7} TToici, perhaps with a yap after 
 the 6 or os. 
 
 ib. 38 Read avrovs for tous avrovs. Cf. on 1190a 35. 
 
 1193a 14 Setv is a dittograph of the Sctv in 13, like 
 ttolXiv in 1202a 6 from 5. 
 
 11936 29 TO tcrov av TrA-eiovos Kai eXarrovos etiy Slkulov. 
 
 This gives no possible construction for the genitives. 
 Perhaps they should stand in the line before : to Si ye 
 p.€(rov TovTOiv, 7rAeioi/os (or <tov> ttAciovos) kol cXcittovos, 
 StKaiov io-TL, 
 
 1194a 12 ccTTtv 6 rj dvaXoyca avrrj' o)s yap 6 ycco/ayos toJ 
 OLKoSo/Jno, ovT(ii<s 6 otKoSo/Aos T(3 ycajpy<3. 
 
 I think this is right, though not very precisely ex- 
 pressed. It is just the principle of exchanging equivalents. 
 Whatever A gives B, B must give the equivalent to A in 
 goods or services (to Kara r-qv dvakoyiav taov, to tpyov avTov 
 TO iaaa-fxevov, as Eth. N. 1133a 10 and 6 5 phrase it) or in 
 price. 
 
 1195a 1 fXT^ for ov (negativing the negative ovk ea-Tcv 
 which follows) is strange, but there are such things in 
 Aristotle himself. 
 
 ib. 24 fXT) €i8a)s . . . dXA.' <dyvotov>, ^Sr] k.t.X. 1 
 
 In 26 di/ should perhaps be Sry. Trws Brj is well established. 
 
MAGNA MORALIA 47 
 
 11956 9 Write 8€ for ycip. 
 
 11966 6 The sense requires something like ct TrpdrroL/xcv 
 Kara rbv opOov Xoyov, to ^iXTLcrrov <av 7rpaTToi/>t€i/> or <av 
 yLvoi.ro>. There is no real place for to /SeXria-Tov, as it 
 stands, along with Kara k. 6. X., and there is no apodosis 
 to €1 . . . /BcXtlo-tov. 
 
 ib. 9 ip€L i.e. tis (not the Tt? of 8), like (^t/o-iV occasionally, 
 may be right. But perhaps it should be epcts. The writer 
 affects the colloquial second person, e.g. 1184a 20 and 22, 
 1206a 10, 1210a 16. 
 
 1197a 1 SittTeivo/xeV?; ? If the neuter is right, it must be 
 passive. 
 
 ib. 3 €(TTLV Sy] T(X)V TTOlOV/XeVWV KOi TTpaTTOfJieVOiV OV TttVTO TO 
 TTOirfTLKOV Kol TTpaKTlKOV. 
 
 What the writer proceeds to show is something quite 
 different, not that the person, thing, or faculty differs in 
 the two cases, but that production has some further end in 
 view and that action has not. Read ov <KaTa> ravro. 
 The genitives are then dependent on co-tiv, have not to do 
 with . . . in the same way. 
 
 11976 35 \l/v)(rj^ for o-oc^ta? is just wrong repetition of a 
 word from the line before. 
 
 1198a 8 After Trpos dp€T>^v add tcXcui. Cf. reXeiovTaL 
 in 9. In ov Trdw TeXeiovraL t(3 civat dpeTrj I do not see 
 how the dative can be right and for t(3 would read to, 
 so as to be. Cf. 1197a 37 ovkItl ovTi3i<; €')(ov<tiv to ixrj , . . 
 fiiTa/BdXXeLv, where some MSS. have tw (sic). 
 
 In 12006 38 6 Xoyos ovto<; ivavrtovTai Tto fxr] 'elvai iin- 
 (TTrjiJL7)v, where Susemihl thinks something lost, I would 
 make the same correction. 
 
 ib. 37 How is the imperfect IttoUl to be defended ? It 
 is not a reference to anything previously said, and we 
 cannot reasonably explain it of an idea that was in the 
 man's mind before work began. Should it be ttoici? 
 Present and imperfect (Xcyci and lA-cye, tx'^t and clj^c, 
 
48 MAGNA MORALIA 
 
 BiSdcTKeL and cStSao-Kc, apKei and T^pKCL, etc.) do sometimes 
 get confounded. 
 
 11986 30 TO) Ktt^' CKacrra <Aey€iv> "? 
 
 ^6. 36 6 yap (or Be) KptTtKos wv'? 
 
 1199a 2 The kui might precede -rrpdrrtiv. But no doubt 
 it may be a dittograph of Kara. 
 
 11996 27 6pu)fjLev ov Bwa/xei/ovs vyiaiVctv tous tol aTrXais 
 dyada Trpo(r<f>epoix€vovs. 
 
 Tovq makes this a surprisingly general statement. Should 
 we read nvas (cf. on 11896 12), or cviovs 1 
 
 1201a 8 It is hard to see how either yap can be right. 
 
 12016 7 With Bo^rf^ Ixovar-q^ something seems to have 
 been lost, e.g. <KaX Trj^> S6^r}^ or B6ir]<s <lvioTC>. 
 
 In 6 yScySaios and diJi€Td7reL<xTo<s would be more regular. 
 
 1202a 2 €0-Ti yap ws €7rt twv [xeBvovTuiV. 
 
 uxnrep for <us, which is not commonly used like this in 
 prose 1 
 
 ib. 32 The /cat should precede dirXtoq. 
 
 12026 18 orav yap aKOvayj to Trptorov prjfjia otl rjBLK7](T€. 
 
 To explain the indignation we seem to want 6tl ' rjBiKrja-e 
 (or ifBlK-qKi) o-€.' 
 
 i6. 23 y] B\ Trpos {t7]v] -^BovTjV op/xr] ij/CKTrj ye. 
 
 Spengel deleted this senseless ye. Probably it should 
 follow Be, possibly rjBovqv or even Trpds. Cf. on Eth. Eud. 
 12166 20. 
 
 1203a 7 ov)(^ 6 dxpaTT^s, 6 Be dKoAao'Tos, evLaT6Tepo<i. 
 
 ib. 12 ocTo) ye o TLfJMoTepov KUKtos BtdKeiTaL. 
 Certainly wrong, but it is odd that Spengel instead of 
 (5 TO Ti/AitoTaTov did not think of oo-o) ye TLfxnarepov 6. 
 
 12036 25 <6> Irepos. 
 
MAGNA MORALIA 49 
 
 ih. 30 yLvofxiviov '^ 
 
 ib. 33 Ktti probably lost after vai in ilvai. 
 
 12046 21 aurat, not aurai. 
 
 ib. 37 Something has been lost after ala-Orjry. Not only 
 should we expect at least co-rtV with these words, but 
 something must have stood next which stated that this 
 definition or theory was not right. The ydp following 
 distinctly points to this, and even without ydp the gap 
 would be visible. 'AAAa at any rate would have been 
 needed. 
 
 1205a 15 rjSovr] r]8ovq should be rjSovt] dya66v, the wrong 
 word having been repeated. The argument, sound or not, 
 seems to be — All pleasure that arises from something good 
 must itself be good ; all pleasure whatever arises from 
 something good ; therefore all pleasure whatever is good. 
 iv TouVois /xeV might be better with iraai added. Two lines 
 above the dyaOov, which makes no sense, seems another 
 erroneous repetition. 
 
 ib. 20 Sri for 8€? Cf. on 1187a 39. 
 
 12056 7 w(rT€ <8ta> rovTo, and in 9 6/xoiws <8e>, as 
 in 5 etc. So in 1209a. 24 raura <Se> would be natural. 
 
 ib. 22 Ka6L(rTafxivr)<; /xlv (r>}s ^ucrcws) at i$ ivSeias dvaTrkr]- 
 p(i)(r€L^. 
 
 Surely dvaTrXiypwcrcws. Cf. 28 ai ye (TuyfxaTLKal i$ avaTrkt]- 
 pwcreu)^ and p. 8 above. In 25 rj8ova\ <ai> seems wanted. 
 In 12106 28 read <ra> rrdOrj. 
 
 1206a 2 TO 8' iixwoSiov <jidcrKf.iv cTvat {ty]V rjSovrjv) Sid to /mt/ 
 6p6(i)<i (TKOTTiiv <f>aiv€TaL avTois. 
 
 If these words are right, (^atVcrai must be used = SoKct 
 seevis good, in which sense Dionysius of Halicarnassus for 
 instance has it ; but one hesitates to attribute that use to 
 the writer, and I am not sure that to could then be added 
 to the infinitive. If <f>aLV€TaL is not so used here, either 
 <f>da-K€Lv should be omitted (and to is still awkward) or 
 something like avfi^aiveLv should follow <^aiV€Tat. 
 
 E 
 
50 MAGNA MORALIA 
 
 12066 18 tocTTrep olovTai ol aXXoi. Read ot ttoXKoL Cf. 
 e.g. 1185a 6, 12116 22, and see pp. 91, 138. 
 
 12076 9 A verb, possibly only cVti', going with ama has 
 been lost. 
 
 1208<x 1 Is the construction TotoOros wv otos vnoa-TeXXo- 
 /aci/os (instead of vTroa-TeXXea-Oai) legitimate 1 In Eth. Eud. 
 12296 5 it is easy to read olo? .... vTro/xevertKos <€r»'ai>. 
 But cf. the occasional use of a participle after Siare, when 
 another participle precedes (Kiihner-Gerth § 586 Anm. 3). 
 
 ih. 25 aicrOdvwfiai 1 Cf. €i8i;(ra) in 26, whichever part of 
 the verb it is. 
 
 1 209a 3 Is not aei wanted in the second clause 1 The 
 reading cited in Susemihl's critical note seems preferable 
 to that in his text. At least I find it easier to follow. 
 
 ib. 15 ov yap is not intelligible to me, and aXXd is all we 
 want. But where did ov yap come from 1 ov yap dXX' r) 
 would hardly do. 
 
 ih. 24 ravTa <hi>. Perhaps something should be added 
 to the second laTpiKov in 23. 
 
 12106 34 TTOLVTa 8c ^ovXojx^Oa ri/juv auToTs* Kal yap crv^rjv 
 pi6' 17/xoiv avTtiiV ^ovXofxeOa . . . Kal to ev ^rjv Kal to trjv Kal to 
 jBovXeaOaL rdyaOov, ovk dXXw tlvL Iti ofioLOTraOils rjfjuv avTOL<: 
 fxaXia-Ta €aix€v. 
 
 There is MS. authority for putting Kal to ^rjv before Kal 
 TO ev ^rjv, and that is clearly its proper place. Cf. 31 and 
 1211a 4, 5. TO jSovXeaOai TayaOov is senseless, to say 
 nothing of its depending on ^ovXofieOa. to ex^tv or some 
 similar verb should stand there, ovk dXXw tlvl is very 
 wanting in construction, and no wonder, for it should 
 follow after ecr/u,eV in antithesis to y/xlv avTots, or after those 
 words. 
 
 1211a 7 SoKilit seems with accusative and infinitive is 
 quite unusual. Cf. p. 155 below. Should we read cfuXtal 
 
 12116 13 €v for 67r' ? €7r' may be due to the middle 
 letters of ovSiiroTi. 
 
MAGNA MORALIA 51 
 
 ih. 20 Iv T|J Trarpt Trpos viov {tfuXia). 
 
 The dative Trarpi, if not impossible, is unlikely in the 
 extreme, unless indeed we read (say) Trarpt Trpos vlov 
 <ov(ry>. 
 
 ih. 21 ws tvioL <^acn> A-eyovrcs opOmI 
 
 1212a 37 Trpoa-i^KOvO' avTwl 
 
 12126 5 Is a participle lost that governed to. av/xtfiipovTa 
 Koi i^Sea, e.g. StwKwv or ^r^Twv 1 
 
 1213a 4 avOpiOTTos better without 6. So perhaps avSpeloL 
 in 11906 22. 
 
 12136 8 Before irXiov or tov add ti *? 
 
 E 2 
 
Ill 
 
 THE EUDEMIAN ETHICS 
 
 In the first sentence of the treatise (rvv€ypaif/ev is a 
 palpable mistake for av€ypa\j/€v. a-vyypdcfioi is to compose, 
 not to put up an inscription or notice. The final s pre- 
 ceding might help the mistake. 
 
 1214a 14 oTLirep oiKctoi/ rjv should probably be ornrep av 
 
 OtKCtOV t}. 
 
 12146 18 T^s <Ka\i5s> ^w^5 ^ • 
 
 lb. 33 KoXaa-iq yap rj (j>a.pjxaK€La Ta)V TrX-qyuiV ovk iKaTTOiu. 
 
 Rather ovk ekarrov. It is a KoAacrts as much, as truly, 
 but not as great in amount or severity. 
 
 121 5a 31 ^prjiJ.aTL(rTLKa<s 8e (Xe'yco Te;^vas) ra? tt/oo? dyopas 
 fxev KOL 7rpaaeL<s Kairr}XiKd<s. 
 
 p.iv, which is entirely without meaning, seems to be, as 
 sometimes elsewhere, a corruption of fxovov. Cf. on 
 Politics 1262a 1. 
 
 12156 11 With Jero . . . €1776 tv we probably need a Setv, 
 but this is not certain. 
 
 12166 20 ov p-rjv dXXd ye Trepl d/o€T^s is not, I think, 
 Greek. Put the ye after irepc or dpeTrj<s. ov fxrjv dXXd — ye 
 is a recognised idiom. Cf. on M.M. 12026 23. 
 
 ib. 34 <.dvTL> TO)V eiuiOoTdiv 1 
 
 The genitive is certainly not governed by the com- 
 parative yviDpifidyTepa, nor does it seem possible to make it 
 depend on fxeraXafx^dvova-Lv as though that meant take in 
 exchange for. 
 
EUDEMIAN ETHICS 53 
 
 ib. 37 For twv iroXiTLKOiv read t<3 TroXiTtKa). 
 
 \2\*J(l 20 ^>;towt€s <7rpo'UvaL> cttI to (ra<^(os evpctv'? 
 Cf. Trpo'iova-iv in the similar passage 12166 33. In 19 
 has T(uv been lost after irpuiruiv 1 
 
 ib. 33 ovdtv /A€Tex« Ktv>y(r€a)s, wcrr' ovht tC>v ayaOwv. 
 
 Toiv ayaOoiv is much too general. The ayaOa. connected 
 with KLvrjGTLs are meant, and this must have been somehow 
 indicated, twv <TrpaKTUiv> ayaOwv might be right, especially 
 as the following sentences have TrpaKTos several times, but 
 we cannot be sure of the phrase. Kat following should 
 perhaps be Katroi. 
 
 1218^11 TO ovv avT 6 7rp6(TK€LTaL TTpbs Tov Xoyov TOV 
 
 KOLVOV. 
 
 It is clear that this does not mean, as Fritzsche trans- 
 lates it, * illud ipsum eo consilio adiectum videtur ut 
 communem notionem indicaret.' Trpos t. X. t. k. must be ' in 
 addition to the common notion.' The avro adds something 
 to it. Either therefore Trpos with the accusative here 
 and in a few other places (see for instance L. and S. s.v 
 TTpoa-TLOrjfxt) means 'in addition to' (a use which is not 
 I think, clearly established) or we should read to) Xoyw 
 
 T<3 KOlV(3. 
 
 ib. 17 It is true that Aristotle has the anomalous form 
 dvo/xoXoyov/Acvos, but only in the sense of 'not agreeing,' not 
 in that of 'not agreed upon,' 'not acknowledged.' We 
 must therefore take Zeller's </a^> o/jtoXoyov/xeVwv. 
 
 ib. 25 oTt ot api$fiol i<f)UvTaL <avTov> 1 
 
 12186 21 TOTc should perhaps be toSc, the roSe of 19 
 What is (rv/x<fi€pov Trpos avTi^v is oltlov toO cTvat avT-qv. 
 
 ib. 25 The last lines of the book seem hopeless, but to 
 8c Tc'Aos ws or ws h\ TO TcA-os may be conjectured. 
 
 1219a 33 Probably <t>)v> ttJs apiTrjs Ivipyuav. 
 
 12196 2 cKciTtpov for iKaarovl 
 
54 EUDEMIAN ETHICS 
 
 12196 30 V7roK€La6tx) . . . TO fxkv TO) iTriTaTTeiv, to Be t<3 
 TreiOeaOai kol aKOveiv 7r€(f)VK€vai. 
 
 7r€<f>vK€vaL TO) eTnTOiTTeLv fitted by nature to command is 
 probably without parallel, Trc^i^/ceVat Trpos tl being the 
 regular phrase. Perhaps we should read tw fx€v to c., to) 8e 
 TO TT. For 7r€<f)VK€ with such a dative, though uncommon, 
 see L. and S. and of. Plato Crat. 384 d ov yap ^uo-ct cKatrTw 
 irecfyvKevai ovofxa. With less probability we might omit t<5 
 in each case. 
 
 ib. 36 TO €vOv KOL TO XcVKOV (dSia^WptOTTOl/)* KaiTOL TO €V$V 
 
 OV XevKOV dXAa KaTO, (TV/x(3el3r]K6<s kol ovk ov(rta tov avrov. 
 
 akXa should be d\X' ^ except. The last three words 
 being certainly wrong, Rassow conjectures del tov avTov, 
 Bonitz ovarLo. to avTo : I would suggest ovaia t^ ovtov. A 
 few lines below (40) I think Trpos should be written for 
 Ktti, i.e. Aoyio-/xov evelvai Trpos o.p)(rjv koL Trpa^iv. Trpos and 
 Kttt do get thus exchanged. 
 
 1220a 17 Read to Kat for koI to. 
 
 ib. 23 <Ta> dpto-Ttt, as in 31. 
 
 ib. 39 oio-Trep diverts the construction, as it often does. 
 15 is a less marked instance of the same thing, outws ^817 
 just resumes t<3 TroAXaKts Ktveta-OaL ttojs. to before w' 
 dycoy^s is an intruder, perhaps due to to tjOos, the only 
 subject of e6it,eTai being to evepyyjTiKov. 
 
 12206 9 For TavTa read toiovtoi. TavTa may be due to 
 TavTa following. 
 
 1221a. 13 It may be noted that the things just enumer- 
 ated are not TrdOr) but c^ets, and that they are not all 
 (TrdvTa) excesses or defects, for one third of them are mean 
 states and excellences. Is anything missing before 131 
 
 ib. 23 KepSakeos 6 iravraxoOev ttXcovcktikos, ^tz/ahoSi^s 8e 
 6 ixTjSafJLoOev dA-A.' oXiyaxoOev. 
 
 The attempts made to improve on the last words seem 
 all or nearly all vitiated by failure to see that the ^ry/xtwSTys 
 (which word is oddly used) could not be described as 
 
EUDEMIAN ETHICS 55 
 
 gaining only in a few things. If on the balance he gained 
 anything whatever, he would not be ^r;/xioj8r;9. It seems 
 essential that his actually losing should be explicitly 
 stated. Hence the writer may have written something 
 like oAX' 6\iyay(66iv <Ka\ eA.aTrov/i,ei/o?>, though we should 
 expect (say) iviore. or tv tl(tlv rather than oXvya^^oBev. 
 Perhaps it was firjSafxoOev rj oktyaxoO^v dXXd — (words lost). 
 
 12216 19 TO (for TtS) fxdXXov -n-da-xeiv, i.e. if this is taken 
 as a question of manner (irws). 
 
 1222a 1 yjSovq is a fairly clear case of a word substituted 
 for the right one (here c^ts) through anticipation of a word 
 just coming. Cf. on Politics 1264a 13 and passi7n. Trda-a 
 ij/vx-^ is better here than Tracrry? ^vxqs in spite of the 
 parallel Nicomachean passage. 
 
 ib. 11 Read kut avrrjv eKdcrTtjv iov Ka6' avrbv eKacrrov. 
 
 ih. 23 <jiav€p(OT€pa<s, correct enough in the other cases, is 
 illogical with Trao-as. But it is probably right. 
 
 ib. 25 iirl TavTOL <€px^Tai> or <^/c€i> 1 
 
 12226 4 8tO KOL OV KoXaKLKOV 6 OvfXOS. 
 
 If this is absurd, ov KaraWaKTiKov (Fritzsche) would be 
 quite inept. Should we read ovk evKoXaa-rov, not easily 
 checked "i ovk and €vk- would be responsible for the 
 corruption. 
 
 ib. 26 Should avrd 8' aura be avra 8e 8t' avra ? I incline 
 also to insert to before Set^at, so that to Sii^ai will be 
 governed by dvekeiv. The meaning appears to be that one 
 consequence of tlie dpxrj does not upset another, except so 
 far as an upsetting of the dp^-^ upsets each successive con- 
 sequence in any series dependent on it : each of these 
 consequences can be no longer established from its pre- 
 decessor and ultimately from the dpxrj itself. The con- 
 clusion {to S^LKvvjxivov) may of course be true, but its 
 previous support now fails. 
 
 ib. 36 Read /AcrajSaWet, as in 34. 
 
56 EU DEMI AN ETHICS 
 
 12246 16 8' iyKpaT7]<; €<f>' a TTCTrciorrat ayct . . ., rj S' 
 (.TTiOvixia ov TTctcracra ayct. 
 
 The first ayci must be wrong, as the word would never 
 be used here intransitively = Tropcvirai, and is no doubt due 
 to the second. Cf. on 1222(X 1. But we cannot be sure if 
 it represents ayerat or some quite different word. Since in 
 9 rj KaO^ avTov bpjx-t] Ivovaa ay€t the eyKparrys as well as the 
 (XKpaTT^s, 6/D/Aa seems possible. 
 
 ih. 35 Si(TT€ /xrj . . . TTparret is remarkable Greek, but we 
 saw before {M.M. 1195a 1) that fx-q is sometimes oddly- 
 used in the Aristotelian corpus. Of course fxr] . . . irpaTTuv 
 with accusatives, as in 38, is possible, though unlikely : 
 so is ov for firj. 
 
 1225a 31 Katfor^? 
 
 12256 1 Twiorro^ 
 
 ih. 15 etr; for r]v and txoL for fx^t ^ But they cannot be 
 called strictly necessary. 
 
 1226a 36 ^ yap Xoyitpfuvoi a^apTavoixev r] Kara tyjv ala- 
 6r}(TLV avTO Spiovre^. 
 
 Should we not read 8p(op,ei/ ? ' We go wrong by doing so 
 with our senses ' is a most unlikely expression. 
 
 Just below €ts oLTreipov y^ovcnv, which has been doubted, 
 seems to me right. The meaning is that, if you once 
 throw over (say) the recognised form of writing or pro- 
 nouncing a letter, you have no longer anything to go by 
 and may pronounce or write it anyhow out of an infinite 
 number of ways. 
 
 1227a 17 avaydyrj, as in 12266 13, 1225a 25 and 
 regularly. 
 
 ib. 23 TO. fxev seems an odd mistake for rots /acV. So in 
 12216 26 TO. aAXa TO. Toiavra can hardly be right (Spengel). 
 
 12276 38 Omit ov ci/c^a as due to the line before*? We 
 should in any case require Trpoaipeio-^ai <t6> ov ci/cko, and 
 this expression or idea is repudiated in the next words, as 
 it is in the Nicomachean Ethics. 
 
EUDEMIAN ETHICS 57 
 
 1228a 23 tc is out of its place and should be put after 
 avrat. 
 
 12286 34 <tJ> Ktti ol irXela-TOLl ol aXXoi. KaX ol TrXiiCTToil 
 
 12296 5 otos . . . v7ro/i€V€Ti*cos <€rvat>'? Cf. on MM. 
 1208a 1. 
 
 1230a 17 Should dvSpctW be omitted % Neither here 
 nor in the Nicom. Ethics are they held to be dvSpetot. 
 
 ib. 33 v7ro/x€V€t, like TroL-qa-ei in 30 '? 
 
 1231a 19 \ayv€La and 6ij/o<i>ayLa should probably change 
 places. 
 
 1232a 34 cTmt is an erroneous repetition of the cimt in 
 33. So for instance ravrov in 1225b 33 from 32. 
 
 ib. 37 dper-q is perhaps a mistake for some other word, 
 due to ap^T-^ in 35, ap€Td<s in 37 itself. Such words as 
 Adyos (cf. three lines below and Nic. Eth. 1107a 1) or 
 <f>p6vr)(TL<s may be suggested, rj <TotavTrf> ap^rrj {i.e. <f>p6- 
 vryo-is) seems also possible, 
 
 ib. 39 KaTa<f>povr]TLKOTJ<s . . . Tojv Trapo. tov Xoyov fxeydXiov. 
 
 'Unreasonably great' seems to mean dangers (for 
 instance; so great that reason forbids your facing them. 
 But the man who faces them must be rash (Opacrv<;) not 
 brave (di/8p€tos) in the proper sense of the word. There is 
 therefore some difficulty about the statement that apcT-^ 
 makes men think little of them. Possibly the words are 
 not quite right, as they certainly are not in the next 
 sentence fxeya yap otcrai cTvat twv alcrxpiiiv /cai Tr\rj6o<i ov 
 TTttv <f>o^€p6v. Fritzsche's rendering, turpe esse existimat 
 numerari inter ignavos et imbelles, does not suit either 
 /x-eya Or aiaxp^v^ nor is the sense so got very satisfactory. 
 Some loss must, I think, be presumed, and I suggest some- 
 thing like fxiya yap <Ti <f}o/3€L(r6aO otcrat elvat twv aicrxp^v. 
 Fritzsche's Trd^os for irXrjOos is much more convincing. 
 
 12326 11 A finite verb ((^povrt^ct), as in the next two 
 clauses, seems probable. Even if we go back to the SoKel 
 of 4, its subject is not the man. 
 
58 EUDEMIAN ETHICS 
 
 XvTTTjO^aoLT av is doubly impossible, both because of the 
 future optative and because of the av. It looks like a 
 copyist's jumble of XvTrqBr^a-^Tai and Xvttoit av, the latter 
 being what he finally meant. 
 
 ib. 18 ^ T(3 . . ., 17 T<3 . . . 8ta<^€pct is very illogical, 
 when examined. Probably the first ^ is a mistake, as 
 often, for /cat. The koX yap and koX 7raA.1v will then go 
 together. The second t<3 may be right, but it would be 
 much better away. 
 
 In 21 TLjxlav is open to two criticisms. In strict 
 grammar it should be rt/xia (though the rule is not always 
 observed) and, what is more important, it is strange that 
 TLfx-q should itself be spoken of as n/Ata. Perhaps it was 
 originally n/xia (i.e. Tifna), mistaken for the feminine 
 singular, and turned into Tifjuav. 
 
 ib. 33 Ttva looks like a mistake for eTvai, or possibly for 
 eivat Tiva. cTvat occurs in 32. 
 
 ib. 38 Tvy^aveiv is certainly not, as Fritzsche says, ' to 
 get' something. He does not see that avorjrov^ which he 
 mistranslates, proves Tvy^^dvecv to refer to something foolish 
 on the man's own part. It may be just possible to under- 
 stand a$iovvTa iavTov from the line before. More probably 
 some participle going with rvyxa-v^i-v has been lost, d^Lovvra 
 itself, oiofjicvov as in 1233a 12, or some different expression, 
 e.g. )(avvovfJLevov. 
 
 1233a 3 Spengel oddly failed to see that changing 
 d^iovv to d^Lol would involve changing otos to olov, and 
 apparently Susemihl did not see this either. 
 
 ib. 6 fcat ov Trepl rd xRW'-f^"- would be better in 5 after 
 Tcov ivTLfxiov. So in 32 el fxy . . . Kiyofxev should, I think, 
 follow Trpoaipeo-iv. 
 
 ib. 21 Reading ovSe with Spengel, omit firj before 
 lxei.nrT6<s. The man is not contrary to the other even 
 in respect of his being blameworthy while the other is not. 
 fxi^ gives just the wrong sense and arose presumably from 
 the first letters of /xt/xTrros. 
 
EUDEMIAN ETHICS 59 
 
 ih. 38 r>}s TOLavTrj<i jxio-oTryro^; KaX ctti t^ rotavrj; rjSovrj 
 
 6p€KTLK6<;. 
 
 ■fjSovrj comes in very oddly here. Neither in this work, 
 I think, nor in the Nicomachean is pleasure thus men- 
 tioned in relation to this or that virtue. Though the 
 mistake would not be a very natural one, I incline to 
 think haTrdvr), as in 36, may have been the original word. 
 
 12336 8 foil. In this difficult passage I suggest in 9 
 <t6> /car a^Lav and more doubtfully /x^yaXoTrpeirov^ for 
 Trp€TrovTO<;. Cf. Nic. Eth. 1123a 16-18. If ctTTcp cVi 
 TocrovTov Kol TOLovTov IS in its proper place, we might read 
 ciTTcp karl (Jackson) Tocovrof; kol tolovtos- But perhaps 
 it is out of its place (cf. on 1233a 6) and et-rrep ia-rl too-ovtov 
 KOL TOLOVTOV should follow Trept o. 
 
 ib. 21 kirl TO twice over and both times unintelligible 
 points to something gravely wrong. I suggest to . . . 
 irddos ia-Tlv avTo (so Spengel : or avro /xev) avwvv/AOv, dXA.' 
 
 O C^tOV S'^AoS (or S^Ad? €0"Ttv), 6 ^^aipOiV K.T.X. 
 
 1234a 9 iiXX: rj (Casaubon). 
 
 In my notes on Book VII I have had Jackson's 
 pamphlet always before me and have said nothing about 
 many passages with which he seems to me to have dealt 
 successfully. 
 
 12346 28 It seems not unlikely that the first Troirja-ai 
 is a mistake due to the second and should be another word, 
 perhaps Treto-at. Spengel's aStKclv aAAovs, ^lAovs TroLT^a-ei is 
 very plausible, but the run of the sentence seems to call 
 for something dependent on So^et, and therefore Fritzsche's 
 TTOLYJa-aL BiLv may be better. 
 
 1235a 21 Reading ol fxev with Fritzsche, I would add 
 (say) <f)acrL or otovrat before (ftikov. 
 
 12356 39 The pleasanter wine is not the wine which 
 is pleasanter to a palate spoiled by wine-bibbing, cttci 
 ovT€ 6^0^ irapi^y)(iovcTLv. For the senseless ovtc (ouS' ei yc 
 
60 EUDEMIAN 'ETH1G8 
 
 has a little authority) some unconvincing substitutes have 
 been proposed. IvLoTi or tcrriv ore will not be convincing 
 either, but seems to me more likely. The et of iiret and cvi 
 of ivLOTc might cause the error. 
 
 12360- 12 I suggest tov /xkv yap otl roioaSe (on lost and 
 TotocrSc then assimilated to t6v) or t6v fxkv yap <rj> tolovSc. 
 <r<3> TotoVSc could not stand without an cTvai as in 7. 
 OTL comes twice in 13. 
 
 ib. 20-24 Perhaps ov <6> Aoyo? €V<7ra(rti/> rj/xiv virapx^f- 
 It would be very hard to account for rjplv taking the place 
 of Trao-tv, as has been thought, but iraa-iv may very well 
 have been lost, rjfjuv is then an ' ethical ' dative. 
 
 ib. 36 In the verse 
 
 rXaVK*, ilTLKOVpOS aVTJp TOV (TOffiOV (f>LXo<S €CrK€ fxa^Tat 
 
 rov a-o^ov has been corrected to roo-crov and otherwise, 
 but the mistake is hardly accounted for. Moreover is 
 Tocroi/ or Toa-ovTov by itself used in the sense of for so long 
 a timel It means usually so much, to such an extent. 
 i7riKOVpo<s avrjp, to o-ocf)6v, <fii\o<i ea-Te /xa^^iyrai seems possible, 
 TO (To<f>6v being like to Xeyo/xevov and a few similar ex- 
 pressions. Susemihl says 'yp. to o-o^ov <^tXov Victorius.' 
 
 €a-K€ is hardly a well certified form (Anthol. Pal. 
 7. 727. 2). 
 
 12366 4 I should prefer Kal dvTi^tXciTat 6 ^tXwv to 
 Susemihl's dvTt<^iXovvTt Kal 6 (fnXthv. In 5 read <'r)> ^lAia. 
 7} lost after ct. avTrj requires rj. 
 
 ib. 7 For Kat read Kal yap. 
 
 ib. 16 8i rjhovrjvyap v7rofxivov(ri.v (Bonitz) dA,A,>yA.ovs /SXaTTTo- 
 
 fJLfVOL, (OS aV U)(TLV oLKpaTets. 
 
 0)5 dv seems very unlikely (Bonitz gives no example of 
 it, but that may be an accident) and I suggest ^s dv. 
 
 ib. 29 For 8t' avTov avrds read the regular avTos St' avTov 
 or avTov. 
 
EU DEMI AN ETHICS 61 
 
 ib. 37 TO. T€ yap jxr] d7rA.ciis dypida dWa KaKo. aTrXw? TV)(r) 
 
 <dv> TvxT} is certainly inadequate. I think something 
 like <Kav -^Sia 6vTa> Tv^y should be read. Observe fxcd* 
 rjBovrjs and 1781; in 35-6 and i^Seos in 1237<x 6. Cf. ib. 21 
 KOLV el firj rjBvs. 
 
 1237a 1 ccTTi yap alp^Tov fjuev to d7rA.(os dyaOov, avraJ 8k 
 TO avTuJ dyadov. 
 
 Surely aiperov dirXws fiev to dyaOov. 
 
 cv^eVcos looks as though it should be €vO€to<s or evOeTws 
 8c <€;^€i>, and then nothing else need be thought lost. 
 Just below add a Se after dvdyK-q or perhaps better dk\d 
 before it (aAA. lost before av) and read o-TrouSatos for 
 
 (TTTOvSaiOl/. 
 
 ib. 14 In TO aTrXai? (L^eA-t/xov koX to Kokov toiovtov we 
 might read koI to kukov tolovtov (i.e. w^tikifiov) <6v>. The 
 d)(f>€XLixov KaKov is then illustrated by the taking of medicine. 
 
 ib. 21 There should be, I think, a full stop after 8td 
 TOVTO. ov 8ia TOVTO IS ov Bl rjSovqv — ov)( otl -^Svs. 
 
 ib. oQ If 8wa/x£(os Trdcrrjs can be understood of art as 
 distinguished from science, the text may pass. If 8wa/xts 
 covers science, some limiting word, say o-wfxaTiKrjs, seems 
 wanted. The ivepyeia of science (knowledge) is no more 
 external than that of affection. 
 
 In 38 we might perhaps read to fxkv ydp f^iAcio-^at 
 <l>LX.r)Tov (belongs to a tjaX-qTov), to 8c kcll ivipyeta </)tAtas or 
 <f>LXia<s ivepyeia. 
 
 12376 6 The abrupt reference to Bva-oiSia seems hardly 
 possible, and I would therefore suggest something like 
 otov el, not €1 ydp, in the place of rt ydp. But I cannot 
 think that the bald ActTrcrai is right either, in the sense of 
 ' he is deserted by his friends,' 'people avoid his company.' 
 As X and y occasionally, tt and v more often, get confused, 
 it seems just possible that ActVcTai may represent yiVcTat. 
 (Tv^y 8c fx-q is impossible, and we must certainly adopt 
 a-v^rjv. 
 
62 EUDEMIAN ETHICS 
 
 lb. 17 KoX ixaXicTTa Xavddvei tj TOLavrr) e^ts ws <^tA.ta. 
 
 It seems to be thought that this can mean ' it passes for 
 friendsliip,' but XavBavu ws will not give any such sense. 
 Perhaps we may read Xav6av€L - <ovk> ova-a ^iXla. For 
 fiovXovTai (fjiXoL^ which occurs three times in a few lines, 
 Jackson would read jBovXovTai ffuXdv. That however is 
 not the point. KJuXdv is not the same as ^iA,oi eivat, and, 
 though the loss of ilvai in three places is very strange, I do 
 not see how we are to avoid inserting it, as it cannot be 
 understood. In 17 read ov Srj (for ov8') avev. 
 
 1238a 4 €1 Sr] cfitXo<s lorat <Kai> (rol <f>tXo<s^- 
 
 ih. 7 Read to ovto oXXia, koX et (or ei 8e) . . . (TTrovSaios, 
 . . . ecTTi (for oTi) •^prj(TLix,o<i. wcrTe . . . aAAw goes with the 
 words preceding. 
 
 ih. 14 Omit rj. cfuXta is an excellence of nature. 
 
 ib. 20 Tov^ fxrj ovTws ovTas cftiXov? dXA.a 8ta to ;(p77crt/xov 
 Tv^6vTa<;. 
 
 <Tov 6v6fjLaTo<s> Tvx6vTa<; 1 There is no proper antithesis 
 otherwise. Cf. 12486 11 toi/ ravr*/? aXr]6S>s rcv^o/xevoi/ Trj<s 
 Trpo(Tr]yopLa<s. 
 
 ib. 24 Study of the passage will show that ^Sv should be 
 yXvKv. It is due to rjSvi etc. in the context. Cf. on 
 1222a 1, 12246 1. 
 
 ib. 36 olov <€i> or <§>, as just before and after. 
 
 1 2386 1 <^aiiA.oi> ^ ovSirepoL, as four lines above. 
 
 ib. 8 Perhaps only dTrXois is missing. 
 
 ib. 33 After rfSovrjv there should be a partial stop. 
 
 1239a 31 Spengel's ry . . . rjSovfj seems right, but 6 should 
 be omitted. The text continues, ivea-Ti yap dvdyKrj ivep- 
 yovvra, of which it is impossible to make any proper sense. 
 Should it not be Iveo-n yap {i.e. rjSovrj) dvayKr} ivepyovvri 1 
 ivcpyovvTL means actually feeling friendship or liking ; 
 cf. 1237a 30 foil., 1238a 10. 
 
EV DEM I AN ETHICS 63 
 
 12396 19 <j>bivaX KoX at €^6is Ktti (rvv7j/x€p€v(TeL<; . . . ^Storai. 
 
 €^6ts and at must both be wrong. Should we read Kai 
 8taA.€^€ts or StaXc^is, i.e. speech "I The word does not seem 
 to occur in the sense of ' conversation.' 
 
 1240a 8 TTcpt 8e <tov> seems necessary. In 14 on the 
 other hand omit the article 17, <^tA.ta being the predicate. 
 It is friendship only kut avaXoytav, not aTrXcos. 
 
 ib. 22 Perhaps Kai for ws. 
 
 1 3406 1 1 Kol t(r(i>5 6/x.tA.€t avT09 avTio. 
 
 Has to-ws any meaning here 1 I conjecture ea-riv ws or 
 
 ib. 19 OTL yap TTQ ofioiOL KOL €ts Kttt avTos avTO) dya^os K.T.\. 
 
 I can hardly believe the obvious correction o/xoio? to be 
 right, the word seeming weak and not natural in its place. 
 Was 6/Aoi/o€t the originaU Cf. 1241a 1 foil. That how- 
 ever renders rather harsher the omission of eo-rt with 
 the adjectives. 
 
 ib. 2b S^Aov yap ws TOVTO TTws <ov> o-TTovSatov avTwv 
 
 TO avTo TToaov seems unmeaning, and aXXa Sokci k.t.X 
 points to a negative preceding. tovto I should take to be 
 the vacillation and variation in the men's feeling or 
 judgment. Their virtuous intervals are not enough to 
 make them virtuous. 
 
 ib. 32 Judging from the context and 27 in particular, 
 we should insert something like dya^o? ov ^atVcrat. 
 
 1241a 19 Unless much is missing, perhaps we might 
 read ea-ri yap ('it is possible ') rdvavrta voctv Kat iTnOvfxelv 
 (Spengel's to voouv and to iinBvfxovv will not doj. This 
 however does not well account for to klvovv. Might we 
 think of TavavTt', dv ti;;^];, voetv v 
 
 ib. 21 €OTi for cVt"? 
 
 ib. 30 loTt 8* 7) ojxovoia <ixaXi<TTa> 
 
64 EUDEMIAN ETHICS 
 
 12416 20 rov kvo<i <ev€Ka>, as in the next line? In 21 
 TO should follow, not precede, d/x</)OTcptoi/, which is the 
 predicate. 
 
 ib. 37 apLo-TY) is probably right (Jackson opto-rea) and 
 goes with both clauses, kut apidfxov and KaT avakoyiav. 
 
 1242a 10 OV llOVOV (f)L\iaL, dXA.a KoI U>S cfiiXoL KOLVUiVOVCrLV, 
 
 at 8' dAAat KaO' virepox-rjv. 
 
 This gives no antithesis. <^tA.ot comes from ^tAiai and 
 we should read <os to-oi. 
 
 ib. 25 aXXa KOi Xiav ov fiovavkiKOV dA.Xa kolvwvlkov *? 
 
 The changes involved are slight. Sict and A.tai/ are 
 confused elsewhere, and o 8 often. >cat and Xiav often go 
 together. 
 
 ib. 27 OLKta 8' tOTTt Tis (f>tX.La. 
 
 The expression is odd. Should it not be eV oi/cta, as 
 in 40? 
 
 ib. 30 The relations of master and slave are not (he says) 
 forms of friendship or justice, dAX' avdkoyov, wa-irep kol to 
 vyuLvbv ov St/catov dXX' avdXoyov. 
 
 One or two other suggestions have been made for 
 vyueivov, but it is not difficult to see that a-vyyeviKov was 
 the word. Cf. 1 foil, above and Nic. Eth. 5. 6. 11346 9. 
 
 12426 14 Jackson's tokov is tempting, but seems really 
 an improbable original for toJ tcno. I have thought of to 
 avTo, which might become toJ avTio and then be changed 
 under the influence of ta-ov. Cf. on 1238a 24. 
 
 In 15 perhaps <cts> TovvavTcov. 
 
 ib. 20 Perhaps 7rp6s tov apxafxevov, but there are parallels 
 for the accusative. See my note on Thuc. 5. 105. 1 
 (Glass. Quart. 8. 75). 
 
 In the next sentence ought we not to have 7rp6? to 
 KepBo9 Tr]V TL/Ji-qv OV Trjv T. Trpbs to k.1 
 
 ib. 24 After 6/>tot(os a o)?, Kat, or t<3 seems lost. In 30 
 read <t6> tov. 
 
EUDEMIAN ETHICS 65 
 
 ih. 29 We seem to want something like cv ttoitJ <aT€po9 
 aur<3v axTTTip av> 6 ^€09. Fritzsche's note implies that o)s 
 has MS. authority, but Susemihl does not report this. 
 
 ib. 36 avTois eac/i oi/ier, not avrot*?. 
 
 1243^4 o-^oi^Tes to match Sol/res'? Indeed the present 
 tense is not suitable, for in most cases the pleasure is 
 now over. Cf. on Problems 29. 13. 7. 
 
 ib. 10 ov 7r€cfiVK€v <a.A.AoTpiov>' hLKaiov elvail 
 
 Cf. Plato Bep. 405 b. But some other word, e.g. vofiLfxov 
 or yStaiov, might be used. 
 
 ih. 16 TTotov should be another ttoo-ov. irpos to Trpayfia 
 seems = ro) ttoioOi/ti, though that sense is rather arbitrary. 
 
 ib. 26-28 If the trivial gift of a drachma is really to 
 illustrate the line preceding, fxiKpov and /xcya ought to 
 exchange places. The result to the recipient was great, 
 but the loss to the giver was small. Then in what follows 
 6 fiev is the giver dwelling on the seriousness of the danger, 
 6 Se the recipient dwelling on the small amount of the 
 money. If on the other hand the text is right, 28 must 
 mean that one dwells on the smallness of the sum of 
 money, the other on the smallness of the danger. But this 
 latter sense cannot be obtained without the addition in 28 
 of some expression equivalent to makes light of, much 
 as Tarretvoicrri is used in 1244a 6. I think the former 
 alternative is to be adopted. 
 
 Just below Jackson reads wg twice for 7ro>?. To me 
 neither word seems good Greek (ttws aJvtos in Aristophanes 
 is diiferent) and I suggest ocrou or oiroarov, at its then (or 
 present) value. 
 
 ib. 36 Omit ot before tjOlkol. 
 
 12436 16 ciScVat for ISelvl In the words that follow, 
 \aXeTrbv yap fjuerprjcTaL ivl tcSSc to fxrj /car* ivOvuipiav, no doubt 
 we should accept rd for to. But is toJSc right 1 It does 
 not appear to have been called in question, but is oddly 
 used. Should it be 6t(o Srj anything you like 1 In the 
 next line I think cus t6v tjSvv may have come from tovSc 
 
 p 
 
66 EUDEMIAN ETHICS 
 
 ws 7]hvv (cf. iKtlvov following), and, if so, tw8c may have 
 come from rovSf, kvl being in itself quite sufficient. 
 
 ih. 34 For to ttXoxxtlov read tov ttXovtov. If we take 
 note of 35-6, Trpos kKanpov looks very much like a mis- 
 reading of iiipo% kKaripov. Otherwise I do not see the 
 point of the stress laid in what follows on the relative 
 proportions of part to whole. Perhaps then cTra rt to 
 ZoOhf (or €tTa TovTihoBev) fxipofs kKaripov. 
 
 1244(X 4 Is not <tw> ironpov or something similar 
 necessary. 
 
 ih. 13 aXKa would seem a repetition of dA.A.a. It is 
 incompatible with Travra. It might stand for a/>ta, but a/xa 
 would hardly be in place. 
 
 ih. 17 The dative J has no construction, for it would 
 give a wrong sense to supply SlSoxti or even Set StSovai. 
 Has TTpeVci or some such word been lost 1 
 
 In 19 ov Beov is very pointless : is it not a dittograph of 
 ovScV or ouScvos following 1 
 
 ih. 29 TO €LvaL should probably be the subject of vTrdpx^tv 
 and stand before koI to) SoVrt. 
 
 ih. 32 foil. fiaWov avTOV (fyiXovo-t tov e^ovTos^ 
 The plural (ckciVovs) following is not inconsistent in 
 Greek with the singular (tov €xovto<s). aXXos and avro? 
 sometimes, I think, interchange. Should ;(p>7(r(./xwrcpo? 
 be the superlative ? I cannot see the sense of a com- 
 parative. Slotl for oTL before xpW'-f^^'*) ^^ being merged in 
 at preceding if? fxaWov seems to need an dyaOov after 
 it, unless (what is hardly likely) we are to read /xci^ov. 
 The sense appears to be ' as though he had chosen a greater 
 good (and then forsaken it).' 
 
 12446 9 ovS' tcTTai avT*a ov ye /xt/S' (or /xr^Scv) ivBeyj^ ttotc 
 or ttot' ia-TL 1 
 
 ih. 31 eoTTL fXT) XavOdveLv can only mean ' 7nay escape 
 notice ' ; should we read <dvayKr;> ka-TL ? 
 
 ih. 36 KOt «K TOVTiOV OTL <<TVfJt,^aivU> TOlOVTOtS (or TOtS 
 
 TOiovTOis) virdpx^LV 1 
 
 I 
 
EUDEMIAN ETHICS 67 
 
 1245a 22 Read 8c tv for Sci, going with <f>aiv€TaL. 
 
 ib. 31 ^(aAcTrov Ttt €<^' €v6<; yevea-Oai means nothing, but 
 we may restore the obvious ^^aXcTrov Travra c^* evos yevea-Oai. 
 
 In 32 I think some word like iyyvrarov should be added 
 to the first clause : ofxoiov, understood from the second, is 
 not enough, even if it gives the right meaning. But the 
 two clauses are probably contrasted. 
 
 12456 5 Read Sta Tpo<f>r]^. 
 
 ib. 15 Koi rov <<nrovSaLOV> ofxoiov a^tov/xcv? 
 Without this we should certainly expect ovSc (not Kat) 
 . . . aiiovfxev. 
 
 ib. 29 fir) ivSexofiivov Se, aA,A.o or aAAws? 
 
 ib. 32 For 6v Jackson o. olov 1 
 
 ib. 38 'iKavoL . . . KaK07ra6ovvT€^ is parenthetic. After 
 (Tv/ji,fjt.€T€X€Lv there should be a comma only. 
 
 1 246a 1 Ktti, one would think, should go with Xvrrov/xei'ov. 
 
 ib. 8 ov fiovKovTai, eTrct (or eTrctSiy), ct y€ tls v7r€p/?oA.as 
 TTOMytrci, </xaA,A.ov )(atp€Lv> 6fJi,o\oyi^<r€Lv k.t.X. ? 
 
 i6. 14 Put the ftev after the to. 
 
 i6. 18 Ktti fir) KOLfJiVOVTi, rj avTOV 1 
 
 Bonitz KoifxvovTa, rj avros. I should take y avrov to mean 
 ' the man in himself, on his own account ' = 8t* avrov. 
 
 ib. 22 /A>y8' ctj/at dvayKatov <6pav 7rpaTTOvo"iv> avTots Ka/cws'? 
 ala-ddvio-Oai in 24 should be aicrddveTaL. 
 
 Book VIII 
 
 The text of the first two chapters of this book is in so 
 deplorable a state that it seems almost lost labour for 
 anyone to endeavour to restore it. If by happy chance he 
 hits on the original words, he cannot have sufficient reason 
 to feel sure that he has done so. He can hardly convince 
 
 F 2 
 
68 EUDEMIAN ETHICS 
 
 himself ; he will assuredly fail in most cases to convince 
 others. Professor Henry Jackson has published in the 
 Journal of Philology, Vol. 32, a recension of the text 
 containing many ingenious proposals. 'Certainly some of 
 them may well be right, but they all labour under this 
 disadvantage and some seem to me far from probable. 
 I have myself judged it wiser to make no attempt at 
 correction in these chapters. We have not foothold 
 enough for progress. Chapter 3 is in a much better 
 condition, and I subjoin a note or two on that. 
 
 12486 22 Read at (not ol) (Tw<t>pov€s. 
 
 ib. 31 ovhev av 6vi^<t€L€ p^/aw/xcvos a^TOts. 
 
 Surely ov-qO^C-q. The passive aorist is found in Xenophon. 
 
 1249a 1 The argument seems to need dya^a /xcv <^vcrct, 
 or even <^vcrct dya^a /xer, not cfivaeL fiiv ayaOd. 
 
 ib. 6 Either a)v eveKa or KaXov. 
 
 ib. 23 After cKacrrov something is lost, e.g. <€i fj^eWet 
 l(T)(yp6v €rvai> Kttt ev vyiatvov. 
 
 12496 7 Trpo? TTjv e^Lv Kara ttjv ivipyeiav rrjv tov apypvTO<i. 
 
 ivepy^LU Kara rqv e|tv one could understand, but rrjv e^iv 
 Kara ttjv ivepyetav seems strange, to say nothing of <Tr]v> 
 Kara being needed. Should Kara be Kat"? 
 
 ib. 14 ou yap cTTiraKriKois ap)(0)v 6 Oe6<i, dA.A,' ov ev€Ka -q 
 <j>p6v7)(TL^ €7rtrdrr€t. 
 
 Read (1) cTriraKTiKos apxoiv or perhaps eTrtraKTiKws oip)(€i, 
 and (2) dAA' ^ for dA.A.d. God prescribes only what wisdom 
 prescribes. 
 
 ib. 21 ex^ei Se tovto <KaA<3s> rfj ij/v)(rj 1 
 
IV 
 
 THE POLITICS 
 Book A ' 
 
 1252a 24 ct hrj ri<s ii apxrjs TO. Trpdyfxara <fiv6fi€va ^X^xj/uiv. 
 
 In Aristotle's Greek, as in that of earlier prose-writers, 
 /SXeiroi is not a transitive verb. That use belongs to poetry : 
 prose and comic verse down to this date have /SActtw ci? 
 (Trpd?, iirt). Here €19 has perhaps been lost after rjs in 
 dpxrj^' In a fragment of Aristoph. N^o-ot I have corrected 
 ^v )8A.e7r€t«; to y ^AeVcts, and on Peace 208 see my Aris- 
 tophafies and Others p. 34. But Theophrastus, if the text 
 may be trusted, has not only ^Xeirw but even dTroySAeVto as 
 a transitive verb in the fragment de Vertig. 6 and 8. 
 
 12526 3 ouTw yap dv OLTroTeXoLTO KaXXicrra rtov opydvMV 
 CKacrrov, fir] 7roXA.ots cpyots dAX' evl SovXevov. 
 
 Read BovXiva-ov. The whole passage turns on the purpose, 
 intention {tv irpb<s ev) with which a thing is made, what it 
 is to do, not what it does. 
 
 1253a 6 arc irep d^i'^ wv wcnrep kv ttcttois. 
 
 Frequent as are is in some prose-writers (not the most 
 scrupulous, who use ws), are irep seems not to occur else- 
 where, nor is it a very natural combination. The order of 
 the other words is also odd, as though one said ' a pawn as 
 in chess,' 'a captain as in a ship,' when one meant 'like a 
 
 6'.t 
 
70 POLITICS 
 
 pawn in chess,' * like the captain of a ship.' Did not 
 Aristotle then write are wv wo-Trcp a^v^ cV ttcttois? The 
 MSS. show considerable uncertainty. 
 
 ih. 37 1] St hiKaiofrvv-q ttoXitikov rj yap ScKTf TroXtTLKrjs 
 KOivtuvias ra^t? icmv' r/ 8e StKry toS StKaCov /cpiVis. 
 
 For 17 ya/o SUrj read to yap SiKaiov, which is taken up in 
 rov SiKaLov much as in JEth. 5. 6. 11 34^ 30 cart yap SUaiov 
 . . . rj yap Blky] KpLcn? tov htKaiov. In the Politics 7} yap SiKYf 
 is clearly out of place, to say nothing of the awkwardness of 
 rj yap Blkt] . . 17 8e Blkt). The St/caiov which is tt.k. Ta^is is of 
 course to vo/xlimov or Kara vo/xov. 
 
 1254a 33 dp/xoviai?, or iv ap/Aoviais? 
 
 12546 6 ^ for Kai before (Saa-iXiK-qv'l The confusion is 
 well known. 
 
 ib. 23 Instead of either \6yov or koyto ala-Oavoficva I am 
 inclined to suggest A,oyu) TreiOofXiva, supposing altrOavo/xeva 
 to have come from ala-Odvea-OaL in the line before. ir^iOofxtva 
 is in better antithesis to vTnypcTct; Both sense and con- 
 struction (the participle) are paralleled in 1333a 18 to 8* 
 ovK t)(€i. fxkv Ka6^ avTO, \6yio 8' vrraKOveLV Suja/xcvov. Cf. below 
 on 1264a 13. 
 
 ib. 35 fjiovov should follow not o-to/xa but o-to/xaTa in 33, as 
 Susemihl's note half suggests. 
 
 1255a 17 8ia yap TOVTo T0t5 fxkv evvoia 6ok€l to StKaiov 
 eivat, rots hk avro tovto SiKaiov, to tov Kpeirrova ap^aiv. 
 
 The explanations of ewoia are very unsatisfactory. 
 ivvoia 8oK€t TO hUaiov ctvat is an extraordinarily elliptical 
 way of expressing the meaning which has been found in it, 
 that goodwill (on the slave's part or on both sides) is a 
 justification (for slavery), to hUaiov too — that which is 
 just, not that which makes something else just — is not justi- 
 fication ; nor do the examples quoted of ivvota towards a 
 master show that it is the same thing as willingness to be 
 a slave. A slave or servant may feel cvvoia enough and 
 yet not be contented with his position. He may recognise 
 
POLITICS 71 
 
 and return his master's good- will, but at the same time be 
 intolerant of a master. 
 
 Now there is no doubt that cwoia and ivr}6{i)La (and 
 kindred forms) are sometimes confounded in MSS., as they 
 well may be (NO, H0). See Plato Bep. 401 a and Hipy. 
 Min. 371 E (Burnet), Lysias 9. 2 (1) : in Plat. Hipp. Mai. 
 293 D one MS. has €vvorj for ^vrjBy]. Some passages from 
 the Republic were perhaps in Aristotle's mind : 348 c ^ rrjv 
 SLKaw(Tvvr]v KaKiav (KaXcts) ; ovk, dA.Xa ttolvv ycvvatav ev-qOeiav : 
 349 B ov yap av rjv a(TTtio<: . . . koL €vy67]<; (6 SiKato?) : 336 C 
 €v7)6i^£cr$€ and 343 D w evrjOea-Tan ^tuKparcs (see context) : 
 just as avTo TovTo St/caiov to tov KpctTTOva apyiiv recalls 
 Gorg. 483 d and similar passages. evrjO^La will also give to 
 8ia TOVTO a meaning which at present it seems rather to 
 lack. With iv-qOna Bokcl to hiKaiov ctvat perhaps we may 
 compare 1257b 10 Xrjpo^ clvai So/cct to vo/xurfxa. 
 
 12556 7 Has it been suggested that koL 8t/catov koI Set go 
 together 1 
 
 ib. 38 17 SiKaia should precede olov. 
 
 12566 27 oTt Set for S Bell So ^rt 6ecawse in 12576 11. 
 
 1257a^ 10 vTToSry/xaTO? <r} V7rd8>7/>ia>, as in 12 ? Cf. how- 
 ever Eth. Eud. 1232a 4. 
 
 i6. 21 Is 7rA.€tWos T^9 Koivfovtas oua->79 a legitimate use of 
 7rA«W ( = /Aet^wi/) 1 Should we not read irXeioviovl Cf. 1252(X 
 11, 12526 15 and 28, 1261a 23. In 12856 33 the MSS. 
 vary between ttAciovos and TrXctovwv (right). 
 
 ih. 23 After iriptov insert cVAcova^ov (33). 
 
 12576 7 xp>7MctTa)v after ttX^^os is clearly wrong (Gifanius) 
 and due no doubt to XPW^"^^^ i^ ^^^ li^® following, avrov, 
 iKeivov, or vo/xtV/AaTos would be right. 
 
 In 21 again the same thing seems to have happened (cf. 
 on 1264a 13). The first xpvp-o-todv should be ttX-ovtov (cf. 19 
 and 24 particularly). dXA.' ^ does not harmonise with ov 
 TTttVTws and should probably be a\kd, though the mistake is 
 much oftener the other way. Cf. on 13166 15. dAX* 7} 
 (Spengel etc.) is not satisfactory. 
 
72 POLITICS 
 
 ih. 30. Perhaps we should write Kai for ov, t^s 8' 
 olKOVOfJLLKrj<s Kttt ■^prjfxaTLaTLKrji;, i.e. oIkov. as well as XPVf^- ^^• 
 Eth. 1139<X 29 ToS Sc irpaKTiKOv kol StavorjTtKov, i.e. irp. as 
 well as 8. 
 
 1258a 23 <7rpos> Tpo<jir}v1 Tpocftrjv <7rape)(ov(rav> ^ 
 
 12586 21 irpwra may be right ; but Trpwr-Qs, as in 28, 
 seems likely. 
 
 12596 15 Is fx€v really in its place ? Cf. Newman's note. 
 
 ib. 24 irorepov ea-TLV aperi] rts 8oi;Xov . . . oTov cro}<f)po<Tvvrj 
 Kol avSpeia koI SiKaLoavvrj kol tG)v aAAcoi/ tG)v tolovto}v c^cwv, t; 
 ovK ecTTiv ovSefjLLa irapa ras (rui/j.aTLKa<s evepyeia?. 
 
 What is the construction of the genitive twv aXXwi/ . . . 
 €$€(i}v1 No parallel cited is at all in point except 13386 30, 
 where correction is very easy. Spengel (Arist. Studien iii. 8) 
 would apparently insert c/cao-i-*;. Perhaps, dropping /cat, we 
 should place twv aAXoov . . . e^ecJv before or after ovSefita. 
 
 1260a 16 oaov €KdcrT(o k.t.X.. Is iKavov lost ? 
 
 12606 4 Read ov^ ■^ r-qv StSacr/caXi/o/i/, or ov^ y S., for ov 
 TtjV 8. 
 
 Book B 
 
 1261a 28 ^wo-t foroio-i *? wo-t Ke;(topicr/xeVot would naturally 
 mean separation after living together, i.e. = SuoKta/jievoL. 
 
 ib. 34 KUT ivLavTov T) Kara tlv aWrjv Tct^tv rj )(^p6vov. 
 
 The antithesis of ^(povov to tol^lv is odd (Spengel). In 
 13306 25, Problems 3. 10, and Plato Gorg. 496 e t/doVos is 
 a v.l. for xpoyo<s. Would not rd^iv r) (or better kol) Tpo-n-ov 
 be an improvements In Bhet. 1372a 32 I would make a 
 similar change, comparing 14026 37. 
 
 ib. 37 €xii for tx^iv is an easy correction. 
 
 12616 3 €iK€Lv is a word hardly, if at all, known in prose, 
 vTreUeiv taking its place ; nor does it seem more appropri- 
 ately used for retirement from an office in due course than 
 yielding would be in English. The use of v-rreiKctv in Eth. 
 
POLITICS 73 
 
 Eud. 1233a 29 is not parallel. .Considering the context I 
 cannot but think the word should be apxit^v. Though the 
 perversions would be hard to explain, we seem to want 
 something like ev 8c tovVois fJUfxelTat to iy fxipii apx^iv to fjirj 
 L(rov<s KOL 6/xoiov? eii/at i^ ap)0<i. 
 
 1262a 1-14. What exactly is the antithesis drawn in 
 lines 6 foil, between things as they are and things as they 
 would be ? In the state as it is (Aristotle says in detail) 
 various people call a man by various names expressing their 
 various relations to him, son, father, and so on. In the 
 Platonic state they would all use one and the same word 
 (to avTo), and that word is certainly c/xo's. But what would 
 c/ids mean ? Not my son, father, brother, as the case may 
 be ; that is, it would not indicate son or father ; because 
 then the practice would be what it is now. They would 
 simply say c/xdq, ' 7ny Charmides ' or ' my Glaucon ' and 
 express no distincter relationship. In saying this Aristotle 
 seems to be proceeding on Plato's use of to e/xoV only (Rep. 
 462 c twice, 463 e). That e/xd? alone cannot possibly mean 
 my son (Susemihl and Hicks) or any other definite relation 
 is shown, if it needs showing, by the simple consideration 
 that no man could be called my son by all the rest of the 
 citizens. He would be son of some, grandson of others, 
 brother of very many. Aristotle then here writes as if 
 «yds and c/xds only was what Plato meant. Yet surely it is 
 a very forced interpretation of Plato's language, which does 
 not really point to such a meaning. Plato's to ip.6v is in 
 no way inconsistent with the recognition of exacter relation- 
 ships, as set forth in 461 d and 463 c, and, as they are to 
 be recognised and felt (o)s d8eA.<^(3 k.t.X. vo/xul ivTvyxoLy^t.v), so 
 no doubt they would be expressed. Indeed Aristotle's own 
 Toi/ TpoTTov TovTov vlov practically admits this. I have dwelt 
 on the point, partly because editors do not bring out the 
 sense very clearly, partly because it helps us to a small 
 improvement in the text. In the words to avTo /xev trpoa-- 
 ayoptvovTa<s it is difficult to find the force of /xcv, which has 
 nothing corresponding to it either exactly or, as is often 
 the case, in an inexact form. I conjecture that for jxev we 
 should read /aovov, with which it is often confused ; i.e. 
 only ^my,' not ' my son ' and so on. 
 
74 POLITICS 
 
 ih. 20 yivo/icva for yiVQjxiva 1 Cf. b 25 fX€Ta<f}€p€iv to. 
 yivofxeva reKva. No mistake is commoner. 
 
 1263a 18 ot TrAetcTToi <<f}aivovTaL> hia<f>€p6fi.€V0Ll Or 8ia- 
 fftipovrai, the participle being due to rrpocTKpovovTf^ ? 
 
 i6. 23 Kai ^^€o-tv imKoa-fJirjStv koI ra^et '? The first Kai' will 
 thus have much more propriety. 
 
 ib. 34 Ttt fxev •^(firicnp.a irouZ rol<5 ^iXois, rots 8e ^p-^rat 
 Kotrots, otov Kai Iv AaKiSaifJLOVL rots T£ SouXois ^(paivTat Tois. 
 dA,Xr^Xo)v (OS ciTTttv iStois K.r.X. 
 
 Does Aristotle mean by kolvol<s common to everyone, 
 friends or nof? That yields a fair sense, but we might 
 expect the addition of aTravroov to make it clear. There is 
 also some difficulty in tois SovXols xpwvrat . . . iStois, because 
 tStos usually means exclusively one's own and that sense is 
 too strong here. If I make use of a friend's property, I do 
 not use it as mine to the exclusion even of the actual 
 owner, as though I had a right to use it and he had none. 
 Koivois and iStois have, (I suggest, but not without a good 
 deal of hesitation) changed places with one another, is 
 elireiv kolvols will then answer to Krr;orcis . • . ttws Kotvas 
 
 1263i 2 TO yap (not Sc) cfiikavrov 'i 
 
 ib. 36 Is the accusative in Bia Trjv -TratSciai/ due to kolvtjv 
 Kol fiLav. In 38 we have Sta ravrrys and here the genitive 
 would be even more natural. But the accusative is 
 possible, going with kolvtjv koI /xLav rather than with ttouIv. 
 
 1264a 1 avTov for avro, which seems too emphatic 1 
 
 ib. 13 a-)(^86v TO ye ttXtJ^os t^s ttoA-ccds to tu)v aA.A.ti>i' 
 TToA-iToiv yiVtrat ttX^^os. 
 
 For the first TrXrjdos read irX-qpiofxa, comparing 12676 16 
 TrX-qpoifxa n Trape^nvraL Tiys 7roA.€(os, 1284a 5 Swarol Trk-qpwfia 
 irapaa^icrdai TroAews, and, even closer, 1291a 17 ravra iravra 
 yiverai TrAr/pw/xa t^s TrpwTTjq ttoAcoos. 
 
 This kind of mistake, by which a word that occurs in the 
 context or is suggested by it gets substituted for the word 
 really intended,iis known and to a certain extent generally 
 
POLITICS 75 
 
 recognised, but it deserves more attention than it has 
 received. MSS. often prove it by their variations ; in 
 other cases it is quite unmistakeable. I have dealt with it 
 specially in my Notes on Xenophon and others p. 307 foil, 
 and in other books also have indicated apparent examples. 
 In the Politics there are a large number of passages in 
 which it seems to me to have occurred, without anyone 
 having yet (as far as I know) suspected it. I had noted 
 these without remembering that Mr. Newman has pointed 
 out (in his Politics Vol. III. p. xv.) how often the MSS. of 
 the Politics^ especialUy those of the first family, exhibit 
 this error. See the examples he gives, or those to be found 
 in the notes to Immisch's Teubner text at 1265a 35, 
 1285a 9] 1287a 4, 1336a 17, 1337a 14, 1341a 1. In my 
 notes above on 1253a 37, 12546 23, 12576 7 and 21 I 
 have already suggested it and shall have to do so very often 
 again. 
 
 ih. 1 9 avTots for rots before virofx^vova-L 1 
 
 12646 18 fXT] TrdvTiOV ^ /XT] TWV TrXcLO-TtOV flfpCivl 
 
 ib. 35 fxiOi^ovcTL is, I think, needed, like the futures e.g. 
 in 1-2 and 1265a 14. hit too points to it. 
 
 1265a 13 Kal <7rpos>To vvv (IpTjfxivov ttXiJ^os'? or<KaTa>? 
 
 12666 19 Add iviovq to TrwXctv, or something similar. 
 
 12676 18 Has not a man's name fallen out after iv 'E. 
 Tc 1 In 1316a 34 a similar suspicion has been felt. Cf. p. 106. 
 
 ih. 26 Insert XPW^*- (^^y) ^^ govern €(T6rJTo<i. It might 
 follow immediately or later. 
 
 12686 1 ymipyrjan is one of those repetitions of a word 
 noticed above (1264a 13), coming from yewpyoviras in the 
 line before. ycwpyi^o-ei hvo oiKias is a most improbable 
 expression. No doubt we should read oiKrja-ti, as in 12656 26 
 8vo oiKias oLKtlv. Cf. Newman, u.s. 
 
 In the next line I suggest (xtto t^s <i8ia«> y^s kol twv 
 avTwv KXripiiiv. 
 
76 POLITICS 
 
 1269« 17 In ov yap k.t.X. insert 6 8^/xos. ^Xa^rjcriTai 
 particularly requires this, but even oxfyeX-^aerai is not very 
 suitable to one man, as there is no need for him to gain 
 anything at all. Cf. kolvov ayaOov in 12686 31. 
 
 12696 22 ^cocrt yap aKoXd(rTOi<; irpos aTracrav aKokaatav koi 
 rpv<^rjv. 
 
 This use of Trpds (dKoXao-rcos Trpos aKoXaa-iav) can hardly 
 be paralleled and does not seem to me Greek. Several 
 times in the context we find avUfjicvoL or avco-ts, and I 
 believe that for a/coAao-Tos we should read av€t/xcvo>9, an 
 adverb found in Eth. 3. 5. 1114a 5. Cf. 1326^^ 28 
 aviifxiv-qv (ttoAiv) Trpos to irkrjdo'i. See again on 1264a 13. 
 
 ih. 38 ^pt^aifiOL . . . ovBev ■^crav wa-irep iv erepais TroA.co'tv 
 can only mean (1272a 41) 'not useful, as they have been 
 elsewhere,' not 'no more useful than elsewhere.' The 
 latter would require Sionrep ovSe (1277a 11). 
 
 12706 10 ^crav is not compatible with c/zTrtTTTovortv. Other 
 imperfects here do not justify this particular one. If 
 Aristotle meant to use it, why did he not write iviirnrTov ? 
 r;o-av and ctcriV are sometimes confused and probably we 
 should read the latter. 
 
 1271a 3 The middle KaraScopoSoKouyaevot is perhaps only 
 due to a middle participle following and should be -SokoOi/tc? 
 The two alleged parallels are very insecure (Ar. Frogs. 361, 
 Dem. 19, 329). Cf. on Eth. 7. 12. 1153a 12. 
 
 127 2ci 18 OLTTO irdvTiov yap tu)v yivofxivtav KapTTwv t€ koI 
 ftocTK-qpLaTUiv Brjfxocnijjv Kal ck tS)V <f>6pu)v 1 
 
 ih. 41 ovhi\v yap X-qfxfxaTo^ tl rots K6(Tp.oi<i should perhaps 
 be Xrjfx/xaTo<s {t(T)TL, ear have been lost after o?. But cf. 
 Magna Moralia 2. 6. 1203a 11 <S fjirjSev dyaOov tl vTrdpx^L. 
 
 12736 5 Set Tous BvvafJievov<; dpiarTa dp^civ (MSS. dpto-rap- 
 ^€tv) TOVTOV<i dp)(^eiv. 
 
 Another repetition (here anticipation) of a word. Aris- 
 totle wrote dpuTTa a-xoXd^eiv. Cf. lines 7 and a25 and 33, 
 12716 5, 1334a 9. 
 
POLITICS 77 
 
 ih. 1 1 yu,ry rov avTov TrpoarraTTeLV, or Trpo(TTaTT€Lv fj,7j rov 
 avTov. 
 
 ib. 40 Is TO Tot? dpx"^ aLp€Td<: possible without tx^iv or 
 some such word 1 
 
 1274a 30 Xiyova-i . . . A.£yovT€9 has all the appearance 
 of erroneous repetition or anticipation. 
 
 tb. 38 The genitives are very strange. Should they be 
 accusatives 1 
 
 Book r 
 
 1 275ci 3 iCTTL yap TIS OS K.T.X.. 
 
 ea-TL yap ocTTts (or rts oo-rts) is what we should expect, no 
 definite person being meant. 
 
 ib. 10 Perhaps ovtm yap av virdp-^OL kol rot? k.t.A.. the 
 confusion of ovrto and tovto, yap and yap dv (as in 1281a 
 16) being familiar. The subject of virdpxoi will be to 
 iroXiTYjv eivat (understood). In 14 dXXd may come from 
 12 or 16 and be a mere intruder. 
 
 ib. 33 6 fid\i(rT av c^ap/Aocras 7roA.tTr;s iirl Travras tovs 
 X€yo/>t€i/ov9 TToXtVas (r;(€8ov tolovt6<s ecrriv. 
 
 ttoXlttj's I take to be another anticipation of a word 
 just coming (TroXtVas). It is both awkward and incorrect. 
 The real word must have been such as 6pto-/Aos or 8topto-/xds, 
 as in ft 13 and 31. Cf. 12766 25 koivos rts (A.oyos) e^ap- 
 fioaei iraa-LV : Nic. Eth. 5. 7. 11346 33 6 auros dp/jioa-ei 
 SLopia-fjLo^ : Phys. 3. 1. 2016 14 and 4. 1. 209a 9 6 avros 
 (€<^)app,o(r€t Aoyos : ilf. ilf. 1. 20. 1191a 11 6 auros €<^' iKda-T(o 
 TovTCDv Siopiafxos dpfxoa-ei, and z6. 11826 34 : ^^/i. ^z^cZ. 7. 2. 
 1236a 26 ovk c<^ap/xoTToi/T05 ci/6s Adyov : Topics often : 
 Theophr. fragm. 1. 88 and fragm. 58. 
 
 12756 8 Read dW* ^ for dWd. There were no Kvpiai 
 €KKXr)(TLaLt (as the Athenian terminology went), only 
 crvyKXrjTOL. 
 
78 POLITICS 
 
 ih. 33 Ktti for fj 1 So perhaps in 19 (see c. n.). 
 
 1276a 15 The logic of the passage calls for ov <f>ariov or 
 for <fiaT€ov ^ ov <f>aT€ov, as in 12826 9. Perhaps €k should, 
 be added before rrjs TroAirctas 
 
 ib. 17 TToos irore how in the world is much too strong, 
 and 25 suggests that ttotc, not ttw?, is the word we really 
 want. Should we write ircos after (or near) oUilo^ 1 ttws 
 Kot TTOTc seems also possible. 
 
 ib. 25 ol avOpuiiroL occurring two or three times in the 
 context, it is likely that we should have it here too, i.e. 
 dvOpiOTTOiv immediately following twv. 
 
 In 34 T(0v avToiv awkwardly anticipates what is put 
 hypothetically in the next line (ew? av k.t.A., cf. 40) and 
 is probably an error for twv avOpdiiTruiv. 
 
 ib. 40 TTjV Be 7roA,tv €T€pav. 
 
 Why is this taken for granted 1 Since the question was 
 started in 25, nothing has been said as yet about any change 
 of constitution. We come to that in the next sentence 
 only. If therefore Aristotle wrote with care, he should 
 have qualified these words with an ct ovtcos hvx^v, an 
 to-ws, or something similar. 
 
 1277a 24 ireLvrjv <av>1 Cf. Newman's note. As it is, 
 6t€ jxr) Tvpavvol distinctly implies various times, two at 
 the very least, when he had not been tyrant. 
 
 ib. 30 dfji(f>6T€pa is, as Newman points out, a mistake for 
 €T€pa, due to dfXffiOTcpa in 31. Similar errors not far off 
 are avayKaioiv in 1278a 11 (aXA.tov Bernays) : <f}avev ib. 14 
 due to (f>avep6v in 13 and either a mistake for something 
 else or simply to be omitted (was it once avro yap to 
 <f>av€v 1 Cf. Plato Gorg. end t<3 Adyw tw vvv 7rapa<^avevTi) : 
 and TToXtTcias, a v.l. for /SorjOeias, 12786 20, due seemingly 
 to ttoXltlkov in 19. 
 
 12776 6 Scholars who adopt ron /acV — tote Sc for rov /xeV 
 and To»' §€ forget that ore p-ev — ore Se is the Aristotelian 
 form. 
 
POLITICS 79 
 
 1278a 25 €V ®T^fiaL<; Sk v6fio<s ^v tov ScKtt €Ta>v fiT) dTriaxr}- 
 
 Newman's suggestion <8ia> ScVa cVwv appears necessary, 
 unless we are to read tnq. In such a phrase the genitive 
 cannot in good Attic express duration of time. Plato 
 Gorg. 516 D Iva avrov SeKtt iriov fxt] d/covo-etav Trj<s <tiU)V7]S does 
 not mean that they were to go on during ten years not hear- 
 ing his voice, but thatjthey were not to hear it once in (we 
 sometimes say during, but in a different sense), ten years. 
 Ar. Lysist. 280 l^ iruiv aXovros is not ' remaining unwashed 
 for six years,' but ' not washed once in six years.' So 
 Plato Laws 798 B aKturjTOt yevtovrat fxaKpiov koL TroXXtov 
 )(p6voiv, and Herod. 4. 151 cTrra St ir^wv fxera raiJra ovk v€ 
 TTjv ®rjpr)v. Our words would mean not having stopped 
 away from the agora once in ten years, or possibly having 
 once in ten years not stopped aiuay (but gone), and we may 
 be sure this is not what Aristotle intended to say. 
 
 In late Greek the genitive is sometimes used for duration 
 of time [e.g. Lucian 8. 10. 2 ; 42. 3 ; 46. 24 ; Pausan. 
 5. 24. 9 ; Diog. L. 2. 7 and 23), but that is another thing. 
 There too the accusative also occurs in such negative 
 sentences as the present, e.g. Plut. Mor. 602 e ovSafiov 
 fi€T€<rTrj TO(rovTov ^povov, which we must not alter. 
 
 1280a 11 Victorius' Sokci to ta-ov SUaLov ctvat is very 
 attractive, especially in view of koI to dvLo-ov k.t.X. I have 
 thought also of ta-ov ri to StKatov, as in 12826 18, but the 
 other seems better. 1310a 30 no doubt supports the text 
 here, but is itself doubtful. 
 
 1281a 26 The words are slightly disarranged. Stapird- 
 ^(uat Kttt d<f>aLpo)VTaL to. Krrjixara % 
 
 ib. 41 Boieuv av XveaOaL KaC riv tyiiv diropiav, rd^^a Se kolv 
 oXrjOeLav. 
 
 The attempts to explain or emend this have not been 
 very satisfactory. diropLav has every appearance of being 
 right {diroXoyCav Immisch after Wilamowitz), whereas 
 Xvea-Oai is puzzling. In the sense of Xveiv diroptav clear up, 
 solve, dispel a difficulty, it cannot be applied to a simple, 
 straightforward proposition beginning with' oti. Eth. 7. 12. 
 
80 POLITICS 
 
 1153a 23 TO 8e . . . Xvirai is not parallel, for to Se k.t.K. is 
 an objection or argument propounded, not a thesis main- 
 tained. In the sense of disprove it is obviously impossible 
 here. Perhaps cv or KaXw? Aeyeo-^ai should be substituted. 
 Cf. 1282<X 14 ov Tzavra ravra Xeyirai KaXC)<s, and such a 
 phrase is frequent in Aristotle. In Plutarch Moralia 375 B 
 SiaXeyo/xei a is now corrected to hiaXvofx^va. Perhaps the 
 loss of ev or Ka\io<i led to the corruption of the verb. I 
 hardly think Xiyia-dat could stand alone here, but that also 
 may be worth considering. 
 
 12816 5 Would Aristotle say that a number of men 
 collected together do become one man with many feet and 
 hands ? wcnrep cannot be taken as modifying this, for it 
 only corresponds to ovtio and is not a qualifying word. We 
 expect therefore yLvea-Oai . . . <olov> eva avOpoiirov. wannp 
 should perhaps precede jLvecrdai. 
 
 1282<Z 37 TO)v Se prjOevTijiv eKacrro'S fxopcov ccrrt tovtiov 
 A,€yo> 8c fxopiov rov jSovXevTrjv k.t.X. 
 
 If anything was added to Xeyoj Se, it would naturally be 
 Tov<> p-qOevra^ or an equivalent, not fxopiov, for it is ruiv 
 pyjOevTiov that he is explaining. Should jxopLov be omitted ] 
 
 1283a 3 €TL . . . irav ayaOav tt/oo? Trai/ av etr) a-vfx/SXrjTov. 
 €1 yap fiaXXov to tI /Acyc^os, Kat oAoo? av to /xeye^'os ivdfjiiXXov 
 (l-q Kol irpog ttXovtov kol Trpos iXevOepiav. . . . rocrovSe yap 
 fxiyeOo-s €i KpeiTTov TocrovSe, rocroVSe B^Xov w? icrov. 
 
 Just as Plato argues that it is not any and every 
 difference between man and woman that should debar the 
 latter from the occupations of men, so Aristotle has been 
 arguing here that it is not any and every excellence, the 
 possession of any and every thing good, that can serve as a 
 claim to political rights or to anything else on which the 
 excellence in question has no bearing. Otherwise, he says, 
 every good thing would be comparable and commensurable 
 with every other, that is (I suppose) as a foundation of 
 rights of any kind. Then comes ei yap fxaXXov k.t.X., 
 which is extremely obscure. Some think that p-aXXov 
 means ' more a foundation of rights than wealth and free 
 
POLITICS 81 
 
 birth.' But both 'a foundation of rights ' and the rest are 
 very difficult to supply. Newman understands /xaAAov 
 to be /xaXXov ayaBov, but here again the adjective ayaBov is 
 hard to supply, especially as ayaOov in the preceding 
 sentence is a substantive, and it is also far from clear with 
 what TO tI jxey^Bos is compared. Now two or three times 
 just before this passage Aristotle has mentioned beauty 
 (kciAXos), good birth, and wealth as being ayaBd, and I am 
 disposed to think that /xaWov is a corruption of KaA,ov. 
 He tells us in 1326a and elsewhere that size is an element 
 in beauty. fxiy^Boq therefore, not previously mentioned 
 apart, comes in here under the head of koiAAos which he has 
 mentioned, and this makes its sudden appearance more 
 natural. The confusion in MSS. of KaWia-Ta with /jidXicrTa, 
 of KaWiov and KaXov with jxaWov, is quite familiar. 
 
 In Tocroj'Sc jxey€6o<s el KpelrTov Tocrov^e it is clear that, if 
 TocrovSe is ToaovBe fjnyeBov^;, the words are idle and unmean- 
 ing ; on the other hand we have no right to understand it 
 as meaning a certain quantity of another thing. Editors 
 therefore tend to omit the word altogether, always a very 
 unsatisfactory resource, unless we can explain plausibly 
 how a word or words came to be inserted. Newman, who 
 omits it, also suggests reading dyaOov for yw,ey€^05. fjLey€Bo<i 
 might be a wrong repetition of the fieyeOov^ just preceding, 
 and the suggestion is quite reasonable. But the sense 
 would still be incomplete. We do not want merely *if 
 this amount of good is better than that amount,' but ' if 
 this amount of one good is better than that amount of 
 another good,' the gist of the whole discussion being the 
 relation of different good things to one another. What is 
 really needed in the sentence, I think, is not the omission 
 or alteration of /xeye^os but the insertion of another 
 substantive after roa-ov^e. Mindful of wealth being men- 
 tioned above among other good things, I suggest roorovSc 
 yap fxeyeBo^ el KpeiTTov TOtroOSc <TrXovTov>. 
 
 ih. 30 SLafX(f>L(r/37)Tov(rL rpoirov tlvo. StKatws ttcii/tcs, dirXoii 
 
 Sc OV 7rttVT€5 SlKaiODS. 
 
 Can ou TravTcs be right? It implies that one claim at 
 least is just aTrXco?. That could only be the claim of dpcTT;, 
 
 G 
 
82 POLITICS 
 
 but 12836 20-35 shows that even it is not iu Aristotle's 
 view legitimate. aTrAois hi TravTcs ov 8iKai(os is an easy- 
 change, but perhaps ttcii/tcs should be omitted as accident- 
 ally repeated from the clause before. aTrAw? hi ov Si/caiw?, 
 makes a good antithesis to rporrov tlvo. StKaiojs. Cf. 1301<x 
 36 t^ovai TL Tracrat Sixatov, rj/xapTYjixivaL 8' aTrXois eio-tv. 
 
 ib. 42 ois ■<(rvjJi'7rdvT(i)V'> Xafx^avofxivoiV ? Cf. 6 34 ou^ &>? 
 Ktt^' €Ka(rToi/ dXX' 0)5 a$p6ov<i and 12816 2 ov;( ws CKacrrov dW 
 o)5 o-u/x'^'^^Tcts, At present J)? is very oddly used. 
 
 12836 24 ye is in an impossible place. It might follow 
 irXrjdo'i or go before Tavro in the preceding line. But with 
 €tvai or €tvat Set it has nothing to do. 
 
 1284a 25 ov yap iBeXuv avrov ayetv Tr)v 'Apyw fxera twv 
 dWoiv Q)S VTrepBaWovra ttoAv roiv TrAtorrypoji/. 
 
 Who would suppose from this that ol dAAoi and ol ttAo)- 
 Trjpes were the same, or again that Heracles was himself 
 for a time one of the crew, unless indeed it is meant that 
 he was never taken at all ? fxera rcov TrAojTi^pcuv twv aAAwv 
 or Twv dAAwv TrAwxT^pwi/ ? Cf. on 13306 26. We might 
 also think of v. ir. twv crvfXTrkoiTTJptDVy but this is less 
 likely. 
 
 1285<X 9 KTeivai yap ov Kvptos, el fxr} ev tlvl ySatriAeta is 
 another case of a word repeated from the context. /Sao-tAcia 
 occurs just before. I suppose Aristotle to have written €i/ 
 Tivi Katpo), avdyK-r], or something similar. 
 
 12860- 12 TTw?, which is wanting in some MSS., should 
 perhaps stand after y^Xidtov. Cf. on 1276a 17. 
 
 ih. 32 KaOaTTip <ydp>1 yap and Trapd are sometimes con- 
 fused, and the confusion is even easier than it seems ; so 
 after irep a ydp might easily fall out. 
 
 12866 35 €X€iv fi€v, or la-x^v /xcv c^ctv ^ Cf. on 13266 41. 
 
 12876 13 BrjiorSil 
 
 ib. 31 Kttt auTots 1 cf. 33. 
 
POLITICS 83 
 
 ih. 39 I think now (see Newman's note) that hUaiov 
 <rovTo> would not do very well Something however does 
 seem wanting, e.g. koI BiKaiov koI <TVfx<^ipov <aAAo aAA.ois>. 
 
 1288a 3 dAA.* ws avTOV ovra vo/xov ? 
 
 ih.W rj for KuH 
 
 Book H 
 
 13230- 34 The wa-irep in wo-Trep ttcij/tcs is probably an 
 accidental repetition (not standing for anything else) of 
 w<nr€p in 33. Rhet. 1. 6. 1363a 9-11 does not justify the 
 phrase here. So in 1327a 23 Trpo? seems to come Erom 21, 
 and ib. b 34 KaC from 33 : 12926 32 and 12946 37 the 
 second c^etvai and c^w^cv from the first. 
 
 Cf. perhaps auras and ravras in 13236 15-16. 
 
 Two lines above (^iXtcitovs and ^lAovs look like alterna- 
 tives. 
 
 13236 8 TO. €KTb^ e)(€i ircpa?, (xxnrtp opyavov tl' irav Sk to 
 XP^i/J-ov ea-Tiv <5pyavov> or <6pyav6v> kcTTiv 1 
 
 ib. 14 Kara t^v vTrepo^qv rjVTTip ii\y)-)(f. Siacrracnv Trpos 
 aAA>;Aa wv ^apav auras eti/at Sta^cacts ? At present Trpos 
 aAAr^Aa is much out of place, auras and rauVas seem two 
 versions of one word, unless for the latter we are to read 
 Toiauras (Bernays). With u7r«po;(r/v rivinp BidaTaaiv cf. 
 1324a 23 ttoAitciW . . . Kaff ^v rd^iv. 
 
 1324a 27 aiperos seems inadequate after aipcrwraros in 
 26. Should we write fxaWov atpcros (or atpcros p.aAAov) ^ 
 for atperos >) p,aAAov 1 But rj fxaXXov is common in Aristotle. 
 
 ib. 29 <fiiXo(r6<f>ov, like dvSpos in 40 ? That it is /aovos 
 <f)tX6(To<f>o^ needs no asserting, when its rival is ttoXltikos kol 
 irpaKTLKO'S. The /3tos OemprjTLKos may be TrpaKriKo's (13256 
 16 foil.) but not vice versa. 
 
 ib. 40 €<f> eKaa-rrjs yap dper^s ovk ctvat Trpa^ets K.r.A. 
 a<f> for e^' ? 7rpd^€is, or Trpdmiv, aTr' dper^s is a regular 
 Aristotelian phrase (1332a 12) in the Ethics etc. 
 
 G 2 
 
84 POLITICS 
 
 13246 32 Read rriv ttoXltlktjv Sea-TroriKi^v, not rrjv S. ir. 
 Cf. 1325a 27. 
 
 1325a 13 Kat for ^'^ 
 
 ih. 39 Assuming vTroXoyulv to stand for v7roA.oyt^€tv, we 
 may perhaps put down the false active form to the 
 influence of <fipovTi^€Lv which follows. Cf. on Nic. Eth. 
 1153a 12. 
 
 13256 3 KaA.as ras Trpa^cts evS€)(€Tat cTvai. 
 
 So much care is taken in Book h to avoid hiatus that 
 we may reasonably shift a word or two here and there to 
 secure that end. Here therefore read KaXa? ivBcx^rai. 
 1327a 28 for Set etvat read elmt Sel, as ib. b 9. 13296 41 
 in iTTCiSr) ovre kolvt^v <f>afjiev eTvai put kolvt^v before ovrc. 
 13326 39 ovSk vofiilet elvai KpetTTiDv should probably be 
 ovS" etvai. Cf. on 1341a 20. These passages are useful as 
 encouraging us to alter the order of words elsewhere^ 
 e.g. 13236 14 above, on other grounds. 
 
 ib. 32 dvOp(i)7roL<;, due to avOpwiroiv in 31, should be 
 7roA.iTai9. So a.v6p(jiTroi<i (vo/aots koX avOp<x)Troi?) is a false echo 
 in Plat. Prot. 327 c, where read hKaar-qploi'i. 
 
 1326a 2 fieXrCiovl 
 
 13266 41 fiev after rols. Cf. 13306 2. 
 
 1328a 20 ov yap T7]v avTTjv aKpl^uav Sei tyjTelv Bid re to)V 
 Xoytov Kttt Twv yLvofxevoiv 8ia Trj<s aiaOricr €(os. 
 
 dKpL^€La would be a quality of the \6yoi themselves, as it 
 is of ra yti/d/xcm 8. t. ai. 8ia therefore cannot be right 
 with Tcov AoycDi'. It is an anticipation of the other hid and 
 has taken the place of en-t. In Index 206 34 Bonitz cites 
 two examples of lit\ tov Xoyov just before quoting the 
 present passage. Cf. on 1305a 37. 
 
 13286 40 Toi)s fxeXXovTas ea-tcrOaL is at once imperfectly 
 expressed and after tovs TroXtVa? wholly superfluous. 
 Should we not read Tov<i jxeXXovras eaeaOai TroA-tVas aft«r 
 
POLITICS 85 
 
 1329(X 34 tTTCt . . . irpiiru r-qv re OepaTreiav aTToStSovai rots 
 OeoLS Ktti TTjV avoLTrava-Lv €;(civ Trepl airovs tov^ Slo. tov ;(povoi^ 
 aTTfiprjKOTas, tovtovs av etrj rat? tepoJtrvVais aTroSoreov. 
 
 Tovrovs and the dative for rovroi? and the accusative is 
 not the only mistake here. avdirava-LV t)(€Lv ircpl avrovs is 
 somewhat incongruous in idea and expression ; also, instead 
 of giving a reason for ras Upoxrvvas aTroSoTeov, it is just the 
 same statement in other words. The real reasons for 
 making old men the priests are (1) that priests are needed, 
 (2) that the old men need relief from ordinary work. 
 Read therefore tovtois tos ttc/di avTov<i ic/owcrwas diroSoTeov. 
 Cf. Eth. 8. 9. 1160a 24. 
 
 1330a 14 Trpos TO.*; co-xartas and vrpos rrjv ttoXlv have no 
 business with a to apiece. The two articles come perhaps 
 from TO occurring three times just before. They could not 
 be right here, unless the two parts had been so described 
 before, whereas the meaning is quite different. Omit to 
 therefore in both places. 
 
 ib. 22 flTJ 0-V/X./A€T€;(€lV fiovXtj^ TCOl/ TT/OOS ttUTOVS TToXefKOV. 
 
 Considering how often Aristotle has fiovXrj and ^ovXevo- 
 /xai TrepL, it is most unlikely that Trcpt was here deliberately 
 omitted. Still more unlikely is it that' in 13226 87 Trcpt 
 TO ^ovXevofievov elcn twv koivoJv can be right. That /3ov\i^ 
 should take a genitive is in itself, however improbable, just 
 conceivable, for we do find simple genitives in Greek some- 
 times after all sorts of substantives that in English need 
 to be followed by a preposition ; but it is incredible that 
 PovX€vofjiaL should. Presumably Trepi must be added in 
 both places. 
 
 ib. 26 fiaXuTTa filv {avdyKrj) . . . 8oi;Xovs cTi/ai, jxrJTe ofxo- 
 
 <f>vXo)V TraVTCDV /A^T€ OvfJiOiLSiLv. 
 
 About these genitives too there is great difficulty. 
 They are certainly not partitive or possessive. The point 
 to secure is not that the people or peoples from whom the 
 slaves come shall not be 6/>td^v\oi, but that the slaves 
 themselves shall not be so. Should we read rrdvToyv ovtwv 
 (or ovTO)!/ instead of irdvTOiv), an irregular genitive absolute 
 like that in 13356 24 iav Bi Tto-t yLvrp-ai Trapa TavTa <rvvBv- 
 
86 POLITICS 
 
 acrOivTUiv, where tkti and a-wBvacrOevTOiv refer to the same 
 persons 1 Or ought we to substitute accusatives 1 The 
 change would be greater than in 1274a 38. 
 
 ib. 37 I do not now think that Kar ivx;qv for KaTaTvyxdvcLV 
 would be satisfactory. Something like Susemihl's tov 
 iTTLTrjBetav before eti/at seems wanted. Kak-^v or w? fiekriaT-qv 
 would do as well as cVtTiySciav. 
 
 In what Greek writer or grammar did Immisch find 
 authority for the form irpocravT-qv 1 Perhaps the same that 
 authorised xa^oAws (see his note on 13416 20). 
 
 13306 26 Suo-c^oSos yap kKUV-q Tots ^iviKOi^ Kol Bvar€^€p€vvr)- 
 Tos Tots i7nTi6eixivoi<;. 
 
 We have a difficulty here like that in 13286 40, 41 (c/. 
 on 1284a 25). rots i, and tois i. are the same people. 
 Adopting Jackson's Svo-etVoSog, which is certainly right, we 
 might read rot? $. liriTLdefxivoi^i kol Bv(r€^(p€vvr)To<;, or some- 
 thing similar. 
 
 ib. 37 Kttt a-v/JL/SaLveiv evSextTacI koI iv8i)(€TaL /cat (rvfju- 
 /3atv€L 1 
 
 13316 39 This puzzling chapter would run more con- 
 secutively if OTL fikv ovv . . . VTrapxova-rjs (1332a 3) were 
 placed after ravras (XTrAtos in 1332a 25. At both points 
 there would be clear gain. 
 
 13326 19 lxo^T€s'? 
 
 ib. 27 TO T€ yap Lcrov 8t/catov /cat ravrov (equality and 
 identity of rights are just) 1 
 
 1333a 17 ovK €;(ov, e^ii being due to l^^t preceding 1 
 
 1334a 28 It is hardly reasonable to defend Set StKatoo-wrys 
 with an accusative of the person by a few such uses in 
 poetry. Such a defence is really in this case of no value 
 at all. Coraes added fxerix^Lv Perhaps rvyxa-vii-v- 
 
 ib. 36 <Tov> jxr) Svvaa-Oai, as in the next line ? 
 
 13346 13 ' Generation to start with and the (proximate) 
 end from any beginning have another end in view. The 
 
POLITICS 87 
 
 sense would be clearer if we added t€ after rj and put 
 €<ttC{v) before aAAov. 
 
 ih. 22 6vfi.o^ yap Kol /3ovXr]cri<;, Irt Se iinOvfjiLa koL yevo/xevoLs 
 ivdv's vTrdp)(€i Tot5 TratSt'ois. 
 
 Surely lTn6vp.Ca is out of its place. Either kind, yap Kal 
 fi.,or 0. yap Kal l-mB.^ In Sc pov\rj(rL<i. But the ascription of 
 ^ov\-q<jL<i to TO aXoyov and new-born children is strange. 
 
 1335a 29 rj p.LKpov <Trapa\XdTTOVTa^> 1 In 30 write <ri> 
 (Tu^cv^is, as in 36. 
 
 13356 40 orav y Kal TrpocrayopevOrj Trocrts. 
 
 What is the point of the distinction between the two 
 verbs 1 
 
 I have thought of orav <avr)p> y, in which dv-qp might 
 easily get lost, dvrjp would contrast with less responsible 
 youth. 
 
 1336a 6 dy€Lv <eU> or <7rpo9> Tr)v ir. l^iv'\ Mr. Newman 
 tells me he too has arrived at this conclusion. Oddly 
 enough in 13326 3 the ayctv is missing (Susemihl). 
 
 ih. 18 iOi^cLv three times and each time at the end of its 
 clause can hardly be right. I should like to omit the first 
 and put ix€v after (not before) the second. So in 6 9 /xck 
 should probably follow iXtvOtpov. 
 
 13366 7 pevToi for fitv ovv 1 
 
 ih. 10 aTi/Ltiai? seems to me an anticipation of the next 
 line. I suggest oviiheai or A.oyoi9. Plato Laws 847 a koXo.- 
 j^ovrmv oviihidi t€ koI dri/xiais (Newman). 
 
 ih. 17 Trpos hi rovroL^ d<f>Lrj(riv 6 vofio^ k.t.\. 
 
 Aristotle can hardly mean that divine worship in general 
 (Tifxa\(f>€Lv Tov^ Oeovs) is left to adult males exclusively : he 
 must be speaking of certain rites and occasions only. If 
 too he meant the former, he would naturally say, not that 
 the law allowed men to perform worship for wives and 
 children, but that it allowed worship to none but men. 
 Perhaps therefore Trpbs 8c toutoi?, the emphasis of which is 
 also a little strange, should be Trapa Sk tovtois, as in 16. No 
 
88 POLITICS 
 
 doubt Ti/xa\4>tLv TOi»s Oeovs becomes rather awkward at the 
 end of the sentence, but not more so than in 12886 12 
 ixia<s after iv aTracrai? . . . eTritrTi^/Aats. 
 
 ib. 20 Neither voixoO^Trjriov nor Oereov can be right. The 
 latter is not so used, at any rate in prose ; both give the 
 wrong sense of making them spectators instead of allowing 
 them to be. Jackson's clvat eariov seems what we want, but 
 to avoid hiatus the words should be re-arranged, e.g. Ji/ai 
 ^cara? iareov. It would be easy to add also vd/x<u or vofioOtrr]. 
 It is curious that both this passage and 42a 17 should be 
 wrong. 
 
 ib. 27 For ws read oaov, comparing 1339a 38. The 
 confusion is common. 
 
 ib. 38, 39 /xcTtt is in both places quite illogical and 
 impossible. Not the time after each period but that 
 duri7ig each period is meant. Apparently, as elsewhere, 
 jxerd has taken the place of Kara. Cf. the use of Kara in 
 13356 32. 
 
 Book ® 
 
 1337a 18 Read to ^cXtlov 7J6o<i. Superlative and com- 
 parative are often confused. 
 
 ib. 34 7) <6p0r]> TratScta ] lo-rat for icrTLv would be good 
 enough in itself, but the hiatus makes it unlikely, rj Sc 
 TratSeia tl^ tarai would have been obvious to write. 
 
 13386 4 cTret Se <f>avep6v . . . TratScirrcor eTvai. 
 
 Such a construction with (ftavepov, aa<fi€<s, etc. is not 
 recognised in dictionaries and grammars. The only parallels 
 which I know are Thuc. 8. 87. 4 i/nol fxevroi 8ok€l cra^ca-raToi/ 
 cTvai ... TO vavTLKov ovK dyayetv (where the grammar is not 
 the only objection, as a-a<^€o-TaTov elvac is hardly consistent 
 with ovSe paBiov elBevat in 2) and [Dem.] 44. 56 ^avepov 
 vp.1v i(TTLV, o) avSp€<; SLKaarai, to. ^tap,apTvpovp.€va p.-q ctvat 
 aX-qBrj, /cat Trap avTols ye Tot^rois 6/xoXoyctTai. This last and 
 the Politics passage would not be hard to emend (perhaps 
 by adding to to the infinitive in both), but the words of 
 
POLITICS 89 
 
 Thucydides are more difficult to deal with. The Problems 
 32. 13. ixiYiiish prima facie another parallel, but see below 
 on p. 152 (and also on p. 149). 
 
 ih. 16 ct Se (not tc) ? After ravr-qv we can hardly do 
 without fidXia-Ta or an equivalent. 
 
 ib. 25 €0)? fiev avTol TrpoarjBpcvov rats <f>LXoiToviai^. 
 
 It is a fallacy to suppose that avroC here can = fxovoi, a 
 fallacy which turns on the double sense of alone. ' I do a 
 thing alone ' may mean either that I do it by myself or 
 that I am the only person who ever does it. It is in the 
 former sense that in good Attic avros = fiovo^ = alone. 
 Such a use as Theocr. 10. 19. tv^Aos 8' ovk avroso UXovto^ 
 dXXa Kol oi<f>p6vTL(rTo^ "Epws is (I think) not Attic. Here 
 therefore fxovoL has to be added, as Eucken proposed. 
 
 In 28 not fiovov but fjLovov^ seems needed. Cf. 37. 
 
 1339a 19 TctTTovaiv should, I think, be TrpaTrovarw. rdrrui 
 without further specification by means of iv or cts (as in 
 b 19, 13376 29, 1338a 14 and 23) or something similar is 
 an incomplete expression. For irpaTTova-tv cf. 13376 18, 
 13396 9, 13416 11. 
 
 ib. 36 ixtTaXafxftaviLV t^9 yjhovrjs koX t^s /Aa^7y(r£o>5. 
 
 This is really indefensible. Listening to other people's 
 music is a very strange way of sharing in the /xdOrja-i^ 
 involved and it has just been implied quite distinctly that 
 the listener does not necessarily share in it (Ttvo<i av tvcKa 
 Scot fiavOdveiv avrovs ', cf. 6 2). As fiavdaveiv occurs just 
 before and /xdOrjo-L^ just afterwards, fxaO-^acux; looks like 
 another case of mechanical repetition, standing probably 
 for dvanavaiu)^ (cf. 16, 6 15 and 28 foil., 42, and else- 
 where). 
 
 1340a 14 One would think avTwv belonged properly to 
 Ttof /xifi-qa-euiv in 12. Cf. avT-qv in 27 and a^rots in 39 (where 
 Tois /xeXecTLv avrots is quite different in sense from Ttov 
 fifXiov avTiov here). In all three places it should mean 
 unaided, by itself. Cf. on 13386 25. 
 
90 POLITICS 
 
 ih. 21 For r}OLKu)v read tjOojv, as in 29, 33, 39. rjOiKo. is 
 not so used. 
 
 ib. 34 KoX Tavra . . . Trddea-Lv would be better after rjpiyia 
 in 30. It is quite needless and pointless where it stands. 
 
 1341a 8 For •^prjo-n'i and /Aa^^o-cts what we seem to 
 seem to want is dtr*oyorcts and Trpa^ei?. /xaOrjo-ei^ may come 
 from ixa6r](TLv in 10 and 6, XPW^'-^ possibly from axprjCTTov 
 in 7. 
 
 ib. 20, 24, 26 We have three cases of hiatus in which 
 the word aurds is concerned. Almost certainly these must 
 be errors. In 20 read toutcdi/ for avrtav, in 24 ivavrCov auT<3 
 for aur<3 ivavriov, in 26 avrov rrjv xprjonv. Cf. on 13256 3. 
 
 13416 31 VOIXLK(0<; SUXoifJitV. 
 
 vofXLKU)<: is not used in this way. Read AoyiKois, Aristotle's 
 technical term. The frequent confusion in MSS. of vofxo^ 
 and koyos is well-known. 
 
 1342a 9 Without entering on a discussion of this 
 passage and without denying that there are difficulties in 
 every explanation of it, I will say briefly that I incline to 
 distinguish to. upa fiiX-r) here from ra k^opyiaCovTa tyjv ^j/vxv^ 
 and to make the former, not the latter, cathartic. There 
 is certainly something to be said for Sauppe's correction of 
 KaOapTLKo. in 15 to TrpaKTiKo.', it will be another mechanical 
 repetition. 
 
 ib. 17 Cf. on 13366 20. xPW^'^'- «a^€o»' (Ed. Mueller) 
 gives the right sense (cf. 26) ; iareov XRW^"-*- ^^^^ avoid 
 hiatus. 
 
 13426 3 hrjXol 8' rj TToi-qai': would come better, I think, 
 after to Trpcirov in 6. Then down to 6 music is spoken of 
 continuously, and SrjXol 8' rj ttoltjo-l's followed by reference 
 to the dithyramb and Philoxenus. 
 
 ib. 25 In the same way ws fx€Ov(TTiKa<; Xa/xIBdvwv aura? 
 should be moved, so as to follow SvvafjLLv in 26. At present 
 the construction of drrct/ary/cuias seems to fail and it is hard 
 
POLITICS 91 
 
 to translate ; then the force of ws will be carried on to it. 
 Moreover Plato does not really use the word jnc^vo-riKai, 
 but (Tv/xTTOTtKat, which is not the same thing. 
 
 Book A 
 
 12886 18 ^-qdiv rfTTov would be grammatical, if we put 
 it at the end of the sentence after Swa/xir, so as to join it 
 with the infinitive. Coraes' Trapaa-Kcvda-aL ye is not very- 
 satisfactory. We might expect rather tov y€ TratSorptjSov. 
 
 12896 10 ix^Lvl 
 
 ib. 16 aWd is somewhat odd (dA.X' ov Coraes) and perhaps 
 only comes from aA.A.7; in 15. I have also thought doubt- 
 fully of a/Att 8e, as dAAa and dfi-a get confused. 
 
 ib. 38 Kara tov<s noXi/JLovs, irpos being an anticipation ? 
 
 1290a 8 Read ravVas. It is the offices themselves 
 {b 4, etc.) that are distributed, not the arrangement of 
 them. 
 
 In what follows put Acyw 8' olov . . . cvTropwv after fxert- 
 
 ib. 18 BrjfioKparia^ genitive, like oA.tyap;(ias, jSopiov, votovI 
 
 ib, 37 fjiiv after oAtyoi. 
 
 ib. 39 Read -rrokXah for 5A.\ot9. In 1293a 24 the MSS. 
 vary between aXAwv and Trokkwv. 
 
 129 la 29 K€xoipi.<TfX€vot^1 The adverb seems not to occur 
 elsewhere. 
 
 12916 1 Twv TToXirCiv seems probable. Cf. on 12986 24. 
 In 1300a 26 ttoXltwv for ttoXltlkwv is necessary. 
 
 1292a 33 Bel yap TOV fxkv vofiov apx^iv <tC)V Ka$6Xov> 
 TrdvTCDv, TWT 8c Ktt^' €Ka(TTa TOLs dp)(d^ 1 Without this addition 
 the words hardly make sense. KaOoXov in 37 also points to 
 it. Cf. 1286a 10 Sokovo-l ... to KadoXov fiovov ot vd/xoi 
 XeycLv and ib. 23 foil. 
 
92 POLITICS 
 
 12926 21 Read the aorist ix^Ta^aXovn^. 
 ih. 36 <.Tovq> Bwafjiivov^. rows lost after rot. 
 12946 16 Read not tovto, as in 15, but ravro. 
 
 1295a 27 o-vyKpivui seems in other respects too an ill- 
 chosen word, but with regard to (29) yStov . . . /ACTao'xcti' it 
 is most strange, for this amounts to comparing a thing with 
 itself or rather two things with themselves, the best 
 (practicable) constitution and life with the (best) life and 
 constitution possible for most men and states. The latter 
 are only the former put in a slightly different phrase, and 
 comparison is impossible. o-vyKpivova-L seems a mistake for 
 crvvretvova-L making an effort, a good Aristotelian word. 
 
 12956 31 ovT€ T(i)V akkorpLoyv . . . ovt€ rrjs tovtwv {i.e. 
 ovar ia<s)' 
 
 ^ The reverse irregularity occurs Eth. 4. 1. 1120a 2 y 7^5 
 ovctas (f>6opd, ws rov ^rjv Sia tovt<i>v ovarjs '■ Ar. Plutus 503. 
 
 1298a 1 TOVTO 8' eo-Tt TiVas Sec 1 
 
 12986 24 Tdv TToXiTCyv f. Cf. on 12916 4. It is not likely 
 that 01 yvaypLfxoi of 35 would be called ttoXltikoc here, a word 
 which Aristotle hardly uses quite in this way. tmv TroAtrtov 
 is partitive. 
 
 1299a 2 If §€1 . . . SLu)pi(r6aL is right, at any rate Set 
 must not divide ttjs TroAtreta? from tov Kvpiov. 
 
 ih. 14 Some word, say (TK€\pap.€vov<;, is needed to intro- 
 duce the indirect question Trotats k.t.X. Cf. on 12996 12. 
 
 ih. 37 The construction of ras jxlv StaXciVeiv is also very 
 halting, but may perhaps stand.' I have thought of 
 SiaA-ctTTovTas. 
 
 12996 12 (Tvvayoi from crvvayew immediately following is 
 a very clear case of erroneous repetition or anticipation. 
 crvvihoi has been suggested and may well be right. 
 
 13006 23 (TVvaXkayfx.aT{}iv <to)v> ? 
 
 ih. 31 aAAo <§€>'? Such an omission as that in 1292a 1 
 (Newman) is very different. 
 
POLITICS 93 
 
 Book E 
 
 13016 5 dpx"^ /^^^ ^^^ ^^ ciirciv aurat Kat Trryyat Ttov o'Tatrcoii' 
 
 ws £t7retv with dpp^at is open to two objections, (1) that it is 
 used mainly, though not exclusively, to qualify some general 
 statement with ttSs, ovScts, etc. not to excuse some notice- 
 able word ; (2) that dp^at is a very ordinary word not 
 calling for notice and excuse. I conjecture therefore 
 <.iTa(Tiiiv> 0)5 ciTTctv . . . ruiv (rTd(T€<i)v, comparing 13046 6 
 TTijil 7rao"as ras TroAtrcias at dp^^at kol atrial tu)u ardcreuiv and 
 ib. 17. Or ws €i7r£tv might follow TTT/yai. Cf. p. 116. 
 
 1303a 17 TrjApxril Cf. 13096 1, 12876 30 and note 
 above. 
 
 13036 22 <Ta)v> iv rats dp;^ats ovT<i)v 1 tS)v lost after 
 (TTaa-Laa-dvTOiv, as in 13006 23 above. The youths cannot 
 have been in office themselves, and with T(t>v the genitive 
 gives their class and families. 
 
 Two lines above ycVtovrai should perhaps be ytVwKrat. 
 
 1304:a 35 fxepo^ koX ttXtjOo^ ottolovovvI oTTOiovovv should 
 qualify both nouns. 
 
 1305a 37 fJHTafidWovcTL 8ia 8vo fxd\i(TTai rpoirovi. 
 
 8id is quite unsuitable to rpoTrous and comes from the 
 words just before. Read Kara. Cf. on 1328a 20. 
 
 13056 30 auToi for ovrot ? 
 
 1306a 7 17 ovroi gives no good sense. Read rj avroC and 
 put it before Trpds (^ auroi Trpos avrous). 
 13066 2 auTous after oio-rc or h^drjvaL 1 
 
 ib. 9 The anacoluthon is very marked. I conjecture 
 something like <ci kol iKavdv or ixaKpov> to Ta;^^€v Trpwrov 
 Ttfirj/jia. 
 
 13076 31 iiTTipl It seems more proper, and wcnrep may 
 come from 33. Eur. Iph. Aul. 947 oo-Trep must be ciirep. 
 
94 POLITICS 
 
 1308& 19 a.'7roBrjfJLr)TLKa<: Troula-Oai ras Trapaa-Taa-iLS avTiov. 
 
 This odd phrase (1) takes removal for granted (ras) and 
 (2) implies that it might just as well be partial as complete. 
 
 13096 30 rairo 1 Cf. on 12946 16. 
 
 ISlOfl^ 30 Both the clause itself and still more perhaps 
 the next one (tcrov 8c k.t.A..) seem to require to fxkv yap ta-ov 
 Slkulov SoKet elvai. Cf. on 1280a 11. Unless (to) ta-ov is 
 the subject, it is difficult to see any coherence in ta-ov Se 
 
 K.T.A.. 
 
 13116 16 ^apecos €xttv, as in 9 1 Cf. however ;^aA«7ra>? 
 (fiipuv with dative. 
 
 ib. 23 An accusative is badly wanted for Sie^^ctpav to 
 govern and for rojv Trepl . . . Bwaareta^ to depend on. 
 Should not iroXXoc be ttoAAovs ? In 27 the accusative comes 
 before the nominative and in 34 the persons killed or con- 
 spired against are the persons mentioned. 
 
 13126 13 a-vaTr)a-dvTiov (v.l. avaroivTOiv^ without an object 
 is hardly possible and the context (10 and 1313a 1) 
 strongly suggests a-TaataadvTiDv. The mistake may be an 
 ordinary corruption, but is probably due to avaravTei 
 following almost immediately. In ot Sk o-vo-Tavres avrwv the 
 genitive is obscure, but the words cannot mean 'their band 
 of confederates ' (Newman). That would need avTol<s, for 
 a genitive cannot (except in one or two special cases, e.g. 
 ot irpoa-rjKovT€^ avTwv) be thus attached to a participle. It is 
 difficult to take avrCov as meaning the Syracusans, * others 
 of them.' Should avTd)V follow rvpawU {<r]i> rvpawU avrlav, 
 for 7) seems desirable in any case) 1 
 
 ib. 19 For Set rovT<jiv vTrdpxuv, which is really a misuse 
 of Sei as though it meant the same as avdyKfj lari, read dti 
 rovTOiv wapx^t. In 12966 7 the same correction is now 
 accepted and in 13146 29 Spengel's Set for dct is very 
 probable. 
 
 1313a- 39 a)s oToj/tc makes no good sense where it stands. 
 It would be better (though not at all wanted) in the next 
 line with the infinitives ; and better a great deal with 
 
POLITICS 95 
 
 «vavTi(i)TaT0vs (rpoTrovs tovs <a)s oXov t€> ci/avTicoTttTov?) five 
 lines above, for ws otoV t€ is often attached to superlatives. 
 
 13136 19 fxrjTt ffivXaKT] Tp€ff>rjTat kul would be much better- 
 away. The sense is quite unsuitable, and the doubtful 
 combination /iryrc . . . kul adds to the difficulty. 
 
 1314a 26 fiovXrjfjLara should be ftovXevfiara. What is 
 meant is obviously not the tyrants' wishes, but their various 
 plans and devices for making themselves safe and strong. 
 The two words are often confused, e.g. Plato Gorg. 481 e, 
 Ar. Av. 993. 
 
 13156 9 SiaKctor^at . . . yjfiixpr)(TTOv ovra does not seem 
 Greek, Should we read <a)s> r]. ovra ^ 
 
 ih. 16 Kttt . . . €VKaTa<f>p6vr)To<:, separating the two clauses 
 with their plural verbs, cannot be relevant and right here. 
 It would stand fairly well after irdyov in 22. 
 
 ib. 29 iy€V€TO T. fl€V 1 T. fl€V lyiviTO 1 
 
 13166 8 Tt yap avTrj<T0VT6> /xaAXov . . . TrcTrovOevI Cf. 
 1294 6 16, 17. 
 
 ib. 15 aXXd must be aXX' ^. The mistake is common. 
 
 Book Z 
 
 1317 6 6 Put Kttt TOVT eti/at TO StKtttov after twv TroXtTwv 
 in 7. 
 
 i6. 12 €pyov seems rather inappropriate. Can freedom 
 be properly said to have an tpyov 1 Perhaps 6pov as in 11. 
 
 1318«. 12 The sense is incomplete without the insertion 
 of some few words. The minimum would be <io-ovvTa toU> 
 
 XlXioLS. 
 
 13186 10 Kai<xpi7o-T^v>'7roi«tv^ Cf. 1319a 34. 
 
 ib. 33 Transfer the rt to follow iroXLTeveadat. 
 
 1319a 6 y€(i)pyiKov, the form which occurs so often in 
 the Politics 1 ytwpybv pCov in Ar. Peace 590 is lyrical. 
 
 1322a 37 See on 1330a 22. 
 
THE ECONOMICS 
 
 13430' 22 TO fiev yap ryj's rpo<j>rj<i irpcoTOV, to 8e rail/ eA.ev- 
 Oepoiv. 
 
 The second clause seems incomplete and unmeaning with- 
 out va-repov, ixofievov, or something else added, for in the 
 first 7rpu>Tov certainly seems to be the predicate. 
 
 ib. 28 Read on fxdXtcrTa for jxaXiaTa otl. 
 
 13450 17 ocra pidXtcrTa St' avTo)v kKacrrrj (Tvp,/3aLvet. 
 
 Should we read 8^ for St', as St' avrioi^ seems to lack 
 meaning 1 In the recognised Aristotelian writings there is 
 said to be no Sy after a superlative (Eucken). 
 
 1346a. 31 Perhaps cart yap otl tovt(i)v e<f>app,6(r€L tl<s ols 
 av avToq 7rpayp,aTevr}Tai. In Thuc. 1. 25. 4. I have suggested 
 eo-Ttv OTL {something, in some degree) for co-tlv 6t€. 
 
 1347(X 6 ras 6vpa<i ra? dvotyo/xci/a? e^o). 
 No doubt ^upiSas, as in 'A^. IIoA.. 50. 2. 
 
 1348a 15 TO. XoLTT <av> a-iot^eLvl So 13536 26 we want 
 <av> Sowat. Cf. ih. 12. 
 
 ih. 25 iirdiXeL, for which Scaliger conjectured eTrparre, is 
 clearly a mere repetition from the line before. It is quite 
 wrongly used here, and eirpaTTc gives the right sense. 
 
 13486 9-16 TOts T€ TToXtVai? . . . )(p-qpLaTa. 
 
 The words kol p.€ydXa^ . . . Sta ttoAc/aou (Sia TroXcfiovl) are 
 very hard to bring to any reasonable sense. kol to.^ 
 ckkA^tovs . . . TTOLovfjievo'? too can hardly be right : TauVas for 
 
ECONOMICS 97 
 
 Ttts would make it more intelligible. The dative XP<>^<{' is 
 not good Greek. There is authority for xp^^ov ; but what 
 we want is either )^p6vov within a time or Iv xp^^^- 
 
 1349a 35 The meaning may be that a man, whether 
 willing or not {koX firj fiovXofxcvov c/cacrrov'?) should receive 
 the tin money at the value of silver. But I cannot make 
 anything of o dveCkcTo and its variations : Bekker's o av 
 etkero fails to give a good sense. 
 
 1350a 7 Add something like Aa^di/rcs before i)(p(iivro. 
 
 ih. 14 Put T^ 7roA.€t somewhere after cKSavcto-at. 
 
 ih. 21 Ktt^' oTTOfTov <av>1 €0)5 without av (13526 10) is 
 more ordinary. 
 
 ih. 33 The future airoiropeva-iaOai is needed. 
 
 13516 12 The accusative rov Iviavrov is not intelligible. 
 Read rov iviavrov six days a year. 
 
 ih. 27 Is not a preposition needed with t^s ttoAcws 1 
 
 1352a 7 irapa rovTinv is inadvertently repeated from the 
 line before. 
 
 13526 8 Trapc^civ would not find the money ? 
 
 ih. 20 e<f>7jcr€ TTokv TO avw/xaXov avd\(ofia iv ry X^P? 
 ytviorOai €is tol tc/oa. 
 
 * That the varying (non-uniform) expenditure had been 
 great ' hardly seems a likely expression. One might 
 expect * the expenditure had been great and irregular,' 
 TToKv Ktti dv(i>iJia\ov to d. But is not avw/xaA-ov really a ditto- 
 graph of dvdA.u)/i,a % 
 
YI 
 THE A®HNAIIiN HOAITEIA 
 
 3. 'S In Aristophanes and Others,'^ p. 300, I suggested 
 TO. SiKttia for the very doubtful to. opKia. I should have 
 added a reference to 55. 5, where the oath is said to 
 contain the promise SiKatws ap^eiv. 
 
 4. 3 €t Se Tis Toiv ^ov\€vru>v, orav ISpa /3ov\^5 rj cK/cA-T/crtas 
 17, IkKuttol T-qv (Tvvohov. 
 
 The very strange use of orav and the subjunctive with 
 regard to past time does not seem to have been noticed. 
 The only parallel which I have noted is in the "Epwrcs (§ 10) 
 ascribed to Lucian. There is some apparent similarity in 
 the TrpXv av and subjunctive of Aeschines 3. 235 ovScts 
 Trio7roT€ iireOiTO irpoTcpov rfj tov S-qfxov KaraXvcrei irpXv av /xct^ov 
 Ttiiv BtKa(TTifjpL(ov laxvcrr), but there the cause is clearly a 
 confusion of ovSeis tt^ttotc iireOero with oiStis iirLTLOerat. So 
 in Dion, Cass. 55. 3. In our passage I hesitate between 
 two views : (1) we should read ore or ottotc . . . elr], (2) the 
 writer is drawing on a document purporting to be the 
 Oea-fxoi of Draco and giving the enactment in its supposed 
 original form (as, for instance, in chapters 29-31 of this 
 treatise) with some want of uniformity. 
 
 12. 3 It is difficult to read ot 8' e^' apirayaLcriv rjXOov 
 K.T.X. without thinking that there should be no full stop at 
 the end of the third line and that ot 8' . . . voov, taken all 
 together, gives the subject of i(f)pd(ravTo. Line 1 has been 
 slightly altered in two or three ways to bring this about. 
 
 ^ The same book contains some other suggestions on this treatise. 
 See the index, p. 391, 
 
 98 
 
AOHNAIfiN nOAITEIA 99 
 
 I have sometimes thought of a greater change, ot 8* €<^' 
 apTrayai<s i^ovrc^ cXttiS' ^X6ov a.(f>vedv. 
 
 ib. 4-5 In view of ovk av KareVxc Srjfjiov occurring twice 
 over and of the dubious construction of ^O^Xov (22) with 
 an accusative (understood antecedent to a), I would 
 suggest a variation of the view formerly put forward by 
 Bergk. Insert the one fragment (§5) in the other (§4) 
 and read 
 
 Kivrpov 8' aXA,os ws c-yw \a/3(i>v, 
 • KaK0(f>pa8rji re kol <f)LkoKrr)iJL(jiV avqp, 
 
 OVK av Karecr^c Srj/xov ovS kiravaaro 
 
 irpXv dvTapa^as Trlap c^etAcv yaXa. 
 
 iyw Sc TOVTWV Sicnr^p iv fxeTaLXfiLio 
 
 opos KaT€(rT7jv' €1 yap ^OeXov . . . 
 
 tt TOL<s IvavTLOKTW rjvhoviv t6t€, 
 
 avBis 8' a TOLOTLV ovrepoL ^patraiaro, 
 
 TToAAtuv av avSpoiV ^8' Ixrjptad-q ttoA-is. 
 
 The missing infinitive might be, for instance, reXctv or 
 ypd<l>€iv; or we might even think of ci yap i^Oekov t6t€ 
 cpSciv a Tots evavTioKTiv T]v8av€v. I greatly doubt evavrtoio-tv 
 as the lines stand. Can it mean the two opposed sides ? 
 I do not know any instance of cVavrioi so used, but ra ivavria 
 is found so. In that case something would be missing after 
 TOTc. The frequentative <j>pa(raiaro is strange. There is 
 certainly something wrong with the lines. 
 
 Part of the other quotation in 5 may also suggest doubt : 
 
 a vvv t\ov(Tiv ovTTOT 6(fiOa\fiOL(Tiv av 
 
 €v80VTC9 tlBoV. 
 
 As Solon did not give the popular party all they desired 
 and in his fragments lays stress on this, it is strange for 
 him to speak of them as having got what they would never 
 have dreamed of getting. Also the statement is very 
 oddly phrased : ' they would never have seen with their eyes 
 when asleep ' is a remarkable way of putting ' would never 
 even have dreamed of.' We miss dreaming and even. 
 ' Seeing with your eyes ' is naturally used of waking sight, 
 not of a dream, ovk av ct8ov ov8' ovap (Dem. 19. 275 a />iry8' 
 ^vap T^XTTLcrav TrtoTroTc), or at least ovtvot 6<f>0a\fx,ol(rLv av 
 KaT€t8ov ovh' evSovTcs, might have been expected. Did not 
 
 H 2 
 
100 AQHNAIfiN nOAITEIA 
 
 Solon say that but for him they would never really have 
 seen with their waking eyes what they now had 1 But, if 
 so, what does evSovT€<s stand for ? 
 
 20. 4 ol 'AXKfXiwvLSai, <dl> Kal k.t.X. would give a better 
 sense. 8i€TeA.€o-av refers to a time prior to that of iyevovro. 
 Cf. 28. 3 KA.eo<^a>v 6 A.vpo7rot09, os Kat k.t.A,. and on 41. 1 
 below. 
 
 23. 2 Ka\(os Kal <fjt,€Tpioi<s>, <(rio<f)p6vu><;>, or some such 
 word^ At present Kat is not satisfactorily explained. 
 But it may be only a dittograph of Kara. 
 
 24. 3 (Tvv€(TTT](TavTo Tov TToXefiov IS supportod (Thalheim) 
 by Lysias (?) 9. 15 rrjv /xlv ovv opyrjv . . . crvv€(m](TavTO. 
 But Polybius 1. 82. 9 has opy^v ivea-rrja-avTo and Dem. 
 18. 4 (not TToXc/xoi/ but) dydva iva-Trjcrdixevo^. Perhaps we 
 should read ivearT^aavTo here. In 41. 1 we have ive- 
 
 (TTTjCraTO TTjV TToXiTCLaV, lU. 27. 2 IvicTTt) TToAc/XOS. 
 
 26. 1 I have no doubt now that Blass' conjecture, 
 vtsiOpov for v€(j!)Tcpov, was right. It is nearer in letters than 
 vwOporepov. Cf. Theopomp. Fragm. 205 (238) Xapiyrds re 
 viiiOpov T€ 0VT09 Kttt /SpaSios and Polyb. 4. 8. 5 of Aratus 
 V(oOpb<s fxkv iv Tats cTrivotai?, aroX/xos 8' iv rats CTriySoXats. 
 
 27. 2 6 Srjfxos . . . TO. fiiv cKwv TO. 8e aKiov irporipiiTO ttjv 
 iroXiTciav Slolk€lv avTOS- 
 
 irporfyero for Trporipu.ro, which I proposed when the 
 'A^. n. was first published, still commends itself to me as 
 better suited to ckwv and olkcoj/. In Plut. Mor. 211 e irpodyeiv 
 for TTpoatpciv is a certain correction (see six lines above), 
 and in Xen. Sell. 4. 4. 13 v(.Kpov<; dvrjpovvTo for aTrrjyovTo 
 a very probable conjecture. In Marcus Aurelius 9. 41 
 rjpero was corrected long ago to ^yero. For irpodyuv cf. 28. 
 3 Tovs Tt Trpoayayovras Troietv avrov^ : Dem. 22. 32 and 78 (tov 
 S^fxov Trpodyetv) : etc. In 'A^. II. 28. 5 Trpoayetv probably 
 means, as in 17. 3, only carrying on, majiaging, not ad- 
 vancing, carrying further. 
 
 28. 1 huriXovv ol €7ri6tK€ts Sry/xaytoyoCvTes. 
 Should not oi be omitted % It cannot be said that ot c., 
 the whole number, ih-qp.aydiyovv. Individuals did, but not 
 
A©HNAmN nOAITEIA - »»^.'. »». -, i^l', 
 
 the body as a whole. The popular leader was an fTruLKrj^, 
 but 01 cn-ictKcis were not popular leaders. 
 
 29. 4 iav Be Tts <Tiva> 1 
 
 41. 1 SiKatojs should, I think, be Stfcatov. As the text 
 stands, Xa^etv should refer to some time prior to that of 
 ivea-T'^aravTo (cf. on 20. 4) whereas it does refer to the time 
 of ivea-T-qa-avTo itself, being indeed only another expression 
 for it. In 42. 1 StVato? (for 8tKatws) eyypa^co-^at is also 
 possible, but probably the adverb is right. 
 
 42. 3 We might expect SpaxfJ'-rjv a €Kd(XT<a <Trj^ rjix€pas>, 
 as in 49. 4 etc. But cf. Ar. Ach. 159 ; theocr. 2. 155 ; 
 Virg. Ed. 3. 30. 
 
 48. 5 Triv <fiv\rjv Tavrqv flcrayova-iv. 
 
 If my conjecture hiKal^ovmv is right, as I think it must 
 be, d<rdyov(nv is an anticipation of the use of the word two 
 lines further on. So in 41. 2 8ta {rrjv . . . dpxw ' ^^^ '^"'^^ 
 for 8ta) is a repetition. 
 
 59. 1 TO. StKoo-TiJpia . . . TtcTLV yfjxipai^ Set StKa^civ. 
 
 These words are reproduced in Pollux 8. 87 Trore Set 
 SiKci^cti/ ra SiKacrrr/pia, in a scholium on Aeschines 1. 16 
 TTOTc Sec hiKd^eiv TO, SiKao-TT/pta, and possibly elsewhere. It 
 may be considered rash to question anything so attested, 
 but I cannot help thinking that the original word was 
 Ka^t^cif, the proper technical term, not SiKa^civ. I take 
 SiKo^civ to be half a corruption of letters of the common 
 kind, half an echo from SiKaa-T-qpia. In my Aristophanes 
 and Others, p. 305, I have cited one confusion of KaOt^o) 
 and ySaSt'^oi and suggested another (Aelian V. H. 9. 3). In 
 the same book I proposed to correct Pollux 8. 87 as above, 
 but forgot that the words were in the 'AO. Uo\. I now 
 think that the later writers found SiKci^civ, though wrong, in 
 their text of the 'A^. IIoA.. ; that is, that the mistake was 
 older than Pollux, as many mistakes undoubtedly were, 
 and that he and others <iid not detect it. SiKci^ctv seems to 
 me as odd as if we were to say ' when the courts are to 
 judge 'or* sit in judgment' instead of 'sit.' It must not 
 
'' ' - ?'*^ " ," 
 
 ;:^Q2 .• , ., , ' r A®HNAIQN nOAITEIA 
 
 ■ . .^■' ^iv'«'v,^ :; ^. ;:,'■■ ; ',■ 
 
 be confused with 'give judgment.' Can any independent 
 
 instance of such a use be found % 
 
 60. 2 With loTTiv still exists cf. Ar. Peace 700 KparXvo^ 
 6 aocfio^ tvTLv; 
 
 63. 1 T^ ScKOtTj; ^vX^ ? 
 
 When the 'A^. liok. was first pubHshed (1891), a good 
 deal was written about noticeable words and phrases in it, 
 as bearing on the question of authorship. There are two 
 singular uses of words to which attention was not, I think, 
 then called. One is avay pdcfxn = avyy pd<f>(o compose, draw 
 up, etc., twice in 30. 1 and two or three times elsewhere. 
 If we put aside the Mir ah. Ausc. 844a 11, the use is not 
 found in Aristotle {avyypdffuxi itself only once or twice), 
 nor to the best of my knowledge in Greek of his date. 
 The first instance I have noticed is Polyb. 1. 1. 1. Diony- 
 sius of Halicarnassus has it a few times, and later it 
 becomes fairly common. I have not however searched 
 inscriptions to see whether they show it earlier. The 
 other use is that of iKKXyjaia^u) applied to a single person in 
 he sense of ' addressing an assembly ' or similar gathering 
 (15. 4). Thuc. 8. 77 has roLavra €v aXXrjX.ot^ iKKXrjcnda-avTe^ 
 KOL TrapaOapavvavTeq (rcf>a<: avrovg, which would admit of that 
 meaning, but does not require it (the editors pass the 
 question over), and the first clear instances I know are 
 again in Polybius (1. 67. 9) and Dionysius H. (A.B. 2. 56. 5). 
 Cf. argument 1 of the Birds. The ordinary sense of 
 €KKX.r}aid^(i} when used of individuals appears in Thesmoph. 
 90 iKKkrja-Lda-ovT iv rais ywai^l kuv Birj Xe^ovB' vnep ifxov, 
 and [Xen.] B.A. 1. 9 ovk Ida-ova-i . . . ^ovXevctv ovSk keyeiv 
 ovBe €KKX.rjaLd^€Lv, in both of which Xeyw is distinguished 
 from it. In [Aristot.] Oecon. 2. 2. 1348a 11 it has the 
 unusual meaning of (one man) summoning an assembly. 
 
 Notable also, though perhaps in less degree, are dv- 
 ayopevio (21. 4), if right, = Trpocrayopevu) : tov elcnovTa iviavTov 
 (31. 2) : Ta>v 2oA.o>vos Oea/xlov (35. 2) : t^v 'ApcoTrayiTtv fiov- 
 Xrjv (41. 2). <usav = a)<; (7. 4) is not at all supported 
 (Thalheim) by Pol. 1330a 23, where dv has its usual sense. 
 
A0HNAmN nOAITEIA 103 
 
 A much better parallel would be Fragm. 176 Ian <f>avaij 
 <f)r)(rlv 'ApioTTOTcXiyg, on rots fikv ISct cos av fxerix^iv /xcAAovtrt 
 rov KivSvvov ctiretr, if we could be at all sure that this is 
 verbatim from Aristotle. In Met. 1. 5. 9866 11 A" 
 omits the av in cio-t Si nvcs ot 7r€pt rov ttcii/tos ws av /u-tas 
 ovarrjs <f>v(T€u)^ aTr€<f}T^vavTo. The use of ws av in Solon ('A^. 
 IIoA.. 12. 4, line 12) is very remarkable, if right. 
 
VII 
 
 THE RHETOBIG 
 
 1355^ 18 foil. As the second and third Kara t^v 
 Trpoaipca-iv refer to the honesty or dishonesty of the person 
 concerned, the first should mean the same thing. But in 
 that case we should have to understand p-^rwp in a bad 
 sense, not rhetorician but unscrupulous speaker, and for 
 this there is no authority. The word does not appear ever 
 to imply any distinct censure, unless like Plato you are 
 quarrelling with a man for being a habitual speaker at all. 
 There is nothing in it that points to any particular quality 
 of speech. If on the other hand 6 8e Kara Trpoaipea-Lv prjTuip 
 is not taken in this way, it is hard to give it any meaning, 
 and the first 6 p.iv and 6 8c do not correspond with the 
 second. Editors and translators do not give much help 
 here. 
 
 ib. 25 Read tcrrm St] <rj> prjTopLKi^, 
 
 1358a 8 It may be right to omit tovs aKpoaTas, but 
 \avOdvov(TLv T€ Kttt . . . ix€Tal3aivovaLv is not in Greek = 
 X.av$dvov(Ti fJLtTaftaCvovTe<s. 
 
 ib. 19 €(TTai, as in the next line, seems probable, or else 
 IcTTt there. 
 
 1360a 13 Kttt Tiviov T c^aywy^s Scovrai kol rivtav cicraywy^s, 
 Iva irpo^ TouTovs k.t.A.. 
 
 ' Standing in need ' of the export of certain things, 
 though a possible, is certainly a rather odd expression. 
 
RHETORIC 105 
 
 Should not c^aywy^s and cioraytoyrjs change places so as to 
 soften it? 
 
 rovTov<: stands loosely for ' the people who send or take 
 these things/ just as for instance in Soph. Ant. 668 
 TovTov Tov avS/oa is 'the man who does this.' Nothing 
 seems to be lost. 
 
 1364a 25 ;(aA,€7ro)T€pa ? Aristotle is however careless on 
 this point ; cf. 1411a 18, Eth. 3. 5. 1114a 4. 
 
 13646 34 Probably ws av tv tCjv crvcrToi^^iov. [ws ev 
 Kayser.] 
 
 13666 30 TCI SiKaia /cat to. SiKaio)^ tpya. 
 
 The use of the adverb is very unusual, but such examples 
 as the following seem to justify it : Dem. (?) 10. 44 
 rr}v KpvfS^Yjv \prj<j>ov and tov cftavepios Oopvfiov with Xen. 
 Hell. 7. 3. 7 Tu>v ^avcpws TrpoSortov ; Dem. 29. 14 tov 
 6/itoXoyou/>t€vti)s SovXov with Xen. Hell. 2. 3. 38 ; Plato 
 Phaedo 109 e 6 akrjOws ovpav6<i, Antiphanes i^ra^m. 209 ttjv 
 aXrjBC)^ /xova-LKrjV, Dem. 21. 149 Tj o)? aXrjOiO'S fi-qTfjp ', Plato 
 Bep. 341 c 6 op^w? Kvft€pvyTr)<: ; Philodemus tt. kukliov 
 col. 19. 40 TYjv KOLvu)<; <Tvv€(TLv ; and some less notable 
 instances, especially of ayav and A.tav. 
 
 13686 11 The passage would run more naturally if we 
 read €186t€s for €kovt€s, corresponding to ciSotcs before and 
 after. 
 
 In Met. 4. 30 1025a 9 €*covTa and ctSdra are variants. 
 Cf. however Eth. 3. 2. 11116 7 and 1112a 14. 
 
 ib. 15 ye for Sel Better perhaps omitted. 
 
 13696 5 )8ia Se ocra Trap' iTriOvfxiav 17 tov<; Xoyi(r/iovs 
 yivfTat Bl auToii/ twv TrpaTTovroiv. 
 
 Not only logic but parallel passages point clearly to 
 <.fjLrj> Bt avTtov. See 13686 34 and 36 fx-q 01' avrovs : 
 Eth. 3. 1. 1110a 1 /81'atov 8c ov 17 apX') ^^*^Oev, ToiavTY} ov<ra 
 €V r) fJLTjBlv (TV/Ji/SdXXiTaL 6 TrpaTTWV 17 6 7raor;^(uv with 1 1 1 06 2 
 and 16. The fiCaiov proper is not done in the true sense 
 
106 RHETORIC 
 
 (sometimes not in any sense) by the man himself, but by 
 some other man or men or some natural agency, e.g. wind. 
 
 1371o 18 TO ofJLOiov Kal TO (Tvyyci/cs rjhv eavT<3 aiirav. 
 eauTo) should follow o-vyyci/cs or ofxoiov. 
 
 1372a 32 ot9 v7rdp^€L Kpv{f/L<s "iy rpoTroi? rj tottois t? SiaOecreis 
 evTropoi. 
 
 For T/ooTToi?, of which it is hard to make any sense, read 
 Xpovoi^. Cf. 14026 37. In Pol. 2. 2. 1261a 34 I would 
 read rpoTrov for )(p6vov, and in D. Hal. A. B. 4. 7. 3 ;(povoi 
 for TOTTot. Cf. p. 134 {Problems 3. 10). 
 
 Should not 8ta^eo-€ts(-is) ei57ropoi(-os) be datives too, 
 SiaOeareariv cvTropots'? 
 
 ib. 36 Read ?x" for ?^ci. 
 
 13726 29 TravTtt? should (I think) be avrovs. See my 
 Aristophanes and Others, p. 174. 
 
 13736 7 Perhaps lo-rt yap on /xavTeuorrai Travrcs. 
 
 Just below oTt St/catov and SUatov after towo are awkward 
 together. Perhaps one, preferably 6ti BUaLov, should be 
 omitted. 
 
 ib. 30 avdyK-r} tov dBtKOVfievov pXaTTTearOai koX dKovatoi<s 
 fiXoLTTTea-OaL. 
 
 vTTo €k6vto<s in 28 and Toi cKovaia in 32 make it quite clear 
 that we should read eKovcrtcos. In the Ethics not 1136a 15 
 foil., but 1135a 17 foil, is the corresponding passage. 
 
 1374a 10 The difficulty of the accusative Travra to. 
 TOLavra suggests omitting rj (after v, N and H) before 
 dfjL(f>i(jl3'QTr](rL^. TT. T. T. is then nominative and subject. 
 
 1375a 5 olov iv "Apyet ^rjfXLOVTaL 8l ov av v6p.o<s TeOy koi 
 
 8l OV<i TO BiO-fliOTT^pLOV iOKoSofJi'qOr]. 
 
 I conjecture that after Kai there has been lost iv with 
 the name of another place, li^-qfxioid-qa-av can be understood 
 more easily so. Cf. on Pol. 12676 18. 
 
RHETORIC 107 
 
 1377a 17 KpiiTTov yap dv is not good Greek without r/v 
 or €irj. Either add one of them or read Sry for dv, if dv is 
 not with most MSS. to be simply omitted. 
 
 ib. 20 By water suggests raa-e/^el for scansion's sake. I 
 had already proposed Sva-a-e/Set (Suo-- ev- a-) : see A. and 
 Others, p. 299. 
 
 13776 20 Some difficulty has been felt about the words 
 o)s . . . X6y(ov. I think ws should be ^a-re, t€ having been 
 lost before ircpt. 
 
 1378a 5 Read ^ or 17 xai for Kai The same man is not 
 both dTraOrjs and Suo-xepaiVwv. Cf. on 13996 15 and 
 14076 20. 
 
 ib. 31 If KfiaLvofxiu-q^ is not to be omitted (Spengel), it 
 would seem to have been substituted for some other word 
 by reason of cfiaLvofxevrjv immediately following. The 
 original might be yLvofxevr), as in 6 8. 
 
 13786 27 avrovs has nothing to refer to. We might 
 think of avToi, or of oAAovs. 
 
 13796 9 Karacfipovelv,. . . ol jxkv ws yjTTOvmv, ol 8« (05 Trap* 
 ryrroviay. 
 
 The antithesis does not seem really better than that 
 quoted from Epicharmus in 14106 5. 
 
 13806 14 lav i\€<ocrLv is very poor, and iav eXoio-Lv makes 
 no proper sense at all. Is iwa-Lv possible 1 We might read 
 either koI itacnv, idv . . . iSpaaav or Kat, idv . . . eBpaaav, 
 iuKTiv. 
 
 1381a 13 If TOLovTois is to refer to p.tydXa, as it seems to 
 do (cf. 1385a 20), the one clause should follow immediately 
 on the other, i.e. rj ci Trpo^v/xco? either precede rj ct /xeydXa or 
 follow ^ . . . Kaipoif. 
 
 ib. 39 Scholars do not seem to have noticed the very 
 unusual grammar of a fxdXiara (f>o^ovvTa(. firj vTrdp)(€Lv aurois 
 (for jxr) ovx vTrdp\€i or -jy). 
 
108 RHETORIC 
 
 1382a 17 foil. wTas ajrohiiKvvvaL shows that in fx-q oi/ras 
 7roi€tv the TToteiv must mean represent them as. fjid(TKovra% 
 hvaXveiv seems impossible, for SiaAuetv refute cannot take an 
 accusative of the person, but only of the statement or 
 argument refuted. ^jyaa-KovTuiv, the genitive absolute, if 
 people say either, seems likely. Again — in spite of some 
 translations — hi 6pyr]v r} St txOpav d/x^to-/3r;T€ti/ is not likely 
 to mean ' dispute whether it is due to anger or to enmity ' 
 (though this is just possible), until irorepov or an equivalent 
 has been inserted before BC opy-qv. 
 
 13826 32 av must be added to the second -n-adelv, or 
 Tra^civ omitted. 
 
 1383a 18 Is ws lost after the ov of tfioftepiovl 
 
 ib. 19-20 It is clearly ludicrous to say OappaXia . . . to. 
 Bappakia. There is slight evidence for to. a-oirrjpia and 
 Spengel was certainly right in wishing to read it (or to. 
 ivavTLa). tcov (xtorrjpLOiv ws cyyvs ovTtov comes just before. 
 I notice this because it is a very obvious case of the 
 substitution of one word for another. A little below in 
 1383b 21 aSLKTJa-ai seems to me to be clearly due to dSiKias 
 and to have taken the place of some other word, say 
 TrXeoviKTrjcraL. 
 
 13836 29 The atretv in aTraLTetv ot€ atrctv cannot be right. 
 If it is an error like those just indicated, it may represent 
 a word quite unlike itself. airLcrTetv however occurs to me 
 as giving fair sense. The man will not ask for repayment, 
 when asking may seem to imply apprehension and doubt 
 of the other man's purpose or power to repay. 
 
 cVaiveiv tva Bo^rj ahelv has been ingeniously emended by 
 Bywater to inatvelv a So'^et alrelv. I have myself thought 
 of tva <fjt.^> B6$r}. Cf. on 13696 5. 
 
 1384a 5 Trdj/ra is probably an accidental repetition from 
 the line before. 
 
 13846 6 ovSev yap Sta^epci /xr] Sok€lv ^ fir} c^ayycXXciv. 
 
 fXTj SoK€Lv makes no sense. Bonitz fxr/ iSelv. Perhaps 
 ovScv yap Sia<f>€pfLV Sokcl /jly) elSivai (cf. 13816 7) rj /xrj 
 i^ayyeXX^iv. 
 
RHETORIC 109 
 
 ib. 31 Sauppe's 179 is almost certainly right, wv being 
 another case of repetition (1383a 20). 
 
 1385a 19 If tJ is right, there remains no construction 
 for the nominatives ix6vo<i, etc. Perhaps it is a dittograph 
 of V (H N : cf. on 1374a 10) or should be ^. Indeed ^ 
 hardly seems right in itself, for we should rather expect 
 yLvrfTai. One would not say virovpyia 1<tt\ (r<fi6hpa Sco/acko). 
 [Mr. By water suggested to me Std/Mcvo?.] 
 
 1386a 3 iXTTLo-ai yeveorOaL is almost certainly bad Greek. 
 We want either <av> yeviaOai or yevT^a-icrOaL, and probably 
 should restore the latter. 
 
 ib. 1 3 <»caK(os> TreirovOoTO's ^ If TreirovOoTO^ stood alone, 
 it would have to refer to the case or cases just mentioned, 
 which is not at all the meaning. 
 
 1387a 28 n for ro'i Cf. on 1402a 12. 
 
 13876 10 Kttt iiaXurra <eav>? ^aXia-T av would be easier 
 still. 
 
 13886 10 oiKCia yap otovrai avTots tlvai koI a^ioi tovtcdv. 
 
 Should not cTvat precede or follow a^toi? 1379a 3 has, 
 if the text is right, a^to? oloyavo^ without cTvat, but here 
 the preceding clause makes koX d. t. particularly awkward. 
 
 ib. 30 For avToiv write tov'twv or possibly Travrtov (cf. on 
 13726 29). 
 
 13896 18 rJTTOV re ayav airavTo. ^ Sei. 
 
 In spite of Travra ayav TrpaxTova-iv and tov TrdvTa ayav 
 these words are very questionable. Is dyay ever used with 
 a comparative ? We can say in English excessively little, 
 but not excessively less : so probably in Greek. ttoKv or 
 TToWw rjTTov would bc natural. In any case ayav is 
 superfluous. Again Travra ayav TrpaTTOva-Lv is too far away 
 to supply a verb easily. Finally it is not true that old 
 men ^ttov (irpdrTova-Lv) diravTa rj Set, for Aristotle goes on to 
 say that they are too suspicious and too self-regard ing 
 (<^iA.avTot fjLoXXov 17 Bet). The obvious ayavrat (Zeller, 
 Rassow) is not a good suggestion, dyafiat. being unsuitable : 
 
no RHETORIC 
 
 but dyaTTcoo-iv would be quite in place, going well with to. 
 TrAetoTTa ^avA.a ttvat. In Plut. MoT. 401 P Tifxav kol ayaTrav 
 is a pretty certain correction of riftav kol ayav, and in 
 Isocrates 15. 232 dyaa-Oai is an erroneous v.l. for dyairaxrOai. 
 
 1390a. 26 d7ro8e;j(OVTai ttcivtcs TOv<i to) (T(f>£T€pio i^Oei X4yo- 
 fxivovi Xoyovs- 
 
 The phrase is an odd one and it is not surprising that 
 bfjioXoyovixivovi has been suggested (Cope). But Plato 
 GoTg. 513 B has to) avruiv t^Ocl XeyofXiViov twv Xoyaiv cKatrTOt 
 XaLpovoTL (where I have myself suggested ofxaXoyovfieviov). 
 The commentators on neither place seem aware of the 
 other. 
 
 13906 7 SirjprjvTaL'i 
 
 13926 8 Should we read in Agathon rrjq Ttx^rjq Trpda-a-eiv, 
 it belongs to art to do ? 
 
 13936 18 a-vvoixoXoyr}(Ta<s, altered because of the other 
 genitive? The two participial genitives, referring to 
 different unexpressed subjects, are very clumsy, and the 
 first is not in strictness grammatical, though it might 
 stand (Vahlen on Poetics 1449a 9). 
 
 13946 33 <a)s> (TTpoyyvXwTaTa 1 
 
 1395a 23 The tense of eip-rjinevr) y is not consistent with 
 Sel rag yvw/Aa? Acyeiv, which supposes the yviofJir) not yet 
 uttered. We might think either of Tra^T^Ti/caJs eiprj/jLevrj 
 ■i] yv(o/xr}, i.e. fxeXXr] (ftaivea-Oai, or TraOrjTLKr] eiprj/xtvy] (omit- 
 ting 3). 
 
 13956 11 There is authority for ttws rvyxo-vova-i irola 
 and for irola rvyxdvova-i without any ttcos. If both words 
 were used, Trota rvyxd-vova-i irui'i is perhaps the more natural 
 order. 
 
 1398a 7 (TV fxev <.ovv>- w ? 
 
 In 10 av seems a mistake due to the line before. In 9 
 we should expect olov before the second ct. 
 
 1399a 13 KaKov <ov> ? 
 
RHETORIC 111 
 
 13996 15 y) should be xai. ^ cannot follow on ravro. 
 
 1400a 6 Read yevea-Oai, as a past sense is clearly needed. 
 
 14006 21 Yjo-av for avi But it may well be a dittograph 
 from dv-OpuiTrov. 
 
 1 402a 6 OTL €(TTt TO /l,^ OV 6v, i(XTL yap TO /AT/ ^1/ /X^ OV. 
 
 The argument points rather to €o-Tt to /xr/ 6v in the first 
 clause, omitting there the second 6v. 
 
 ih. 12 yCv€TaL yap Tt (for to) 1 Cf. on 1387a 28. 
 
 ih. 18 The grammar is defective, /x^ (.vo^o^ wv, as in 19, 
 or oTov <av> dc^cv^s . . . <^€vy2y seems needed. 
 
 14026 16 I suggest hC cTraywy^s €k (for 8ta) toO ofxoiov. 
 The use of 8ia is doubtful : for ck cf. 15. 
 
 14046 2 crrjjJi€Lov yap otl 6 A.oyos, ws cav /xr] SyjXoi, oi 
 TTOirjCTii TO kavTYj^ ipyov. 
 
 OTL may be a mistake for eo-TtV and ws for wcttc (or Kat) : 
 we must not make tbs itself = wottc (Madvig). Or we might 
 think of crrjfjLfLov yap tl 6 A.oyos a>v, eav k.t.X. Apart from 
 any other objection, arrjixdov otl seems here superfluous, if 
 not odd. 6 yap \6yos is what one would expect. 
 
 ih. 14 TToAAw cXaTTOtriv <;^(uvTai> 1 
 
 ih. 36 Read evSc^cTat, matching lo-Tat and aa^-qvLtl. 
 
 1405a 34—36 Both Tats acny/xot? <;^a)vats and to. dvojvvfia 
 lack construction. The former cannot well be either 
 instrumental or causal. Perhaps some such word as 
 XpiJifxevr} or tLKOL^ova-a has been lost. Before to. dvu>vvfxa 
 Bywater would insert irrL I had thought of Xcyova-a 
 or 7rpoo^ayop€vovo-a. 
 
 14066 16 dpLO-Ta T<3i/ TpayiKwv <€X<t> or <elx^>y lost 
 before cTttc, like Aristoph. Frogs 1161 aptorT cVaiv l;(oi/. 
 The verb can hardly be dispensed with. Theaet. 148 b 
 dpLcrTo. y dv^pwTrwv, w TratSes is not parallel, for it is an 
 exclamation. One could not well say to Topyiou ev or koAws 
 
112 RHETORIC 
 
 without l;(€i, though one might say cv Fopyias (i.e. cTttc). 
 Cf. however Eth. 10. 9. 11816 8 Kptvai ri KoXm, if right. 
 
 14076 16 Surely Iv Ty apxrj avry. avTov is unmeaning. 
 
 14076 20 ^ {}/6<fiOV t) )(po)/xa. 
 
 Both ^ and the accusative cases are strange. The tJ should 
 probably be KaC. ^6(fno and ;j^pa))u,aTt are obvious to suggest, 
 but the sentence may be otherwise wrong. The accusatives 
 are not the subject or object of dTroStSdvat, for that refers 
 to the verb which should suit both of them. 
 
 1408a 9 In Aristophanes and Others, p. 299, I have 
 suggested UVat for ctvat. 
 
 ib. 26 ^ €K T(i)V a-qfieiiov Sct^ts. 
 
 The context and especially lines 10-11, 16, 20 point to 
 Xe^L^, nor do aKoXovOel and ap/xorrovo-a go very well with 
 Sct^ts. cK Tojv oiKctwj/ Teichmueller ; if arjixeLiov is wrong, 
 perhaps o/xoLOiv. 
 
 1410a 27 <r]> apxrj or <€V> apx^ ? 
 
 1411a 16 Should not oi/o/xao-a? — eVtci/coiv follow Mot- 
 poKXrjs ? As it stands, Trovrjporepo's has nothing to refer to. 
 
 14116 10 The bronze figure is spoken of as to axf/v^ov Sr) 
 e/x^vxov- Surely it should be the reverse, to tjx4/vxov Sr] 
 anj/vxov. The lifeless bronze has taken to itself life, to 
 aif/yxov lp.\pvxov would rather be a living creature that 
 looked lifeless. 
 
 ■ I suggest further that to efujfvxov . . . cpywv, which is 
 manifestly part of the quotation, should follow imme- 
 diately upon TTjv elKova t^v ;^aAK^K, to which it stands in 
 apposition. 
 
 14126 21 oo-o) av <ei^> iXdrrovL. 
 
 ib. 24, 25 opOuiq is too vague and to Trpo? ov Xeyerai. has 
 no bearing on the context. Haec . . . me non intelligere 
 ingenue fateor (Spengel). 
 
 1413a 19 Ktti <at> evSoKifiova-ai. 
 
RHETORIC 113 
 
 ih. 2 1 dA.A.a TO <Kd\a6ov> iroXv (rcfioSpa 1 
 
 14136 1 8id . . . dwpcTres should precede ^^ptovrai . . . 
 prJTop€<s, if indeed it should not stand further back still 
 after /xetpaKtcoStis. Perhaps a7rp€Trtl<s. 
 
 lb. 8 (L(TTi hk Xi^is ypa.(f)LKr] fjt,kv rf aKpL^ea-TOLTrj k.t.X. 
 
 Cope, Jebb (in his early translation), Welldon, render 
 this as though it were yj ypa<f)LKrj aKpi/iea-rdTT] and y dywv. 
 vrroKp. I do not feel at all sure that that is not the meaning ; 
 but, if so, the text must be altered in some way, e.g. 
 aKpi^i<TTa.rYj fxkv r] ypa<j>LK-q and so on. 
 
 ib. 15 Has Xoyot been lost 1 
 
 1415a 20 No doubt Iv t<3 TrpoAoyo) wants moving 
 (Spengel) into the first clause, but I doubt whether aXKa 
 ye TTov would be good Greek by itself. aWa <vcrT€p6v> or 
 <aXkaxov> ye ttovI 
 
 1416a 12 The inappropriate ahiKovvra looks like a repe- 
 tition (from ahiKitv) like those mentioned above on 
 1383a 20. 
 
 ib. 24 ct Ko.Bapio'i 6 <8€tva>, fxoLxos {Aristophanes and 
 Others, p. 299). 
 
 1417a 31 TO, p,\v yap av yevecrOai dTrokojiiiva. 
 
 Surely d7ro\oix4v(ov. It is not that the lost might return, 
 but that there might come others, if the first were lost. In 
 the actual lines, Sophoclean or not, of the Antigone there 
 is a similar genitive with the subject to be supplied, ttoctl^ 
 yap av (xoL KaT6av6vTo<s dAAos ^v, and Aristotle is only 
 substituting the prose word aTroAo/xcvcov for the poetical 
 KardavovTO'S' 
 
 141 76 2 Why the poetical form x^poiv'? Read x^ipocv. 
 Biaai^uiv kul tolv ^^tipolv Siacreiwi/ might be part of an 
 anapaestic line, but the context makes this very unlikely. 
 
 ib. 9 opav <lo-Tiv> ? We cannot very well carry on the 
 €(TTiv of 4. 
 
114 RHETORIC 
 
 ib. 35 &)s co-Tat fi€v <7roLov<riv> a KcXcuct ? The subject of 
 lo-Tttt is the end desired, a kcAcvci are the means to it. 
 
 ib. 17 The sense is very obscure, but Xcycii/ and Siarar- 
 T€iv ought probably to be futures dependent on vTrio-xvcto-^at. 
 
 1418a 36 €t yap 'A;(tA,A.€a XeytL (or Xcywv <ruy;(av€t>), 
 IXTyXca cTratvctv. The infinitive is obviously necessary. 
 
 14190- 25 Read crvixTrepaivofxevov, 
 
VIII 
 
 THE POETICS 
 
 1.1. 1447<z 9 The clause koX irSi^ Set . . . iroi-qai^ should 
 follow the clause Itl Si . . . ixopimv, not precede it. The 
 subject of co-Tt must be eKaa-rov (cTSos), because various elSyj 
 have various fiopia ; but the present order makes that very 
 awkward. Also the very limited scope of Trois Set . . . 
 7roLr]cri<s suits the later place better. 
 
 1. 5. 1447a 27 Though I should not venture to alter 
 crxri/JiCLTL^oiJ.ivuiv pvOfitov, I never read it without wondering 
 if it should be pvO/xi^ofxevtov (T)(y]fx.aT{i)v. 
 
 3. 2-3. 1448a 27 Prof. Margoliouth has gone back on 
 his TTpctTTovTes and Spaivres, but they are certainly right. 
 As nominatives, the participles give just the diiferentia of 
 drama and the very meaning of drama the word ; as ac- 
 cusatives, they do not according to Aristotle distinguish 
 drama from other poetical forms. The very same phrase 
 with the nominative is used in 6. 4. 14496 32, and cf. 
 irpaTTovfTLv ib. 10. 1450a 21. 
 
 4. 6. 14486 23 <ot> e^ apx^s TretfivKOTeq irpo? avrd suggests 
 itself. Cf. §10. 1449a 3. 
 
 4. 8. 14486 29 TroWa for iroWovs, though it has not 
 found favour, seems extremely probable. 
 
 4.9.14486 35 <Tas> /xi/xr^o-a? ? Cf. 23. 1. 1459a 20 
 Bfx TOV<s fivOovs . . . <Tvvi(TTa.vai Spa/xariKOvs. 
 
 4. 11. 1449a 8 Kplvai (if right) seems best taken as an 
 • absolute ' infinitive, though By water joins it by tc to 
 cVio-K07r€tv. Though Kplvai alone does not (I think) occur 
 
 115 
 
116 POETICS 
 
 in this use elsewhere, Plat. Soph. 234 e has ws yovv i/xol 
 Tr)\LKw^€ ovTL Kpivai and Eur. Ale. 801 a»s y ifxoX -^p^a-Bai 
 
 KpiTYj. 
 
 5. 4. 14496 10 17 fji€v ovv cTTOTToua T^ TpayioBia fJi^XP'- /***' 
 Toi) (MSS. I^^XP'- l^ovov) [xerpov jxeydXov fxt/xyjcri^ elvai 
 (TTrovSatuiv rjKo\ov6y)(rev. 
 
 The great difficulty of ixirpov fxiydXov, variously ex- 
 plained and still more variously emended, may excuse the 
 rather bold conjecture fjivOta jxeydXia or Blol fxvOov fxeydkov. 
 Not only is fxeye6o<;, as opposed to fxcKpol fxvOoi, mentioned in 
 4. 14. 1449a 19, but the formal definition in 6. 2. 14496 25 
 calls tragedy /w-t/A-j^cris 7rpd^€u)<s o-7rov8atas kol rcXcta? fxiyeOo^ 
 exovcrrjs, the two points of o-7rov8atas and /xeyc^os being just 
 what airovSaiiDv and /McyaAo) /i,i;^a) would give here. The 
 importance of /xeyc^o? to /jlvOos is also emphasised in 
 7. 4. 14506 36 foil. The construction of the dative fxv6<a 
 fM€ydXio would be the same as that of rj^vcr/xevio Aoyo) and 
 Tots €iSco-i 15 and 20 lines below. 
 
 The error is not in itself an easy or probable one. It 
 might be due to the fact that the word /xerpov occurs two 
 lines further on. Cf. on 26. 4. 
 
 6. 6. 1450a 4 Xcyw yap fxvdov tovtov Tr)v avvdecnv tojv 
 TTpay/xdriuv. 
 
 Should we read avrrjv for tovtov 1 Cf. 4. 14496 34 
 Aeyo) 8c Xi^LV fxkv avTr/v rrjv tG>v /xerpMV (rvvOeaiv. 
 
 6. 7. 1450a 10 <iv> oU /xeV? 
 
 6. 8. 1450a 12 tovtol<5 [xev ovv ovK oXiyoL avriov a)S eiTrelv 
 KcxprjVTaL TOis ctSea-LV. 
 
 The parallel of 12. 1. 14526 14 favours something like 
 Tovrots fxkv ovv rj ovk oAtyoi? avT(i)V KexPWTO'-'- <^5 ciirdv ws 
 €tSeo-iv, though this is probably not quite as Aristotle 
 worded it. I have taken rj ovk oAtyots from Ueberweg and 
 ws itSea-Lv (as in 12. 1) from Vahlen ; the transposition of 
 (OS ciTretv is my own and I mean it to qualify KtxPV^Tai ws 
 elBea-Lv. The following sentence, koI yap 6if/u<i k.t.X., looks 
 like another version of ravra 8' eVrt . . . fXiXoirotia. It is 
 exactly the same thing in slightly different words. 
 
POETICS 1 1 7 
 
 6. 19. 14506 18 Should not ws yap be koI ydpl is and 
 Kat often get contused. Cf. on 15. 8. 
 
 7. 5. 1451a 4 I have noticed several cases of the con- 
 fusion of croyfia and o-x^fia, e.g. [Dem.] 61. 12 : Plut. 
 Lucull. 8, and I have suggested it in Plato Meno 76 d 
 (so Diels since). For that reason and because that con- 
 fusion is easier, Ueberweg's o-x»7fiaTa>i/ seems preferable to 
 Bywater's a-va-rqfidToiv. 
 
 7. 6. 1451a 7 irpos tovs dywvas Kat ttjv ai(r6r)(Ttv. 
 
 at(T6r}(TLv is surely not explicit enough for ala-Orja-L^ in the 
 
 theatre at an dydiv. Reading is itself alcrOria-L^. rrjv 
 
 TotavT-qv (or TavTrjv tt^v) or ttjv iv tovtol^ would give the 
 meaning. 
 
 ib. 1451a 9 Trpo? xAci/'vSpas av rjytuvL^ovro, uxnrep ttotc Kat 
 dWore (jiaa-LV. 
 
 (fiaa-tv is not intelligible. Perhaps Tidiaa-iv. The ti may 
 have been lost after tc in aXAorc (as in Plato Rep. 592 b I 
 have suggested that opcUvrt kavrov is opwvTt TotavxTyv) and 
 ^eao-tv changed to (f>a(riv. Such forms as (Ji-qaofxcv O-qcro/jiev, 
 <f>u)fx€v BCiixiv are quite apt to get exchanged ; see for 
 instance the record of readings in Plato Bep. 461 b, 464 e, 
 475 c and e : Pro tag. 349 c. Ttdevai (dywi/a) fits dytovas and 
 rjytovi^ovro very well. 
 
 Ar. Lysistr. 188 uio-n-ip <f)da iv AlaxvX.io 7roT€, which has 
 some resemblance to our passage, is equally uncertain. 
 
 9. 4. 14516 8 TTot' drra without an article would seem 
 better, rd may be due to toJ ttolw. 
 
 9. 9. 14516 32 Toiavra ilvai ola av cikos yiviaSaL koL 
 hvvara yevcV^at. 
 
 Should not dv be omitted ? Its position does not allow 
 it to go with yevea-OaL, nor does an infinitive after ctVo's 
 commonly take dv. In regular correlation to rotairra we 
 want ola simply, not ota dv. In such clauses too the sub- 
 junctive tJ is seldom, though occasionally, omitted ; much 
 seldomer than eo-rt. 
 
 I have sometimes thought Kai should be ^. Cf . however 
 § 1. 1451a 38 Ttt Swara Kara to cikos 17 to dvayKatov, where 
 
118 POETICS 
 
 By water's distinction of three kinds of Swara, i.e. (1) 
 6tKOTa, (2) dmyKata, (3) yivofxtva ignores a fourth kind, 
 what in the future is merely possible. 
 
 9. 11. 1452a 4 ravra 8c ytVcrat Koi /AaXicTTa koX ^laXkov 
 oTdv yivTjTac iraph. rrjv So^av 8t' aWrjX.a. 
 
 Since the confu.sion is common of (1) fxaXia-Ta with 
 KaWiaTa, fxaWov with kolWiov, and (2) of fiaWov with 
 /xaA-icTa, KaA.A.tov with KaWLcrra, the conjecture Kat fxakicrTa 
 Kal KaXXio-Ta may be hazarded. Cf. 11. 2. 1452a 33 
 KaWia-TTj Be dvayj/tuptorts /c.t.A.. yevrjTaL should be yiv7}TaL ; 
 cf. my Platonica p. 161. In 14. 4. 14536 19 write cyyi- 
 vrjrai for kyyiv-qrai. 
 
 11. 2. 1452^31 <i7> ^^ dyvotas . . . fxeTajSoXri 1 Cf. z6. 
 23 17 . . . ixerajSoX-q and notice that 17 would easily be 
 lost after «. 
 
 12. 1. 14526 17 KOLva /x€i/ aTrdvTiav ravra. 
 
 There has been some doubt whether airavnov is masculine 
 (roiv ■^op€vr<x)v) or neuter (tcov Spa/xdron'). I do not find it 
 pointed out that, when we take it as neuter, the sentence 
 is exactly parallel to those passages in the natural history 
 writings in which Aristotle distinguishes between the parts 
 common to all and the parts peculiar to some. See Hist. An. 
 1. 2. 4886 29 : 2. 1. 4976 6 : de Part. An. 1. 5. 6456 4, etc. 
 Such a distinction too is in place here, whereas the dis- 
 tinction between all choreutae and some is not. The word 
 hpajxa is in practice all but confined to tragedy. Hence 
 there is no difficulty about supplying it here and in two 
 other places in the Poetics where a neuter (ttSv, aA.A.o) 
 is used. 
 
 13. 2. 14526 36 ovn. Toi>s eTrtct/ccts dj/Spas Set /xcTa^ctAAcii' 
 . . . ovre Tous fxoxOrjpov^. 
 
 Is tTTietKr/s in itself a strong enough word to convey, as 
 the context requires, the idea of perfect innocence and 
 goodness? 15. 8. 14546 12-15 shows very clearly that it 
 is not. cTTtctKT^s indeed often means goodish rather than 
 good : the i7n€LK-q<s is the very respectable, good sort of 
 man, far short of the o-TrovSaios of the Ethics. As a strong 
 
POETICS 119 
 
 meaning is absolutely essential here, perhaps we might 
 read roii? <7raw> Ittulku.^, just as we have rov (r<f>68pa 
 irovrjpov a few lines later. 
 
 13. 6. 1453a 24. For to avTo, which cannot well be right, 
 I would read rather avro simply than rovr avro (Thurot, 
 etc.), which is awkward with tovto following. 
 
 In the next line is 7roA.A,at avrov = -n-oA-Aal TpaywSiat avrov 
 admissible Greek ■? I do not feel sure, but suggest avT<x)v or 
 avTo) (dative like Plato Hipp. Minor 363 b on ^ 'lAias 
 kolXX-lov etr) TroCrjixa Tw 'O/xiypo) 17 17 'OSvcro-cta, etc.). 
 
 ib. 1453a 29 6 Evpt7rtS>;5, ci koI to. aA.A.a jxr) €V olKovofiii, 
 dAAa TpaytKWTaTos ye riov TroLrjTiov ^aiVcTai. 
 
 It is of interest to make out, if we can, whether Aristotle 
 means to admit that Euripides is faulty in other respects : 
 whether, in other words, ei xat means although or even if. 
 A parallel passage points decidedly to the latter : de Caelo 
 3. 1. 2986 17 ot TTcpl McA-io-crov tc Kol UapfxevLSrjv, ous, ti kol 
 TO, dXXa Xeyova-L KaA.a>s, dAA' ov <^i»(riKa>s ye Set vofii(rai Aeyeiv, 
 especially when we compare the use of koI el in the very 
 similar Pol. H. 1. 3. 12886 35 01 7rA.€torToi . . ., koI el ra ofAXa 
 Xeyova-L KaAois, rdv ye )(pT](rifiu}v SiafiapTavovcnv. When the 
 Corcyraeans say in Thuc. i. 38. 5 ei kol rjfjLaprdvofjLev, they do 
 not mean to admit themselves in the wrong. See a number 
 of instances of el KaC=Kal el collected in Wyse's note on 
 Isaeus 5. 25. 
 
 14. 1. 14536 5 wa-Te Tov aKOvovra to. Trpdyixara yivofieva 
 
 Kol <f>pLTTeLV KOL ikeelv €K T(i)V (rVfJi^aiVOVTtDV. 
 
 How can a man be said to ' hear things happen,' when 
 what is meant is hearing the story told? As in many 
 other places (see for instance my Platonica, 239), ytvofxeva 
 and Xeyop-eva have been confused. Xeyofxeva told, narrated^ 
 is just what we want here. D. Hal. de Comp. V. 89 
 u)(tt€ jx-qhev rjfxiv hta^epiLV yivofxeva to. Trpdyixara rj Xeyofieva 
 opav lends no support to the vulgate, for he is only speaking 
 hyperbolically of Homer's graphic scenes. Nor does twv 
 arvix^aLv6vT0}v in any way point to it. 
 
 14. 10. 1454a 11 rjvpov <to> to tolovtov TrapacTKevd^eivl 
 Cf. 22. 9. 1459a 8 for the double to : also pp. 143 and 152. 
 
120 POETICS 
 
 15. 2. 1454a 22 Icrn yap avSpelov fxiv <€tvat> to rjdos^ 
 €Lvai seems missing below in 6 with ^ ayayKoiov ^ ci/cos- 
 
 15. 8. 14546 10 Should we read is for KaH It is 
 answered by outw in 11. Cf . on 6. 19. 
 
 15. 9. 1454& 17 Kara ravrag is, I think, required instead 
 of Kttx' avTcis. The pronoun ought to be emphatic. 
 
 16, 1. 14546 20 etSrj he avayvij}picr€<i)<;<7roWoL> or <7r€iT€>. 
 
 TrpiOTY) jJitV K.T.X. 1 
 
 16. 3. 14546 28 cto-t yap at /X€V TricrTeoos eveKa aT€)(y6T€pai 
 Kol at ToiaC'Tat Trao'at. at hk €k TrcpiTrtTcia?, cotTTrtp rj ev rot? 
 NlTTTpOtS, ^eXTtovs. 
 
 It is difficult to see what Kai at rotavrat Tracrat adds to 
 at TTto-Tcws evcKa, the latter words fully describing the whole 
 class. Should /cat . . . irao-ai follow wcnrep . . . NtTrrpots and 
 go closely with it 1 
 
 16. 4. 14546 34 avros to go before 6 TroiryrT^s'? With 
 eKctvos it hardly means anything. 
 
 16. 5. 14546 37 -fj Tpirr} (avayvMpia-Ls;) Sia fxvrjfxrj^ T(3 
 al(r$€<TOaL rt iBovra. 
 
 Certainly ala-OiadaL ri cannot = 7rao-x€iv rt and mean be 
 affected, feel {grief, etc.). Bywater takes it 'as an equiva- 
 lent for fjLvrjaOrjvaL ' and renders the words ' from a man's 
 consciousness being awakened by something seen or heard,' 
 which leaves the nature of the consciousness much too 
 vague. The context suggests that another participle is 
 missing and that the words were something like to) 
 alcrOicrdaL < Avttov/acvov > n iSovra, 'through someone's 
 perceiving that a man is pained at the sight of something.' 
 As one of the examples given turns upon hearing, there 
 has been perhaps a further omission of rj aKovaavra (perhaps 
 tSovTa r} S-KovcravTa X.v7rovfX€vov). Alcinous perceived that 
 Odysseus was pained at hearing the minstrel's story. 
 
 Though aia6ea-6aL is very suitable in sense, if a word 
 expressive of being pained could be substituted for it, the 
 emendation would be better in more ways than one. 
 axOivOai (Gomperz) will occur to everybody, but its 
 
POETICS 121 
 
 ordinary sense in Attic is annoyance^ vexation, rather than 
 pain, grief. aviaa-Oai is hardly near enough in letters. 
 
 16. 8. 1455a 19-21 It is qbviously untrue that the 
 avayvcopicrts €$ avTo)v rtov TrpayfiaTiov is the only one indepen- 
 dent of visible tokens, marks, etc. The di^ayvoipto-ts €k 
 avWoyLo-iJiov is not dependent on them either. Perhaps then 
 Scurepat 8' at €k avWoyiafjiov should precede at yap rotavrat, 
 which will refer to two species, not one. This, however, 
 still leaves a difficulty as to the dvayvwpto-ct? 8ia /xviyyotr^?, 
 which also do not involve av/xila. 
 
 17. 1. 1455a 26 avrov for t61 The parts of avros and 
 of the article (avrov, t6v, etc.) are certainly sometimes 
 confused. 
 
 17. 2. 1455a 29 oa-a Sc Bwarov /cat rots axi^ixaa-iv crvv- 
 air€pya^6fX€vov. 
 
 Compare a curious passage in Burke, On the Sublime 
 and Beautiful, Pt. 4, §§ 3, 4. 
 
 17. 3. 14556 9 With the two senses of avayvtopt^u) (cf. 
 yvoipt^o}) (1) recognise, come to know, (2) make known, 
 cf. the two similar senses of discover, though that word 
 has now practically lost the second. 
 
 17. 4. 14556 14 ^ fiavCa Sl -^s k\ritl>erj. 
 
 The genitive with 8id here is surely odd. His madness 
 was not the means, but the cause, of his capture ; therefore 
 Bl rjv. For the converse see on Problems 30. 1. 9. 
 
 17. 5. 14556 21 ovtu) Br] d<^iKV€tTat ? avTo? cannot have 
 occurred three times, even if twice, in two lines. 
 
 18. 1. 14556 27-29 Notice the feminine article t-^v (in 
 Tr)v OLTT* ap)(r]<s) instead of to as in 27. Is it a sort of 
 attraction to Bio-iv and kva-iv *? 
 
 18. 2. 14556 34 Here and in 24. 1. 14596 9 I cannot but 
 think with Susemihl that we should connect TraOrjriK-q very 
 closely with the Trd^os of 11. 6. 14526 10 and of 14. 4. 
 14536 18-20. iraO-qriK-q, that is, has nothing to do with 
 emotions, but refers to deaths, woundings, bodily TraOrj. 
 
122 POETICS 
 
 It does not appear that Tra^r/rtKos ever bears this sense 
 elsewhere in our Greek literature, but it is natural enough; 
 what other adjective could well he used 1 The stress laid 
 on bodily -rraOr} points to it, and the works to which the 
 epithet is applied fully bear it out. The Iliad is TraOrjTLKrj 
 because of the great amount of killing and wounding it 
 contains : it is irdOo^ Bi.6X.ov. 
 
 18. 5. 1456a 16 a-rjixeLov 8c* oo-ot Trepaiv 'IXlov oAt/v iiroir)- 
 a-av KOL fXT] Kara /ncpo^ wcrirep EvpnrLSrjs <r)> Nto/Srjv /cat fxr/ 
 oiornep Ala-\vXo^ 17 iKTrLirTOvcnv rj KaKw^ ay(i)VL^ovTai. Before 
 Trep in Trepacv the customary yap has probably been lost 
 (cf. on 22. 5 (r, n) below). In spite of the opinion of 
 Vahlen {Beitrage pp. 58, 59) and others NioySy/j/ is hardly 
 defensible. The story of Niobe is short and simple, and 
 there could not be any difficulty about bringing it within 
 the compass of a single play. To suggest, as Vahlen does, 
 that Tantalus would or might come in is hardly reasonable : 
 the story of Niobe is complete without involving her 
 father's fortunes. There is moreover no real evidence that 
 Aeschylus made more than one play out of it. There 
 would seem then to be something wrong about Nio/??7v, as 
 many scholars have thought, but I cannot propose any 
 plausible change. In Nauck's Trag. Gr. Fr. p. 51 I find 
 the suggestion ©rj/SaiSa, of which I had thought indepen- 
 dently some time ago. It is tempting but for one over- 
 whelming objection, that no poet can ever have attempted 
 to give in one tragedy the whole Thebaid from Laius or 
 at any rate Oedipus to the Epigoni or at any rate the 
 defeat of the Seven and what immediately followed. 
 
 The writer goes on, iirel koL *kyd6uiv c^cVco-ev kv tovtw 
 /Movu)' iv 8c rats TrcptTrcrciais Kat rots aTrAots Trpdy/naa-t. aTO\d- 
 ^ovrai {(TTOxd^eTaL Heinsius, etc.) wv ^ovXovrai Bavixacrroiq. 
 It is very hard to make sense of aTrXois Trpdyfxaa-L. Bywater 
 and others understand those words along with TrcpiTrcTftai? 
 to mean both forms of plot, simple and complex. But then 
 Aristotle would say that Agathon was highly successful 
 with both kinds of plot, although for a point most vital to 
 the treatment of the plot he failed to succeed, indeed 
 broke down altogether. Without great confidence I suggest 
 ToTs aAAois Trpdy/xaa-L, substituting a word which in several 
 
POETICS 123 
 
 places in Greek gets confused with the parts of airXov^, and 
 taking ra. aXKa. Trpay/Aara to be various incidents, matters, 
 forms of treatment, possible in tragedy. In 9. 10 the 
 difficulty of TO)!/ airXuiv /xvOoiv is well-known ; and there also 
 aX\(Dv (Tyrwhitt), though not convincing, is the most 
 plausible change, if change is needed, rtov dXkwv with a 
 superlative is chiefly, but not exclusively, Homeric. So 
 Problems 10. 15. 1, fxaXLO-ra Kara <f>vcrLV €)(€L r^av aA.A.<ov. 
 The next sentence, or rather its relation to this one, is 
 by no means without difliculty, but on that I will not 
 dwell. 
 
 A few lines further again ^ before ifi/SoXi/jLa may be 
 omitted with advantage, htatjiipeiv ^ (not ri . . . yj) being the 
 idiom. The 17 probably came from ei in 8ia(f>ep€t. 
 
 22. 3. 1458a 31 to fikv yap fir) iSnoTiKov Troirja-ei firjhe 
 TttTrcivov olov rj yXtoTTa kol rj p-eracfiopaL k.t.X.., to Be Kvpiov 
 Tr}v a-a^T^veiav. 
 
 In the first clause the editors try to find a satisfactory 
 subject for -novqcriL in otoi' 17 yXwrra and the rest, but they 
 do not succeed very well. I suspect Aristotle used a clear 
 antithesis to ro Kvpiov and wrote to /xcv yap <^€vlk6v to> fxtj 
 iStuyrLKov iroi-qcreL k.t.\. 
 
 22. 5. 14586 10 Perhaps one ought not to alter such a 
 fragmentary and burlesque verse as o^k av y ipdp.evos rov 
 €K€ivov eXXi/Sopov. There seems however no reason to 
 think that the line did not stand by itself, in which case 
 the accusative has no construction ; and in any case 
 €pa/x€vos is not prima facie apposite. P and FT (n) 
 being conf usable and confused, possibly we should read 
 ovK av TTpidp.evoq. A*^ has yepdfxevo^ as one word. 
 
 In what follows, to p,tv ovv KfyaivecrdaL ttco? ^pwfxevov tovto) 
 T<3 TpoTTO) ycAoiov, the strongest sense which we can give 
 <f>aLV€(T6aL seems inadequate to the imputed meaning of 
 using ostentatiously, or markedly. If a man makes any 
 use at all of the devices in question, he must of necessity 
 <f>aiv((r$ai, not XavOdvuv. You cannot lengthen a short 
 syllable without its being observed. dTrpcTrtos for irws 
 however is not only improbable palaeographically but itself 
 
124 POETICS 
 
 hardly the right word. aTrpcTrw^ and TrpeTroi/rws below do 
 not support it. We want a word meaning either too 
 much or ostentatiously. Any such use is dirpcTTTys, but 
 aTTptTTcos does not itself express the nature of the fault. In 
 other words I imagine something like <7reptTT0)s> ttw? to 
 have stood here. 
 
 22. 7. 14586 20 I have suggested before now that 
 AtcrxvAov and EvptTriSou should exchange places. The 
 sense of the passage requires this. The kul between them 
 might then, though it need not, go closely in sense with 
 TO avTo. In Plat. Syfnp. 223 c the Oxyrhynchus papyrus 
 and one or two MSS. invert the two names ^ kptcrro^dyq kol 
 
 23. 1. 1459a 21 (Set) /xr) 6/>ioias [(TTopLa^ Ttt? (rvvr]6ii<; 
 ehat, i.e. ' ordinary histories should not be like tragedies,' 
 when the real meaning is that tragedies should not 
 be like ordinary histories. I do not see how Bywater's 
 OeivaL for eivat (i.e. regard them as like) gets over this odd 
 inversion. A favourite correction is /mr] ojxoias la-TopiaLq 
 Tois (TvvOeaeL^ elvai, and Butcher looked with some favour 
 on the proposal (McYey) to read otas for 6/xoias. Has 
 anyone ever suggested opotas icrroptais rais crvvqOiaLv elvatl 
 
 23. 4. 14596 4 €k Be Kv7rpi(DV 7roAA.at (rpayioSiai) Koi rrj^ 
 /xiKpas 'IA.ta8os ttXcoi' oktw, 
 
 Thei'e are great objections to ' more than eight.' Eight 
 is not a round number and therefore ^ more than eight ' is 
 a very odd expression when the context has nothing to 
 occasion it. (Cf. Axionicus 6. 5 ilxxTe /xc | iviore Tov\d- 
 Xi-o-Tov oKTO) Tpavfiara \ ^x^lv and Aristophanes i^ro^s 1129 
 TrXctv 17 SwScKa, but these are comic). Aristotle goes on to 
 give the names of ten, which are no doubt more than 
 eight, but would naturally have been just stated as Hen.' 
 As nXiov Y}\ i.e. irXeov oktw, and ttAcov 1] more than admit of 
 easy confusion, I conjecture that irXeov rj with a letter 
 numeral, presumably 10, was the original, and that the 
 numeral has been lost. In this case we must also suppose 
 at least one name of a tragedy to have dropped out. In 
 eleven names this might easily happen. 
 
POETICS 125 
 
 24. 3. 14596 22 TpaywStaJv Toiv cis /xt'ttf aKpoaa-iv TLdefxevuyv. 
 
 I have published before the conjecture KaOujxivhiv. 
 KaOCrjixL is the technical word for entering, whereas riOrjixi is 
 not so used. 
 
 24. 7. 1460a 6 I think Spengel was right in wishing to 
 strike out the first avrov, a mere dittograph. 
 
 25.6.14606 34 ovk ak-qOTi dW to-ws <a> Sd? a is 
 easily lost before 8. <ora> Set has been conjectured. 
 
 26. 4. 1462a 16 koX In ov fxiKpou fxepoq (^X^O i"V t^ova-LKrjv 
 Kol Tois oi/^cts (tt/v 6i}/iv the Aldine), 8i' rjs al rjSoval aw- 
 ia-ravTat ivapyecrraTa. clra koL to ivapyh e^^ei koI ev rrj 
 avayvo)(r€L kol ctti t(i)v tpyoiv. 
 
 I think there are not less than three things wrong here. 
 
 (1) In 6. 19. 14506 16 fxeXoTroua is expressly called 
 /xeyto-Tov twv rjSva-fjidToiv, and we should therefore expect 8t* 
 175 .. . kvapyiarraTa to be said of tt/v fxovcnKiqv. The 
 difficulty about ras oj/^eis and 8t' ^5 points the same way. 
 We may then perhaps read ras oi//€ts kox tt/v (jlovo^lkt^v, 
 or Kat TOIS ot^els might follow evapycWaTa. 
 
 (2) IvapyicrraTa. is misused. ivapyeia is clearness ; clear- 
 ness to the eye, the imagination, the understanding. A 
 thing is evapyc's when it is clearly and distinctly seen. A 
 feeling keenly felt is not evapye's, except to an observer in 
 its manifestations. Pleasure therefore cannot arise evapyw? 
 in the sense of keenly. ivapyia-Tara is a mere mistaken 
 anticipation of the word ivapye<s, in its proper use, imme- 
 diately following. Aristotle must have employed some 
 other and more suitable superlative to express the strength 
 and keenness of the pleasure. In Eth. 7. 7. 11506 7 
 la-xvpoil YjBovaL are mentioned, and la-xvpoTara might do 
 here, but we cannot fix the word. 
 
 There are, I think, several instances in the Poetics of 
 this anticipation or repetition of a word driving out the 
 word intended. 13. 7. 1453a 30 is a very clear case, 17 
 irpoiTTj Xcyofxevrj . . . (rv<TTa(rts, rj BlttXtjv t'^v arvoTaaLV 
 €XOvcra. In 17. 3. 1455a 34 Tmrotyj ixevov^ may have come 
 from TToiovvra following, and ^Atov for <f>\6ya (Ueberweg) in 
 21. 7. 14576 28 is a repetition of ^Xtov in the line before. 
 
126 POETICS 
 
 d€i8>7? in 22. 7. 14586 25 is probably due to the same word 
 in 27 ; and we may perhaps find below another example of 
 the same thing. Cf. also on 5. 4. 
 
 (3) A logical English writer would say 'it possesses 
 distinctness ' not ' on the stage as well as in reading,' but 
 ' in reading as well as on the stage,' or * both on the stage 
 and in reading,' because the stage distinctness is the greater 
 and more obvious. For a like reason should we not read to 
 hapy\<i e^ei kol ifrt to)v epywv kol iv r^ avayvtoaeL 1 
 
 26. 6. 14626 4 rjrrov fJLLa fxifjcrjo-i^ rj twv cttottoicov a-qixtiov 
 hi' iK yap oTTOtaaovv ixL/xt^criit)^ TrActous r/aayaiStat ytvovTai. 
 
 Can fjiLfXT^ar€(o<i stand alone in the sense of such or epic 
 IxCixrjo-L^I Either (I think) some word is missing or 
 fjLLfji-qcrew^ is another instance of repetition from the imme- 
 diate context. <TV(rTdcr€(t}<; would not be perfectly clear 
 either, but better than what we have. cTroTrotia? is not 
 possible, for it always means epic poetry in general, not an 
 epic poem. 
 
 26. 7. 14626 11 crwetTTrjKev to? ivhi^erai apicrra koL otl 
 fxaXidTa fXLOLS 7rpa^€0)s jXLp.7j(Ti«i, 
 
 For on we should probably read either kcrrl or <€a-Tiv> 
 oTi. The confusion is well known. 
 
 I add the main part of a review of Bywater's Poetics 
 which appeared in the Classical Bevieiv, volume 24 : — 
 
 I will venture now to indicate a few of the places in 
 which, after reading Mr. Bywater's notes, I still feel 
 doubts as to the real meaning of Aristotle and am not 
 altogether convinced that Mr. Bywater is in the right. . . . 
 
 Just mentioning that I cannot think ' narration,' which 
 Jowett also uses, a good rendering of the Platonic 
 word 8LrjyY]a-i<; (p. 1 1 8), since ' narration ' really represents 
 aTrayyeXta and Sir^yT/crts is rather * exposition ' or ' setting 
 forth ' in any way, e.g. by pure /xt/ii^cri?, I take first the 
 ' two causes ' to which Aristotle ascribes the origin of 
 
POETICS 127 
 
 poetry. Mr. Bywater will not hear of the newer view that 
 one of these was meant to be man's natural sense of 
 rhythm and harmony, and that a passage explicitly 
 stating this has been lost. Yet not only do Aristotle's 
 own later words (14486 20) strongly suggest this, but we 
 have also to consider — and this argument Mr. Bywater 
 quite ignores, though he cannot have overlooked it — that 
 without it poetry, as a specific form of imitation, is not 
 accounted for. The general love of imitation and imi- 
 tations hardly accounts for the particular thing, poetry, 
 until the differentia of poetry — what specially concerns 
 language and perhaps music — is added and explained. A 
 love of imitating will make us imitate, but is it enough 
 to make us imitate in verse and often to a musical 
 accompaniment ? 
 
 Take again the meaning of the 'word TrcpiTrcTcia and of 
 the definition which the Greek gives of it. Mr. Bywater 
 adheres to the old view, that it is merely a sudden change 
 or reversal of situation, as against Vahlen's contention 
 that it only applies * when a man's actions (r^v -rrpaTTo- 
 /AcVwv) are found to have consequences the direct opposite 
 of what the agent meant or expected,' so that, on Vahlen's 
 showing, the fall of Wolsey in Henry VIII. would not be 
 a peripeteia, while the defeat of Shylock would be one, 
 and perhaps the most dramatic there is. Putting any 
 other arguments aside, does Mr. Bywater recognise that 
 the Greek definition, r] cis to ivavriov ruiv TrpaTro/xevoiv 
 fjitTa/3o\rj, does not on his interpretation imply at all that 
 the change is sudden or even in any degree rapid, for it 
 might describe equally well the /x6Ta/?ao-t? of any tragedy ? 
 and is to. irpaTTo/xeva a natural expression, as he under- 
 stands it, say for Wolsey's position before his fall 1 It 
 may be forced into covering such a sense, but is it the 
 natural phrase for Aristotle to use? If, on the other 
 hand, we follow Vahlen, neither of these difficulties 
 arises, for the sense of to, TrparTo/xcva then keeps us clear of 
 them. It is no answer to this to say that TreptTrcVcta else- 
 where expresses something sudden : our concern just now 
 is with the definition actually given in this place. 
 
 The note on to <f>L\dv6poi7rov (13. 2. 14526 38) is not to 
 me quite convincing. Here and in 18. 6. 1456a 21 
 
128 POETICS 
 
 Mr. Bywater keeps to the older interpretation of humane 
 feeling even for the wicked when in distress, while recent 
 critics have usually or often explained it — to quote his 
 words — as 'satisfying our sense of poetical justice, a true 
 lover of 'mankind being bound to rejoice in the punish- 
 ment of evil-doers.' It is a very doubtful point, but my 
 own feeling is in favour of the latter explanation. The 
 sense thus ascribed to the word seems to me, on the whole, 
 to suit the passages better ; it is a quite proper meaning 
 (cf. Prometheus 28 roiavr kir-qvpov Tov <f)i\avdp^Trov rpoTrov, 
 probably the first appearance of ' philanthropy ' in extant 
 literature) : Aristotle himself in Bhet. 2. 9. 13866 27 
 indicates that right-minded people will have no Xvirrj at all 
 over the distress of a bad man ; and this general position 
 may be illustrated copiously from all sorts of sources. I 
 will quote from four. A line ascribed to Menander 
 {Monost. 345) runs : /xr; tous KaKous oiKXtipi Trpa^avras Ka/cws. 
 Cicero in Cat. iv, 11-13 argues that love and tenderness 
 towards E-ome must give rise to strong animosity and 
 severity against the conspirators : si vehementissimi 
 fuerimus, misericordes habebimur ; sin remissiores esse 
 voluerimus, summae nobis crudelitatis in patriae civi- 
 umque pernicie fama subeunda est. Brutus says in 
 Julius Caesar, 3. 1. 170 
 
 pity to the general wrong of Rome — 
 As fire drives out fire, so pity pity — 
 Hath done this deed on Caesar. 
 
 Macaulay remarks of the people's attitude to Jeffreys 
 at the Revolution : ' The hatred which that bad man 
 inspired had more affinity with humanity than with 
 cruelty.' 
 
 When Mr. Bywater makes the tragic a/xapna (the 
 d/xapria, that is, which Aristotle think should bring on the 
 catastrophe) only a mistake about some matter of fact or 
 some error of judgment, and appeals to Ethics 5. 10 as 
 showing this, he is perhaps falling into the error which he 
 himself points out of expecting too rigid consistency in 
 Aristotle's use of language. If we are to go strictly by the 
 definition in the Ethics (orav /u,^ Tra/aaXoyos avcu Sc KaKias, 
 dixdpTr)fxa),we should have to say of the d/xapriy/xa of Oedipus 
 
POETICS 129 
 
 that it consisted in his not remembering that the unknown 
 stranger on the road might perhaps be his father. To 
 quote the Prometheus again, ckcoi/, ckwv ^/xaprov, ovk apvri- 
 crofxai is the admission of more than an error of judgment, 
 unless Mr. By water extends the sense of that phrase 
 to an error of moral judgment — in other words, a moral 
 error — in which case there would be no difference between 
 us. But I think he can hardly do this. Cf. Antig. 914 
 and 926 ; Bacchae 1121 etc. 
 
 I am sorry not to have persuaded him of the truth of 
 my view about the meaning of the words Kco/iwSot and 
 TpaytoSoL. I will not argue the matter further here, 
 except to ask why in 22. 8. 14586 32 tov? rpayioSov^ should 
 not have the well-recognised sense of ' tragedy,' ' the tragic 
 drama or stage,' which appears, for instance, undeniably in 
 Birds 512 ? Given the possibility of that meaning — and I 
 have illustrated it profusely — there is no sort of reason for 
 taking the Poetics passage otherwise. 
 
 As to recognition Sia fivt^fxr}'; to) alcrOicrOaL tl iSovra 
 (16. 5. 14546 37), Mr. Bywater renders these words 
 * through memory, from a man's consciousness being 
 awakened by something seen or heard,' and his note shows 
 that ' consciousness ' here is intended to be the same thing 
 as memory — memory awakened by the picture seen, the 
 verses heard, and so on. But can alcrOeardat, standing alone, 
 express ' remembering ' 1 Surely, at the very least, an 
 object for the verb must in that case have been provided. . . . 
 
 In the antithesis of ttoXitlkw^ and prjToptKu)^ Xeyctv 
 (6, 16. 14506 7) Mr. Bywater makes TroAtriKois mean 'like 
 a statesman.' However appropriate this may be occasion- 
 ally to a Theseus or Odysseus, is it really probable that 
 Aristotle would have affirmed it of most characters in 
 tragedy — Ajax, Philoctetes, Antigone, Hecuba, Electra, 
 Iphigenia, and the like 1 In spite therefore of the re- 
 ference in the context to 17 ttoXltikt}, I am inclined to think 
 that ttoXltlko)^ only means * in the style of ordinary 
 people,' that is without obvious oratorical devices and 
 artifices, comparing such uses of the word as Isocrates' 
 TToXiTLKo. ovofiara for ' ordinary words,' or Demosthenes* 
 ovT 6p6Ci<: e^ov ovtc irokiTiKov, ' the way one citizen should 
 treat another.' 
 
130 FOE TICS 
 
 On the great question of the catharsis it is now some time 
 since a French writer enumerated some thirty theories and 
 went on to add a new one of his own, and everyone knows 
 how much variety of opinion may exist. Mr. Bywater 
 adopts and maintains very decidedly the well-known theory 
 advanced (with some difference between them) by Weil 
 and Bernays — the homoeopathic, or, as he calls it, the 
 pathological theory. I could have wished he had said 
 something on a point which has always troubled me. The 
 theory turns on the following assumption. Feelings of 
 pity and fear without any particular definite object were, 
 at any rate in the opinion of Aristotle, constantly ac- 
 cumulating in the mind of the ordinary Greek man. The 
 cases occurring in real life offered him no adequate oppor- 
 tunities of indulging these feelings and so obtaining 
 relief. To his great discomfort therefore they continued 
 to become more and more oppressive, until the time of 
 year arrived at which he could hasten to the theatre and, 
 when they had been there still further increased, finally 
 discharge them upon the sufferings of Orestes or Niobe, 
 and so have done with them for a short time, until they 
 began to accumulate again. Is this idea of the accumu- 
 lation of abstract pity and fear at all plausible and such 
 as we can attribute to Aristotle ? The upholders of the 
 theory are not bound themselves to believe in such 
 accumulation, but can they think that Aristotle believed 
 in it 1 Something might conceivably be said in favour of 
 such an idea with regard to pity, though I think not with 
 real justification. But could Aristotle or anyone else 
 maintain that men in general or the Greeks in particular 
 were liable to such growths of indeterminate fear — 
 that is, were always gradually growing more and more 
 afraid of they knew not what, more and more apprehensive, 
 but apprehensive of nothing in particular, and had to 
 work the feeling off through its special excitement at a 
 theatrical performance ? 
 
 Mr. Bywater states the hypothesis in a way (p. 155) 
 which suggests he is not insensible to this difficulty, but, 
 to my mind, it only makes the difficulty a little more 
 distinct. He brings the tragic pleasure into ' the classifi- 
 cation of pleasures in the Nicomachean Ethics which 
 
POETICS 131 
 
 recognises the existence of a class of things as pleasurable, 
 not directly and in themselves, but through their effect, 
 as being of the nature of cures or remedies (laTpetat) to 
 remove the disquietude arising from an unsatisfied want, 
 and restore us to a normal condition of body or mind. . . . 
 The tragic excitement, which in the language of the 
 Politics acts as an larpcU or KdOap(n<s, is clearly a pleasure 
 of this kind — one of those described by Aristotle as 
 larpfvovra rjBia.' To speak of ' an unsatisfied want' in this 
 connexion is surely to use an odd expression, ' Un- 
 satisfied want ' in this case can only mean that a man 
 wants to get rid of a pain or discomfort — namely, the 
 feeling of fear or pity that is growing upon him — 
 whereas in the Ethics Aristotle means the ' want ' of some 
 positive (not negative) thing, like food or drink. Or are 
 we to understand after all that what is wrong with the 
 man is not his being overburdened with pity or fear, but 
 his suffering from lack of some opportunity of enjoying those 
 feelings, for Mr, By water speaks elsewhere (p. 159) of 
 their being ' defrauded of the satisfaction naturally due to 
 them "? [So Weil (Etudes sur le Drame Antique, 161) ' ce 
 besoin d'emotion.'] But that would surely mean too little 
 of them, not too much, and be hard to reconcile with what 
 is the very presupposition of the theory. It cannot 
 regard the man at one and the same time as uneasy under 
 an excessive accumulation of pity or fear and as craving 
 an opportunity of feeling it. An accumulation means that 
 he is feeling it too much already. In truth, reference to 
 the Ethics only makes the paradoxical nature of the 
 homoeopathic hypothesis more evident. 
 
 I may perhaps mention two or three small things in 
 which I welcome Mr. By water's agreement. In 20. 1. 
 1457a 35 he rejects the MacrcraXiwToiv of Diels (and perhaps 
 the Arabic version). It is indeed an extravagant supposi- 
 tion that ' most ' of the words, or even of the names, in 
 use at Massalia were such as Hermocaicoxanthus. In 
 13. 6. 1453a 28 he interprets av KaTopBtaB^cnv as good 
 management by the poet, not by the actors and others, 
 and this is, I think, certainly right. . . . Another small 
 matter is his adoption of the view maintained by Sommer- 
 brodt as to the word v-jroKptT-qs, that it means, not as most 
 
 K 2 
 
132 POETICS 
 
 critics think an answerer, but an interpreter, spokesman, 
 to the poet. Answerer would be a somewhat ludicrous 
 name, to say nothing of the difficulty about the unattic 
 vTTo. I am glad again that Mr. By water does not believe 
 in Aristotle's meaning to say or imply in Chap. i. that 
 poetry can be written in prose. 
 
IX 
 
 THE PROBLEMS 
 
 The following notes are of a very partial and imperfect 
 kind. The contents of the book are extremely miscellane- 
 ous, mainly scientific or quasi-scientific in their nature. 
 Large parts have no interest for me at all, and I am quite 
 incompetent to deal with the subjects which they discuss. 
 These I have not read or have only skimmed. 
 
 The text, which is at present in a very poor way, rests 
 mainly on the Oxford edition of Bekker (1837), and Busse- 
 maker's edition (1857) in the Firmin Didot Aristotle. My 
 notes will show some of the things which they allowed 
 to pass not only without correction but without any indica- 
 tion of discontent. 
 
 1. 12. 2 Read 8ia Se ro ^(oXtuScs <7riKpovs> Tov<i viroXiLTTO- 
 fievovq €tvai x^^/aovs. Without some such predicate the 
 words cannot be translated. Observing ykvKVTaTov above, 
 cf. de An. 2. 10. 4226 10 ra S' itSr) tiov x^fiiov ... to yXvKv 
 
 KOL TO TTlKpOV. 
 
 1. 45 Slot Tt /xcTajSaXXeiv Sci Tot KaTaTrXdarfiaTa ; ^ on ws 
 /xaXkov alcrOdvriTaL ; 
 
 The impossible oti ws is merely ottws. ti, it, and tt are 
 well known to get exchanged. 
 
 1. 50 (end) For ov ydp read o yap or a yap, explained by 
 SiaxvOrjvai re Kal OepfxavOrjvaL. 
 
 1. 56. 1 <iv> T€TapTaioL<i TrvpcTOis. Cf. first words of 55. 
 
 In § 2 the vivacity of opas (like that of v^ Aia twice in 
 Politics, book F) is curious, but the word seems right. 
 Cf. Ar. Eq. 92 and Thesm. 490 : Plato Protag. 336 b. 6pas 
 <oTi> oTTov is possible, but hardly preferable. 
 
134 PROBLEMS 
 
 2. 32. 1 i']reL(r<f>€poix€vov <£is> to. irvpicLTrjpLa. ir. is cer- 
 tainly not the subject of Ihpova-iv. 
 
 3. 5. 3 oTttV viripTUv-qraL Swd/xeL. 
 
 As virepreLvo) seems always used in the active, read 
 VTrepTUVTj Trj (or tl) Svva/xct. 
 
 ib. 6 oTt yap av €7rKrTa^ TL<i avrots Toiv Tpo^wScov vypojv, 
 Trpo(Tava(fi€pea-OaL crv/x-jSaiVet to 8c otttikov avrcov, w? T]J tou 
 TOiovrof iKXiLiJ/€L yevofiivrjs Trj<s SiaXvo"€aJS. 
 
 He is speaking of ol ixapdva-ii tov ^lov cVAciTroirc?, people 
 pining away. What to otttlkov has to do with this, it 
 would be hard to say, and 8c is out of the question. I 
 suggest TO t,oiTLKov avToiv, their vitality, t, and Be or 8i are 
 certainly sometimes confused. With Trpocrava^ipeaOai cf. 
 the intransitive sense of liravaf^ipoi. 
 
 3. 9. 3-4 Some of this is not intelligible to me and 
 certainly there are things in it which must be wrong. One 
 would think cVt^v/Aia can only be evOeca. diroXeiirwv is 
 clearly aTroXeiTvov (the editors seem to make it refer to 
 ot/^i? !) ; cf. diroXetireiv tovto below. At the beginning of 3 
 is bvK before c-yy vs right 1 
 
 3. 10 (end) TavTov for ravral The variant xpovov is 
 better than rpoirov. 
 
 3. 16 (end) TavTo, I think, for tovto, as in 8. 9. 5 tovto 
 should apparently be written for TavTo. In Book 7. 7 pro- 
 bably TavTo for auTo (31. 7 the same correction has been 
 made). 
 
 3. 20. 1 -oTav vTToOrj <tl> tisI With Svo fftaivcTai it 
 seems specially needed. 
 
 3. 25 Is this problem really consecutive *? At 17 on 8ct 
 the subject seems to change from intoxication to sleep and 
 sleeplessness. Perhaps the question to which ^ 6tl Sel is 
 the answer has been lost, as in Book 30. 14 and one or two 
 other places. 
 
 In § 2 not only a participle governing Trvpta? but some 
 such verb as yiverat or a-vfxlSaiveL before dypvitvia is missing. 
 Read at the end TavTci for TavTa and kKarepov (as in Book 
 
PROBLEMS 135 
 
 33. 3 Bussemaker) for crepov (/.«. d<: ravrh. ^X^irriov Ka$* 
 iKOLTipov T<i)v iraOiov). 
 
 3. 26. 7 orav ^vXov fxaKpov koL /xeya jxr] cuKparois exri tls, to 
 oLKpov rpefiet. 
 
 No such word as cu/cparrjs seems known. Read iyKparS)^. 
 Xen. de Be Eq. 7. 8 of rider and reins outw yap co-rat . . . 
 rf •)(iLp lyKpaTea-TOLTr). 
 
 3. 35 Something like atnoi/ or iroi-qTLKov, governing tov 
 ^vvaa-OaL irtVeiv, is lost. So apparently in 8. 17. 2 to govern 
 
 4. 13. 3 ffiVfiaTa ytVcrai a alpovai koX iK^dWovcri. 
 
 For aipovcrt there is a variant cf>€pov(Ti. It hardly needs 
 that to tell us that acfyaipova-i was the original. In 5. 34. 3 
 <f>€p€L is a variant for ac^aipei. 
 
 In § 6 read kol avrb Sc. 
 
 4. 24 Read ol </>t€v> d<^po8wrta^ovT£s (like to. /acV follow- 
 ing and ol fxiv at beginning of 25) and Kat for ^ before ot 
 
 TOIOVTOI. 
 
 4. 25 at Oepfxal <f>v(r€ts iv t<3 ^cpct arvfiTriirTovcnv . . ., at Se 
 ^v)(pat Od\Trov(TLV. t<TTL Se 6 fikv avr]p ^rjpo'; kol Oepfios, r) 8c 
 yvvTj ^vxpa. Koi vypd. tov jxlv ovv dvSpos rjfiavpioTaL 7] Svvafxi^, 
 Twv 8c ^dAA.ci. 
 
 ^aA.A.ci does not seem to have suggested to the editors 
 that the unmeaning OakTrova-iv is only a blunder for Od\- 
 \ov<rLv. 
 
 4. 29 x^^^ Trpoo-icTTaTat, not irpoicTTaTai. The words are 
 confused again in 33. 17. 2. 
 
 5. 13. 1 TO 8c \f/V)(0^ SdKpVOV TTOtCt. 
 
 Not makes a tear but makes us shed tears, SaKpvuv Troict, 
 as in the very next line and in 37. 1. 
 
 5. 26 (end) 17 ori o-apKwSr;? (6 fxrjpos) wo-tc ttoXv to Kara 
 <f}VcrLV c^ov €V avT<3 ; 
 
 TO Kara <^vo-iv by itself means nothing here, but we might 
 read to Kara cftva-iv <^cp/x6v> c^civ. 
 
136 PROBLEMS 
 
 5. 27 tvLOL (not tviois) fXK-q e/c^vovcriv. 
 
 5. 30 cws <av> dvTL7re<f>6y. In 12. 3. 1 8ta rtV airiav 
 
 5. 40. 1 8ta Ti Twv TreptTraTOiv oi Kara ras oSoi'S dKOTrwTcpoi 
 cio'iv oi dvw/xaXot Toiv cvOiuiv ; 
 
 Read tojv (for ot) Kara, ot was due to the 61 following. 
 
 7. 8 In the first two §§ arro occurs three times, but viro 
 should be read in all of them. akia-K^aOai o-tto tivos, 
 KLvelaOai diro Tivo<i, is not good Greek, voo-civ diro rtvos in 3 
 is different. For avrd in 4 read avrrj, understanding 
 yXia-xpov to refer to to diroppiov or to be used loosely. 
 
 8. 9. 3 d(f)€VT€^ Tov KLvBvvov must be either df^^Oivris as in 
 § 5 or possibly dv€VTo<i. 
 
 8. 20. 2 TTava-oivT dv, though it lingers in the texts, is a 
 bad blunder for irava-aLVT dv. 
 
 10. 5 XcTTToSepfxoTaTov Tcov ^(oiov ia-Tiv, dfxa Se kol rrvevfxa- 
 TOihea-Tcpov. 
 
 The constant blunder of substituting comparative for 
 superlative. 
 
 10. 10 Ttt 8e dXXa ^<3a . . . tt/oos avTo tovto eicriv should 
 of course be Trpbs avrw rovrto, absorbed in this alone. 
 
 10. 13. 1-2 Sid Tas fxera/SoXas • . . <ova-a^> outo> /xeydXaSi 
 and oLTLov <Tov> Toiavra y^viaOai. atrtos now and then takes 
 accusative and infinitive, or infinitive alone, without an 
 article, but does it ever in Aristotelian Greek 1 
 
 10. 15. 1 17 8c olcrB'qcn's (f}v(r€i to tfiirpoa-Qiv. 
 
 There is nothing to govern to c/jL-n-poaOiv. Read tov, or 
 possibly <7r/3o§> to. 
 
 10. 30- 8ta TL ToZ^ t,lOOlS dpTLOl TToSc? ; 7) OTt TraVTOS /JiiV TOV 
 
 Kivovfxevov dvdyK-q tl rjpefxciv, crvv4(3aLV€ Be TrepiTTtov ovtcdv jxt) 
 yiveaOac tovto ; oirep Kara ttjv dvTio"TOi^iav Ttov 7roBo>v rjv rj 
 
PROBLEMS 137 
 
 oTTtp is without construction and sense ; read ct^rcp. It 
 might be thought that crwifBaivi needs the addition of av, 
 but in certain cases the imperfect dispenses with it. Cf . 
 Isaeus 1. 45 (twice) d . . . creXivTrja-ev (if he had died), . . . 
 ovK €K€tvos iyiyv€To Kvpios : Lysias 7. 32 ravra Trpa^as . . . 
 cKcpSatvov filv ovSev, i/xavTov 8' cis kivSvvov KaSia-rrjv : 
 Demosth. 51. 9, 54. 33. apnot ttoScs should probably be 
 apTLOL <ol> TTo'Sc? : cf. 26 and on 13. 4. 5 below. 
 
 10. 31. 2 (Of the time which animals spend awake) rjhv 8c, 
 ovhf. €t*cos, 8ia TO avoLTravcnv cTvai (fyaLverai. aX\' ouS' ei'TaS^a 
 7rA,€t{0 ^povov 17 di/a7rav(ns yiVerai roiv Kara <^v(tw cpywv ou8' €i 
 TO icrOuLV 7]8tov Tov fxr], ofiuyq 7rA,€to> ;(povov ka-dtovcTLv rj 
 
 a<TlTOV(TlV. 
 
 ovh\ ctfcos is not merely without meaning but a downright 
 contradiction as it stands. I conjecture that it should be 
 placed after cpywv, and that ovK d after it should be ovhl 
 <yap> €t. In ordinary grammar dvaTrava-Lv would be 
 dmTravo-ts, but cf. on Bhet. 1364a 25. 
 
 10. 32 8ia TL Twv ^wwv TO. fxlv €v6vs OLKoXovdcL TOt9 ycvvr^- 
 <racn, to. 8' oxj/iy olov avOpoyiros, rj /noAis ^ ovSiiroTe; rj Sioti to, 
 fiev raxv aTroXa/n/Sdvei to (one MS. tovto) yvwpt^cti/, to. 8' oif/e; 
 Koi TO. fxkv avaiarBrjTa tov d}<f>€\ovvTo^, tol hi t-^a ata-6r)(TLV ; 
 ocra jxev ovv d)M^a> €)(€i ravra (Acyw 8' otov kqi ataOrjCTLV tov 
 w^cXowTOS /cat cTTtTeXeo-tv tov o-cop.aTOs) dKoA.ov^€t, to, 8e firj 
 afiifxi} {i.e. £)(ovTa) ov iroid tovto' 8€t yap BvvaaOaL kol 
 SiaiaOdvea-OaL. 
 
 Is TO yviopL^ecv right *? Observe two points: — (1) It is 
 practically, if not absolutely, identical with to ^x^lv ata-drja-Lv 
 tov (i^eAowTos, from which it yet seems to be distinguished. 
 (2) The following sentences not only say explicitly, what is 
 of course obvious, that bodily power (cTriTcAeo-is tov awfiaToq 
 and 8wao-^at) is also requisite, but they give that and 
 atarOY)(TL<i as the two conditions ; whereas ^ 8ioTt . . . €;^€t 
 aia-Orjo-Lv takes no account of bodily power at all. Although 
 then yvoipL^fiv seems so apposite, should we not read 
 
 10. 36. 3 CIS TT/V TOUTWV OVV <<f>V(rLV> /MCTajSdAAci "? Cf. 37 
 
 lx€Ta^dK\ov(rt ttjv <f>v(rLv . . . C19 to. dyova. At present there 
 is nothing we can supply to t-^v. See on 10. 62 below. 
 
138 PROBLEMS 
 
 10. 38 3ta Tt fiakXov avOp<D7ro<; 7roA.A.a9 <f}(t)va<; d(f)L7](ri, tol 8c 
 aWa fXLav, dSid<f)opa ovra Ta> ttSet (i.e. apparently so long as 
 they are of the same species) ; koI tov dvBpoiTrov /xta ^wi/r/ 
 dAAa 8iaA.€/cT0i TroXAat'. 
 
 10. 39 8ta Tt Sc avT^ dXX-q, rots 8c aA.A.ois ou; rj otl k.t.X.. ; 
 
 First Ktti . . . TToXXai should be 17 kuC . . . TroXXai; ^ was 
 lost after ct in ctSct. Secondly avrt] dXXr) is devoid of 
 meaning, and neither word can be right. The parts of 
 aXXos and of ttoXv's are sometimes confused (cf. p. 50), 
 and dXXoL? following would help the confusion. Perhaps 
 therefore the original was 8ta tl 8c aura) iroXXai, rots 8k 
 dWois ov; Whatever the exact words, that is undoubtedly 
 the general sense, as the sequel shows. 
 
 10. 41. 2 CIS ;^poros TTJs TcXct(o(rcois ytVcTat ov BLaTpiij/a<s. 
 
 Surely SiaTptij/aa-i. In the next words one would like to 
 substitute jJi-ryrpa for the senseless ttXt^Ocl, but the corruption 
 does not explain itself. 
 
 10. 45. 2 The force of fxaXXov cannot be carried on into 
 the next clause. Read therefore olov </xdXXov> iraiSiov. 
 
 In 4 the sentence <^vait — koL rifx^pa seems hopeless, for 
 part must have been lost. oT/xat is evidently wrong. dpTLov 
 in the words following is perhaps amov (t and p inter- 
 change), but, if so, something is again lost. Whatever 
 dpTLov may be, it is not dpTL ov (Bussemaker). 
 
 10. 52 8ta TL ITTTTOS tTTTTW )(aLp€L KOL llTlOvflCl, dvOpiOTTO^ 8c 
 
 dvOpijiTTiay Kttl oA(os oe to. crvyy(.vri ToZ<i crvyyeveaL Kat ofioLoi^; 
 ov yap St] 6/xoia)s otl ttolv ^^ov KaXov, rj h\ kiTLOvp-ia tov KaXov. 
 cSct ovv TO KaXov rj^iov ilvaL' vvv 8e pidXXov ov ttolv /caA.Xos r)hv, 
 to KaXov Kal to rjSv' ov8k TrdaLV rj r]8ovr] rj to KaXov rjBv, olov 
 <f)ay€LV Yj TTtciv coTTtv ■^Slov CTcpo) Kal d<l>po8LcrLdcraL dXXia. 8tori 
 /Acv ovv €Kaa-TOV TO) a-vyyev€L /JLeLyvv/xevov fxdXLCTTa Kal ^^LCTTa 
 ct^poSicria^ci, dXXo Trpo^Xrjixa' otl 8c Acat koXXlcttov, ovkctl 
 dXrjOi^. dXXa rj/xei^ to cts ttjv crvvovaiav rjSv, otl o fJ.€V KaXov, 
 OTL iirLOvfJiovvTes xaipop-tv 6p(i)VT€^. 
 
 OTL after o/xoiws should no doubt be ia-Ti. The comparative 
 ■^Siov calls for to kolXXlov rather than to KaXov. The follow- 
 
PROBLEMS 139 
 
 ing TO KoXov Ktti TO r)hv is meaningless ; and y] to koXov 1781; 
 is certainly wrong, at least where it stands, because olov 
 ^^ayciv K.r.\. is connected not with it but with the words 
 before it, ou8e Trao-tv 17 1780VT;, though these words themselves 
 are imperfect. I incline to think that 17 to koXov y]^v is 
 merely some sort of dittograph from the preceding line, 
 being almost the same as ov ttSlv KdX\o<; r)Sv. Perhaps we 
 might read ISei ovv to kolXXlov ^8tov tlvar vvv SI fiaXXov ov 
 TTttV' Ka\Aos i78i;* <€T€pov 7ap> to kuXov kol to rjSv. ovSc Traa-Lv 
 7} <avTr]> rjSov^, olov k.t.X. In the last sentence Prof. Piatt 
 has emended oti o fiev to KaXov/xiv, rightly (I think) in 
 principle. I had previously thought of vofiit,oiJi€Vy which is 
 closer in letters (to . . . 1781; vo/xt^ofxev KaXov). 
 
 10. 59. 1 (end) Surely TrXeiiov for TrXctw. 
 
 10. 62 Read twv ToiovTOiv otwv (not oloi') opvetov = idio- 
 matically ola opvea. Cf. Soph. Tr. 444 ^"^Tepas y otas e/jiov. 
 With Trjv tC)v dv6pu)7ra)v the substantive can hardly have 
 been left to be understood (but cf. the curious parallel of 
 10. 36 above) and can hardly have been anything but lK8ocrtv, 
 though that word does not appear in the dictionary in the 
 present sense. I would read e^ovaL yap koX TavTa (not TavTa 
 Ktti : cf. on 18. 3. 1) tyjv tojv dvOptaTrtov <.€K8ocriv>' o <.Se>- 
 iK€tvoL<s TToXXa)^ 8ta 7rXrj6o<i, tovto) (not tovto) ct? K€<f)aXr)v 
 €Khi8io(TLv ovT€ ydp . . . oi;Te k.t.X. tovtw i.e. man is a change 
 in number, such as in 29. 13, 1 below. 
 
 10. 65 el Koi fxr] should, I think, be ei p-r] kolL kul is not 
 wanted with ct when kuv precedes. 
 
 11.6.6 TO Se should be toC 8e, governed by wltlov. 
 
 11. 8. 1 7rpoanrL'7rTov{Ta)j agreeing with depa. 
 
 11. 20. 2 1^ o^vtt^s TTJ'S <f>wvr]q ov fxovov co-Ttr Iv Tta Ta;^ca>? 
 KiviZvOai dXXd Koi iv tw AcTTTOTttToi/ \p6(^ov yivcaOai. 
 
 For A.€7rTOTaTov read XiTrrov tov, the superlative being 
 inappropriate. One MS. indeed has iXaTTw t6v, in which 
 the comparative is more inappropriate still ; but iXaTTto is 
 only a corruption of the less familiar Actttov, <fnovr] XcTTTiy 
 being a regular expression. 
 
140 PROBLEMS 
 
 11. 27. 3 ovK airapTLt^u to. avrd. 
 
 Read ravra : the two things do not tally, do not go 
 together. 
 
 ib, b It appears to me that the argument requires the 
 insertion of a negative : orav <iJir)> ovrm tvxx) to fiopLov 
 c^ov. The next words should be orai/ <8'> cViTroA-rJ? ^ iv 
 ryj alcrO-^a-et (o [i.e. tovto <5 : MSS. wv) iKLVT^Orj Siavota. 
 
 In 4 the anacoluthon Xa^ovra, as though he had said 
 above ^vvafiiv \a/x/3dveL, is noticeable. 
 
 11. 33. 2 €vKpLV)^<s, not evKpLve<;, referring to StdvoLa. For 
 the same reason koL avrd should be kuI avrrj^ just as we have 
 hid TO pLrjT avTTjv ivepyeiv further on. In 7. 8. 4 we found 
 avrd for avTT]. 
 
 11. 35 KLvycrcu)^ <.ov(Trfs'>. 
 
 11. 49 The texts give us xf/o<f)ovvT€^ aKovo/Jicv. \po<jiovvTo^ 
 is of course needed. 
 
 11. 58. 5 <.TOV> aVTOV. 
 
 11. 62. 1 ea-TL Se to avrb ttAciovos Sva-KtvtjTOTepov. 
 
 This is both untrue and just contrary to the sense 
 required. Perhaps we may read TocrovTo{v) ttXclovos €VKtvr]- 
 TOTepov, any given quantity is easier to move than a larger. 
 €v- and Bvcr- are now and then confused. I have thought 
 also of TO avTO TrXelov ov SvcTKLvrjTOTepov, but TrXelov 6v seems 
 questionable for if increased. 
 
 12. 2 For KaOapd read KaOaptoTepa or </u,aAAoi/> KaOapd. 
 
 13. 4. 5 KOL <at> 8ia<^ucr>Jo-€ts. 
 
 16. 12. 1 idv Tts <t6> Kovcf>6T€pov, as two lines below and 
 again in the next. 
 
 17. 3. 1 The words rd Be iyyvTepai t^s dp)(r]<s TrpoTcpa seem 
 to be out of their proper place. They might stand after 
 elvai /jidWov, but will go better after tov Travros- I do not 
 feel sure that the Kac in kol otuv is right : possibly the 
 original was tov TravTos kol tol iyyvTepu) k.t.A.. 
 
PROBLEMS 141 
 
 In 2 r}, easily lost after v, should be inserted at the 
 beginning. 2 does not continue the preceding explanation, 
 but suggests an entirely new one, the consequences of 
 which come at the end of 4, namely that there are no prior 
 and posterior at all. In IttX tov ovpavov koI c/caorov to)v 
 a(TTp(ov <f>opa kvkXo's tis Io-ti we must read either <Tr}> toO 
 or <ri>(f)opd (t) again lost after v). ravra should be ravTo. : 
 cf . Tov^ aurovs j ust below. 
 
 18. 1. 3 oLTLov ^ must have had a fxaXkov. 
 
 18. 3. 1 Should not icrri ravra Kai be ia-rl /cat ravra ? Kat 
 with €7rt fiipovi means nothing. Cf. on 10. 65. 
 
 18. 5 Taking 30. 9 with this, I would read 6 fjikv rC 
 Tupawos, 6 h\ TTolov rj rvpavvL^i here, and ttoIov tl for dlov tl 
 there. 
 
 18. 6 avr<3 is wrong in itself, and rovrto is given in other 
 quotations. 
 
 18. 7. 1 oia TL TOv<s fxiv, av ap^oiVTat dvaytvwo'KCii/, vTrvo<i 
 XMfifidveL Koi fir] ^ovXa/xevovs, Tovs 8e ov (iovkop.tvov's ttoul 
 BvyacrOai, orav A.aj8a)crt ^i^Xlov. 
 
 Consideration of the plain sense shows that the second 
 clause should run toi>s 8e (or tov<; Sc av) jSovXofiivovs Trotct 
 <fjir)> 8vva<rOaL : taking up a book keeps them from sleeping, 
 when they wish. So in 2 we have wa-re ov Svvavrat Kad^vBeiv. 
 This is confirmed, though it needs no confirmation, by the 
 words of the same problem in 18. 1 : Sia tc tovs fxev, iav 
 dpioiVTai dvayLvu)(TK€Lv, vTrvo<; Aa/Ay8av€t koi /jlt} jSovXofxevov;, 
 Tovs §€ (3ovXo/x€vov<s TTpocTtypiqyopivaLy orav Xd/Soxn to ^ljSXlov. 
 There Bussemaker inserts ttoul from our passage before 
 Trpo(T€ypr}yop€vaL, but fails to see the obvious error corrected 
 above. 
 
 19. 5 t) otl <^ttov> r)Sv to /xavOdveLV; 
 
 Though 18. 3 and other Aristotelian passages tell us that 
 learning is pleasant, the point here, as the context shows 
 unmistakably, is that it is still more pleasant to make use 
 of what you have learned. 
 
U2 PROBLEMS 
 
 19. 28 KoX TW]/ vcTTepuiv ovv ioBo)v Tas 7rpu)Ta^ to avro 
 cKaXeo-av oirep ras irptoTas- 
 
 Ta<s TrpwTtts is surelj'^ wrong in one of the two places ; not 
 wrong in sense, but from the extreme awkwardness of the 
 repetition. The second can not well be altered ; I suggest 
 tok; TrpoT€pa<s for the first. Trportpoq and Trpwro? sometimes 
 get exchanged. 
 
 19. 30 ovT€ . . . ovre, not ovBi . . . ovBe. 
 
 19. 33 TO <.pXv> ttTTo TYj'; ap^rj<;. 
 
 19. 48. 1 <TOio{rrov> ftcAos . . . ov Set jxakLcrTa, i.e. the 
 yoipov Kol Yja-vxiov fxcXos of 2 ? Or tolovtov may have fallen 
 out before avrat. 
 
 20. 12. 2 Not TO but TOV •)(iipOV t\0VT0^. Cf. €VaVTt<09 
 
 k)(6vTtiiv and ei/avrtws tx'^^'^^'^ further on. For to and toD 
 cf. above on 11. 6. 6. 
 
 20. 32. 1 Ot aCKVOL <0t> TTCTTOVCS. 
 
 22. 3 (end) arro, as throughout, not vtto. 
 
 23. 2. 1 TTpos TrJ ap;(^ tov Trvev/xaros •>/ ^aXaxTa (ucr^eicra 
 irpioTT) Trjv exojxiviqv dei. tuvtov ttoici" Siorrep ovcrrjs avTrj's 
 a-vvexov<s KaOd-rrep jxca 7r\y]yrj (Tvvexel Tracrats ytVcrat. to 8e ei/ 
 evi ;^pova) ytVcrat, wcTe crv/XjSati/et rr^v re TrpiiyTrjv Kat t^v 
 fcrxoLTrfv a/xa Kiveicrdai.. 
 
 The words KaOdirep . . . yiVcrat must be wrong or incom- 
 plete, for yiv€TaL has no subject. Either read yata TrXrjyT] 
 (Tvvex^s or (better) insert another word in the nomin- 
 ative. If the latter, the word can hardly be anything 
 but Kivq(TL<;. TO Se does not point necessarily to a neuter 
 noun. TTpwTT] should be rj Trp^T-q, like t^v ixojj-evrjv, the first 
 and the next sea, i.e. parts of the sea. So Tracrais, all the 
 parts, and Tr]v TrpwT-rjv, ttjv ia-xdTrjv. 
 
 In 2 ovT€ should be ouSe and tc should be Se. ovre and tc 
 would have nothing to do with one another, as is shown by 
 the sense and by t<3 TroAXas . . . KLv-qaiv, which goes in 
 construction with ov irdax'^^ tovto, coming between. 
 
 ^^^ 
 
PROBLEMS 143 
 
 25. 3 8ia Tt 6 a.r)p ov;( vypo<; aTrrofjuvo^ rov iJSaTO?; T(u»' yap 
 aAAwv ovBiv OTi ov)( vypov, av axprjTai. Tf Sidrt to tcr)(aTOv 
 avToiv afxa, to ^e iirtTreSov avTS)v ovx eTcpov; He adds that 
 air is act avoiOev tov vSaros. 
 
 If I understand him rightly, it seems necessary to omit 
 the negative before ercpov. I take him to say that air and 
 water touch, but that the lower part of the air never 
 coincides at all with the upper part of the water. The 
 surface of each remains hcpov, distinct. Heavier things go 
 Karu)T€p<jD TOV ia-xoLTov, I.e. the water-line, and partly coincide 
 with the water, or rather displace it. 
 
 26. 5. 2. TOV Sc p.ri CIS Tr)v yrjv tovto avvLcrTacTOaL kol tov 
 avaKdfJLTrTeiv aTribv oltlov otl k.t.X. 
 
 If avaKdfjLTTTeiv simply means is thrown back, as seems 
 probable, a-n-iov is a dittograph of oltlov. Cf. on 1. 45. 
 Should TOVTO be toutov, i.e. t6v depa ? 
 
 26. 48 (end) Something like crv/x^aLViL (to govern ttjv 
 <f>opav yivicrdaL) is missing. 
 
 26. 53 The texts actually print oVav irvd. 
 
 26. 54. 1 KaBvypov <6vTa>. 
 
 27. 3. 5 Siv duiOaai fiacrTLyovv to o-w/xa TrXaTct vdpOrjKL, et 
 8c jJLT], Tais ;j(€po-tv dvaOepjjLav$evT€<;. 
 
 It is obvious that the dva^cp/xav^cVres must be not the 
 lxa(rTLyovvT€<s but the jxaa-Ttyov/xevoL, and that therefore 
 something is wrong. dvaOepfxaLvovTe^ or <ws> dvaOepfxa- 
 vovvTi'i is easily thought of, but the former at any rate is 
 hardly likely, for it would not easily get so changed. The 
 last letters of ;^ep(riV suggest <ti''> dvaBep/xavOrj. iva being 
 lost, the other word would undergo adaptation. 
 
 27. 8 Ota TO eKXeiTTCiv to Oepfiov . . . to pt-yos yLV€Tai, Sia Sc 
 TO vypov r) Sij/^a. 
 
 Read 8ta 8c <to> to vypov, i.e. to CKXeiTrciv TO vypov. 
 
 27. 10. 1 iKOepfjLaivofifi'OL 8-q 1 Perhaps 8c should simply 
 be omitted. 
 
144 PROBLEMS 
 
 27. 11 (end) The article ^ should be omitted. It is 
 probably a dittograph of « in the verb (orv/A^aivci Piatt). 
 
 28. 1. 2 KaOdirep av is for KaOd-rrep ovv. 
 
 28. 5 TO Be ivavTLOV t<o lySct XvTrrjpoTepov. rj StoTi fJiaWov 
 SciTttt TO Bepjxov Tov vypov rj to ^rjpov w ^(ofiev; 
 
 It has been seen that to ^p6v should be tov ^pov and 
 that <5 ^u)fjL€v refers to to dep/xov. But we must bring the 
 latter two phrases together by moving one of them, i.e. 
 TO Oepfiov (J ^w/Acv must stand before or after tov . . . ^rjpov. 
 
 The antithesis of XvmrjpoTepov calls for t<3 </x,aA,A,ov> rjSiL. 
 
 28. 6 <T<f>o8poTepa <ov(ra>. Cf. on 26. 54. 
 
 28. 7. 3 ova-ihv 8e T(i)V alcr6r}<T€0iv irevTC to. t€ dWa ^uJa aTro 
 Bvo fjLovuiv Toiv irpoeLpyjixevwv (touch and taste) rjSeTai, KaTo. Sc 
 Tois aXAa? Yj oA-ws ov;!( yBerat ^ kuto. avp.f^e^iqKO'i tovto Trdcrx^'-- 
 opuiv fxkv yap 6 opiov i] /cat oo"^paivo/xevos ^aip€t OTt d7roA.av€i. 
 
 Who or what is 6 opdv 1 If we had nothing to help us, 
 we could still see that this sentence should refer to some 
 animal, and the ovhi' rjfxiv further on indicates the same. 
 But an animal vaguely cannot be expressed by the mascu- 
 line 6 opiov. Moreover opihv 6 bpoiv is enough to rouse 
 suspicion. Eth. 3. 10. 1118a 20 solves our doubts. After 
 mention, as here, of to. dXKa ^<3a, Aristotle there goes on to 
 say ovK 6 Xeoyv Trj <fi(i)vfj tov fto6<s (^aipct) dWd Trj iStaBrj . . . 
 ofiocois 8' ov8' iSwv ' 17 lAa^ov y) dypiov aTya ' dXX' oTt /3opdv 
 c^€i. Let US then read opiov /nev yap 6 X.i(ov -^ Kal oa-cftpatvo- 
 /A€vo9 xaipcL oTL ctTToXavo-ci (late for ciTroXauo-eTai). 6 opiov is 
 only an instance of what I have often pointed out, the 
 repetition of a word from the context. 
 
 The T€ in Td tc dXXa ^oJa might be questioned. It is, I 
 think, only idiomatically misplaced, going in sense with 
 d-jTo Bvo . . . yBeTat and answered by Be. Though Kara tols 
 dWas oAws ovx yjBeTai is identical in sense with diro Bvo . . . 
 ^BeTat, KttTa o-u/x/^e/Sr^/cds is an addition ; hence re and Be. 
 But T€ could well be spared. The /aev after opiov is not easy 
 to explain (cf. on 29. 13. 10 foil, below), but perhaps the 
 writer was going on to say oTav 8c (not Kal oTav) 7rXr}p<o6rj 
 and then failed to do so. 
 
 % 
 
PROBLEMS 145 
 
 29. 2. 1 alcrxpov should probably be alax'^ov. 
 
 29. 4 and 8 invia and ttXoGtos should have capital letters, 
 IXcvia and nXovTos, for oddly enough they are personifica- 
 tions here just as much as in Aristophanes. 
 
 In 4. 1 write fxaXia-T <av>. At the end €t yap to KaKov 
 <KaKOV> cXoLTo. 
 
 29. 5 In this problem (the general meaning of which is 
 entirely missed by the Latin translation in the Didot 
 edition) at dSiKtat <at> /xei^ous might perhaps be a small 
 improvement, as in 12. 4. 5 above. Read kolv ttoAiv and 
 KOiv ToXavTov. Cf. 6 (end). 
 
 29. 7 irXiLO-Tov koyia-fxov K€KOLV(ovr)Kiv. TrXeia-TOV ^ 
 
 29. 12 rrjv (TTttcrtv t<jo cf)€vyovTL SiSoaaiv, eW a)s €7rt to ttoXv 
 ol <f}€vyovT€'i TrapatfivkaTTovTaL. 
 
 For the absurd cW^ we want something in the general 
 sense oi from which or in tuUich ; something therefore like 
 €v6€v, oOev, iv y. But I do not see precisely what it 
 should be. 
 
 29. 13 is a long discussion of the reasons for giving an 
 accused person the benefit of the doubt, if the votes are 
 equally divided, and allowing him to get off. 
 
 1 ^ oTi 6 /x€v <f>evy(i}v iv to) dycovt jxovov aKrJKoev avrov Trpos 
 a Sci avTOV aTrrjyopela-Oai kol tov<; /xdpTvpa? Trapa(T\€a-6aL irpo^ 
 TO. KaTrjyoprjjxeva ex^crOai, ct ti /xeWovcriv uxfyeXrjOrjvai. 
 
 avTov is taken to be the prosecutor, but this is awkward. 
 Read auTw, going with t<3 dySyvL. cx^crOaL is puzzling, but I 
 take it on the whole to be €;(£ii/ (be able), perverted by 
 Trapaarx^(TOaL. Cf. for instance on Eth. 1153a 12 above. 
 If €t Tt fxiXXova-Lv wclieXrfdrjvaL is right, the number changes 
 loosely, as it sometimes does both ways, from the singular 
 6 <l>€vy(i)v to the plural, avroiv in 5 may be another such 
 case ; 30. 8. 1 is clearly so (plural to singular). But 
 fieXXii, dxfieXrja-aL, 6<f>€Xo<s ttvat, all occur as possibilities. In 
 2 should Ttva o)v be riviovl 
 
146 PROBLEMS 
 
 4 wcT J €1 7rapaAi/x7ravov<nv uiv Set avrov?, ctTrcp c^tcroCvrat 
 
 TOIS OlKai'oiSj 6>^AoV OTl €1 /i>^ TTapcXl/XTTaVOV iKpOLTOVV dv. 
 
 It is hardly possible that two consecutive clauses with 
 €t and €t7r€p can be right. Greek sentences are not so 
 constructed, and we might rather have expected (say) 
 ctTTcp TrapaXi/ATTctvovTcs . . . e^i<roi)vTai. But that and other 
 types one can think of are not likely to have been so much 
 altered. Possibly wa-re TrapaXL/xTrdvova-Lv (omitting el or 
 reading Kat) . . . ttTrep <ovv>. Possibly ajcrr' d 7rapaA.ip,7ra- 
 vovoTLv . . . €tTa (for etTTtp) e^icowTat. avrovs should be avrois 
 and 8ct perhaps ISci. 
 
 5 rovTiov yap e/cacrrou ovnov a Kariqyopel avroiv. 
 
 iKacTTov will not do, but we are again uncertain what 
 exactly it should be. eKao-ru), cKao-rots, iKaa-Tore, would all 
 make sense. Kar-qyopetTaL for KaTyjyopell The active is not 
 certainly wrong. 
 
 7 In certain cases ovk ol6/xe6a Sctv tov vofxodeTrjv irpoari- 
 Bivai TO) kyKokovvTi, dAA.a rov cfievyovra Kvpiov eivat teas av 
 VTrepo^rjv rwa tyri 6 dSiKcov. o/xot'w? Se /cat cttI tcov KpirCiv, 
 eireiSr] ov8ep,tav virepo-^^v laacrOiKTOiv tiov ifz-qcfiCDV, Kara ^^wpav 
 fia(r€V 6 vofioOerrj^ ^X^'-^- ^'^^ ^^ '''**''^ H-^^ d^Lokoywv dfxapTr]- 
 IxoTwv jxeyaXai koX at KoXdcrwi elcTLV, ware dSiKws p-ev Karaif/r}- 
 <f>i(rap.€voL<s Koi /jlt] yvovaiv (wat p.Lyvvov(riv one MS.) ovk IcrTtv 
 (7ravopOovcr6aL Kaipov XafSovra^' aTroXvaacn Se Trapa to irpocrq- 
 Kov, el /A€V oiuTto? evXajSw^ wa-re fxrjOev en ttotc d/xaprctv, Tt av 
 Ktti />i€ya ■fjp.apT-qKOTe'i ot KpiraX etyaav tolcvtov dvOpoiirov 
 diroXvaavTes Bavdrov ; el Se tl e^ vcrrepov dfjcaprdvoi, 8l dfx<ji6- 
 repa av avTOV KoXd^eaOat d^toi. 
 
 In this passage, of which the editors do not complain, 
 there are at least five bad blunders, but they admit of 
 fairly certain correction. (1) 6 dSiKoiv in the third line 
 should be 6 StcoKwv, to whom eiretSr} k.t.X. also refers. 
 Possibly (Txrj for exy- cws dv until almost always takes the 
 aorist. (2) The eTreLSrj clause lacks an ex^t to govern 
 virepoxrjv, and, as the next line has a superfluous, though 
 quite natural, ex^Lv^ perhaps we may take it from there. 
 (3) /i,^ yvova-iv has little meaning and stands for jxera- 
 yvovaiv : if they condemn him tmjustly and subsequently 
 change their minds. (4) €i fiev ovrws evXafim, like cVciS^ 
 
PROBLEMS 147 
 
 k.tA., lias lost its verb ; insert some such as Siayoi. (5) We 
 have two difficulties on our hands in a.7roXv(ra<Ti and d^ioi. 
 The dative has no construction whatever, but the sentence 
 may be an anacoluthon (aTroAvcravTe? would be regular), 
 dTToAvo-ao-i having come from the datives preceding; and 
 d^tot can be corrected to d^totcv, the singular being impos- 
 sible. But I do not feel sure that for dltoi we should not 
 read l^u-q : cf . ovk ea-rtv above, and eariv with lleo-ri follow- 
 ing in 29. 14. 4. In that case when Aristotle (or another) 
 wrote dTToXva-aa-t, he had some form of e^ctvat in his mind, 
 was diverted for the moment into a sort of parenthetic 
 construction, tl av k.t.A.., and reverted to his purpose at the 
 end. 
 
 In 11 I would write (f>avXoT€pov for <}>av\ov, or </xaXkov> 
 (f>av\ov. The fxev in twv fxev d^ioXoyiov dixapTrjfxaTOiV seems to 
 contrast greater offences with unmentioned smaller ones. 
 Uses of /jtcV in §§ 10, 13, 15 are less easy to explain, to Se 
 has been rightly altered to to re, but possibly to should be 
 Tov. Cf. for instance 30. 1. 20 17 TotavTrj €^l<s tov k.t.A.. 
 See on 20. 12. 2. 
 
 12 This section appears to be out of its place. It is 
 connected in its matter with 6, not properly with what 
 precedes it. 
 
 15 Logic points to 6 fxlv ovv rather than 6 fxlv yap- 
 
 29. 14 Another Problern asks why theft from any public 
 place, e.g. a bath, is punished with death, when theft from 
 a house only entails a moderate penalty. 
 
 4 €is fikv TTjv olKiav iirl t<5 KCKTi//x€va) «(TTIV ovTtva av /3ov- 
 XrjTaL €io-8€;(€<r6'ai koL to p.!) Tna-T^vn eiar(f)€p€(r$af to? Sc iv t<3 
 fiaXavcLw Oepevio tl ovk I^ccttiv oWeva KiuXvcraL ovTe elcrUvai 
 ovT€ ela-eXOovTa p-q irapa kXctttt^v (TrepiKA-CTrrjyv, ttcpikXctttciv) 
 TO avTOV IpoLTLOV BiaBai dirohvvTa dv, dXA.' ws ov ^ovAcTai, ev 
 tw avTw r) T€ TOV KXeTTTOv €(rOr)<s kol rj tov /xeAXovTos dTroXXvvai 
 dvap.ip.iLyp.ivaL /cctvTat. 
 
 We have first to change ela-tfyipea-BaL to €l(Tcf>pe(r6aL admit 
 and to insert p.rj before it; cf. on 11. 27. 5 and 18. 7. 1. 
 The master of the house can admit anyone he likes and 
 exclude anyone he does not trust. The words that follow 
 
 L 2 
 
U8 PROBLEMS 
 
 give a ludicrously wrong sense, that a bather cannot 
 prevent anyone from coming in or from laying his clothes 
 down by the side of a thief. We have to omit KXiirryiv 
 and read y^-q Trapo, to avrov <to> i/acitiov OtcrOai, that is, 
 laying his garment by the side of the bather's own. But 
 where did KXiirr-qv come from'? Simply from the line 
 before. Read ovk t^ia-n KXiiTT-qv ovhiva KwXva-at, comparing 
 the mistake suggested in 29. 13. 8 above (ix^iv). av after 
 oLTroSvvTa must seemingly be omitted. 
 
 In the words that follow, 6 vo/jioO€Tr]<; tuJ fxev €k6vtl 
 ilcrBe^aiJievio tov KX^TrTrjv kol avrto rjfiapTrjKOTL ov Xiav /AcyaXais 
 Tt/Aojptais fie/^oTjOrjKe, I would avail myself of the well-known 
 confusion of Kai and w? to read ws avT<3 or <a)s> Kat avr^. 
 
 6 €Ti Se ot fX€V iv Tots ovTOi KOLVo2<; overt TO) l3ovXo/Ji(v<o 
 eicrUvai /cActttovtc? Karacfiavel^ airaoL yivovTai on <f>av€poL elaiv, 
 SiCTTf. K.T.X. KaTa<f)avio<s ovv ^Srj Trovrjpoi SiaTeXova-Lv 6vt€<s. 
 
 Kara<jiavei^ .... ^avcpot does not seem to have given 
 offence in spite of its tautological absurdity. Even without 
 the concluding words we could divine that on Trov-qpol. eicrtv 
 is to be read. <f>avepoL is merely a semi-repetition of Kara- 
 ^avcts, like 6p(i)v and 6 optov above in 28. 7. 3. Cf. p. 78. 
 
 At the end of 9 rats should probably be omitted before 
 /xeL^oarL. 
 
 In 10 odev is incompatible with oiKot ovra <f)€peLv, unless 
 some words are lost, but we cannot be sure for what it 
 stands. P-'^tc TraOovra <pr)8€v> /at^tc k.t.X. '? 
 
 The last words of all, ov kolvtj ttov a-vvepxopaOay must be 
 wrong, as ov and ttov would not go together. ei or ore 
 
 KOtvfj TTOV 1 ov KOLVrj TTOTC ? 
 
 29. 15 €v Tot? tcrois avTw <a)v>, and in the first words 
 to-at yiviovrai <ai> il/rjffyoi, as probably in 29. 13. 1. 
 
 30. 1. 9 8ta TO avTo TTOtet o t€ olvos kol tj <f>v(n<i eKaoroi; 
 TO rjOo^. 
 
 As the sense must be by the same means, not for the 
 same reason, read 8ia tov avTov. On the other hand ckcio-tou 
 TO ^Oos should be cKao-Tov, like Ka$' e/caorov to rj6o<s in 7. 
 
PROBLEMS 149 
 
 In 12 ytV€Tat Tis 17801'^ €7rt Trawriv ovcriv read €TI for cTrt. 
 The words in \^ rj n €K)(y(ri<s . . . kol t) pcif/i^ viro tov 
 TTVivfiaro^ u)6ovvTo<: <f>av€p6v yivea-Bai may safely be pronounced 
 wrong. The nominatives with <fiav€p6v ytveaOai make a 
 very extraordinary construction, and ^avcpov with an 
 infinitive instead of on or ws is extremely rare, though 
 perhaps not quite unknown : see p. 88 and cf. on 32. 13 
 below. Are we to read (fiuvepov on yiVcrai 1 The termina- 
 tions rai and a-Oat sometimes get interchanged. So in 
 1. 9. 2 yivio-dai is a v.l. (wrong) for yiverai. 
 
 In 14 I suggest da\ <8e> for oioi, reading hto kol 6 /xe'Aas 
 oTvos ovSevos tJttov tolovtov<s aTrepyd^tTar eicrl Sc kol ol 
 /x€\ay)(oXLKOL TTi/ev/xarajScts. 
 
 In 15 perhaps ovre . . . ovtc for ovSe . . . ovSe. The 
 mistake comes several times in the Problems. 
 
 20 Something perhaps like oo-ot? 8' av irraviivai (or 
 tTravedrjvai) <o'v/AyQaivr^> Tr]V dyav OepfxorrfTa. iv (not fi€v) 
 Tots <f>6^0L<s, like iv rai? vdo-ois in 21. 
 
 22 6epfirj<s for Oepfxri 1 Should not kcu iv avraJ koX diraOrj 
 be Ktti iv avTov (self-controlled) k. d. 1 But cf. 3. 17. 4, and 
 the point is disputed. 
 
 28 8to Kol ol veoL rj kol ol -rrpea- ^vrat fidXXov uTrdyxovTaL- to 
 fjicv yap y7Jpa<s fxapaLvei to Oep/xov, tcov 8k to 7rd6os ^vaiKov ov 
 KoX avTo to fxapaLv6fJi€vov O^pfxov. 
 
 y) is wholly out of place and should be omitted, twv hi 
 TO irdOo'i points to tois p.h/ yap to yrjpa<i, which is in itself 
 better. I can make no sense of to fiapaivofxevov and con- 
 jecture TO fiapalvov Bepjxov i.e. ov. In old men age, which 
 is cold, jxapaivci to depfjiov ', in young men to fxapalvov is 
 itself hot. As the writer explains, one heat or one cold 
 masters and expels another. 
 
 33 ov Bid vocrov <8c>. 
 
 30. 4. 2 avrr) should be avT^. 
 
 30. 5. 1 iv avTots, not cavTOts, ^fiiv. 
 
 ib. 2 tS)v <f>v<r€i cannot from its position depend on 
 fidXiaTo, nor can it very well depend on vovs or be a 
 partitive genitive with it. Read then twv «^vo-€i <tov>y 
 
150 PROBLEMS 
 
 just as we have in 1 Io-ti yap koX 6 voGs roiv <f>vcr€i. For the 
 omission cf. on 26. 54 ; 28. 6 ; 29. 15 ; 30. 8. 
 
 In 3 v(TT€pa must be inserted to govern t<3j/ t^s x^^po?- 
 
 In 4 Kal avaTTaXtv, (us ra opyava 7rp6<s dWrjXa, ovto) <.S)V>- 
 
 ra opyava Trpog avrd. (av ra opyava occurs above, and 
 
 TO kKaa-TOV opyavov. 
 
 5 runs fxavOavofXiv 8e OaTTov v€(oTepoL ovtcs Slol to fxrjSev ttw 
 •iTTLCTTaadar orav 8c c7rtcrTw/A€^a, ovkctl 6imolo)<; SvvdficOa. Svvd- 
 fxeOa Sc ixeaOai, KaOaTrep Kal ixv-qfiovevo/xev fxaWov k.t.A,. 
 Here we are to read ovkItl oixolid^ Swd/jnOa Sex^a-dai, the 
 second Bwd/xida being a mere accidental repetition. 
 
 30. 6 asks Start av^pwTro) Trcio-reW fiaXXov 17 aA.A.(p ^ww ; and 
 suggests as reasons that he alone can count, alone recognises 
 gods, and is the most imitative (of animals). The question 
 is a strange one, but from the answers it would not 
 seem possible for it to mean why one man should trust 
 another more than he trusts any animal. Does it not give 
 reasons for man's ascendancy over the animals, reasons 
 why animals should obey man more than they obey any 
 other animal 1 If so, rots ^wois (possibly ra ^(3a) must be 
 added, say, after Treio-reov. 
 
 30. 7. 1 6/xota)s ia-rlv rjSeta kolv el . . . itrxev is extraordinary 
 and hardly possible Greek for ' would have given as much 
 pleasure if it had . . .' ; that is, ia-rCv would naturally be 
 av ^v. Does 6/Aot(o? then mean ' only as much ' (6/u,ota>s Kav 
 ' as much as ') = ov fjiaWov ^ 1 This would be oddly 
 phrased too. 
 
 ib. 2 ^ oTt €7rt filv Tots TOLovTOL<: (human affairs, matters of 
 memory and hope) -^aipoixcv ojs yevo/Mcvots rj ova-iv, kirX Sc 
 TOts Kara. cf>v(rLV ws Kara dXrjOciav ^ew/otas rjBovrjv a)s €^€1 fiovrjv 
 rjiXLV TTOictv, ras 8c Trpa^ei? ttjv oltto TUiV a-vp-^aivovrmv d-K 
 avTOiv; 
 
 This is a tangle not to be put right with certainty, but 
 something like the following may be suggested : cttI pikv 
 Tol<; TOiovTOC<; x.aipofX€v a)s ycvo/xeVois 17 jxeXXova-LV (or l<rop.ivoi<i), 
 cTTt 8e Tois Kara <f)V(TLV ws <.ovat,v, cjcttc t^v^ Kar' dXi/^eia? <»)? 
 Ix^t Oewptav TjBovrjv fxovrjv yfuv Trotetv. The words ws e^ci 
 suggest as an alternative rots Kara <f>va-Lv a>s exovcri rrjv Kar 
 
PROBLEMS 151 
 
 aXr}6€La<i Ociopiav -^Sovrjv fiovr^v r/fjuv Trotctv, but the other out- 
 line of sentence seems better. 
 
 30. 8 Several small corrections are still to be made. 
 In 1 TTorepov <oTi> ovk t(TTL and 17 ^rjporepo*: <d)v>. Also 
 iravTtt or ttolv must be added as the subject of yiVerai (el Srf 
 yivirai). 2 ttouI 8^ ck j/^i;;(ovs "^ttov (T<j>6hpa is odd, but 
 probably right, though if/vxpov suggests itself. riX-cov is 
 unusual, if it means finally, or even entirely : perhaps 
 wrong. Then read ck 8e (not re) tovtov, and notice the 
 strange ttcc^ukcv . . . 6v instead of ttcc^vkcv elvai. In ov fi-qv 
 rj y€ Te)(vr} tovtov ia-rCv ael yap ^kXriov read jScArtovos (05 
 perhaps lost through ws in oio-Te) ; change ouSe to ovre and 
 add av to iycvero (possibly ytVotro). 
 
 30. 10 ^/ctcrra Aoyov </<ai> aoffjia^ KOLV(ovov(rLl So (rocf>La 
 alone in 11, and Xoyov ao^la is odd. Cf. 29. 7 Xoytor/^oi) 
 KeKotvoavT/Kcv. Perhaps o-o^ta? would be better omitted. 
 
 31. 2 ttXciovs ov(Tai KLvrj(T€L<s Tolv hvolv yivovrai, 
 
 ovs has been written twice over. Read ttAciov? at fcivr;- 
 
 <T€LS. 
 
 31. 3 KaTaif/vxofxevoL for Karaj/^v^ovTat, and <i7> a(8(09 ? 
 
 31. 16 opa 8c 17 ttAciW oi/'is fiel^ov. 
 
 fia(T(rov or fiaKporepov opav alone is Greek in this sense. 
 Cf. p. 156. But I do not see either fxda-a-ojv or ixrjKicrro^ in 
 the Index. Perhaps it should be ap.€Lvov. Cf. my Aris- 
 tophanes and Others, p. 233 ; Platonica, p. 159. 
 
 31. 17 yLverai 8c 8ta tovto StoTrcp Koi ctti twv 8a»cTvX(ov 
 fiLfitirai yap rrjv o\(/tv. 
 
 TOVTO should be rauro. /xi/nciTat has no subject ; to give 
 it one we should probably read <t6> IttC. ovhk hvo should 
 of course be ovrc hvo. 
 
 31. 21 Sia Tt 6 KttTrvos Tovs 6<fi$a\fiov^ fiaWov Sa/cvct; ^ on 
 /Movot acrOevecrTaTOi. 
 
 fiovoi is not used thus with superlatives. On the other 
 hand the word might stand very well, and is indeed needed, 
 
152 PROBLEMS 
 
 with Tovs 6<^6a\}jLov<;. The eyes are not more stung by 
 smoke than other parts ; they are the only parts stung at 
 all. Further /xaWov and ixovov etc. are known to get 
 confused. Read therefore tovs 6<}>6a\ixov<; /xovov^ (or fjiovov) 
 SoLKvei. Cf. the first words of the next problem. 
 
 31. 25. 1 aT€ KOL /XttXicrra fxeXXoiv 6if/€(r6aL. 
 
 Kttt seems pointless, ar iKtll dewfxevov just before must 
 be passive, which is unusual. At the end of 2 read 
 Kara^avcs. 
 
 31. 28 avTOL Kttt should apparently be koL avrd. Cf. on 
 10. 62. He says of sight (oi/^is) and object 17 fikv fxaWov 
 Spa, TO Sk optofxevov ovSev ^ttov oparai. The editors have 
 not found out that Spa is bpa. 
 
 32. 1. 1 Probably irriKeiTai, like ipvBpva. and l^tt, which 
 did not admit of easy change. 
 
 32. 12 (end) 81' ai^rov. 
 
 32. 13 (end) to h\ Sep/xa kul ttjv /xryviyya d^ctrravai Ttov 
 aT€p€{x>v hrjXov. 
 
 Brjkov with accusative and infinitive is very dubious 
 Greek. Read to he <to> Sc/o/xa k.t.X., much as in 33. 1. 2 
 we have to Se . . . e7vai Trj<s ptvos KOLVojyiav toJ Trvev/xovi SrjXol 
 Tf avairvoTj kolvtj ovaa. fxaXicTTa ovTio Trotct may be right, but 
 fxaXia-T av fikaxpeuv and TpavfiaTi^oL dv very strongly suggest 
 fxaXia-T av ovtu) ttoloI or TroLoir). 
 
 33. 7 In Aristophanes and Others, p. 300, I corrected 
 Oeov to eelov. Cf. on Fragm. 28. 12. 
 
 33. 11. 2 Trpos SeiXrjs should be either Trpo SeiX-rj^ or more 
 probably npos SelXrjv (26. 33. 1). Trpos with a genitive is 
 not used of time. 
 
 33. 12 Omit Ta before avw, or write avro for it; atpciv is 
 atpeiv TO TTViVfia. 
 
 33. 15. 1 (US eiTreiv airavra seems to be an unusual equiva- 
 lent for other phrases used in the Aristotelian writings, 
 
 WS CTTl TO TToXv ClTTtlVj WS TO TTttV CtTTClV, CtC. BeforC Ka$€V- 
 
PROBLEMS 153 
 
 SovTwv the oTi is unintelligible, unless something has been 
 lost. We should look simply for KaBtvhovrwv 8c. The yiiv 
 in 6 fi€v irrap/xos expects a 8c. 
 
 35. 1 KoX oAtos Sc iraOrjTLKov c/catrTor iriffiVKev ^ /xoAAov 77 
 
 flOVOV VTT aXXoV Tj v<f>' aVTOV. 
 
 It is clear that fiaXXov cannot be cut oflf from vtt' oAAov 
 ^ v<f> avTov by 17 fAovov. fiovov and fiaWov must exchange 
 places. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS 
 
 I HAVE included under this heading anything that is 
 contained in Rose's well-known book (Teubner, 1886). 
 Sometimes the words purport to be the very words of 
 Aristotle ; sometimes they are more probably a paraphrase ; 
 in other cases they are only passages from other writers 
 that happen to come into Rose's volume. For convenience' 
 sake I have treated them all together in spite of this 
 diversity, and for the same reason I refer to them by the 
 page and line of Rose. Some of my conjectures may not 
 improbably have been made before, but not to my know- 
 ledge. 
 
 25. 7. o 8^ KaX 2w/cpaT€t <T^s> OLTTopiaq . . . ravTrj^ ^PXW 
 avih(3iK€, or else Toiavr-qq for ra.vry}<;. ravrrj^i cannot stand 
 without an article. 
 
 28. 12 virevorjaav ol avOpoiTToi elvai n Oiov, to KaO' iavro 
 K.T.k. Obviously O^lov. tlvo. d^ov in 17 is another thing. 
 Cf. p. 152. 
 
 ih. 23 k(j)pa T7)v Tit)V 'ISjXXtJviov OTTpareLav . . . rot? ttcSiois 
 TTpoa-iovaav. This could only mean approaching the plains^ 
 which would be absurd to say of the Greeks before Troy, 
 as they were never on the hills. Read iv rots ttcSiois 
 Trpo'iova-av. 
 
 ih. 27 Tots VTT avrov KO(riJ.ov/ii€voL<s is just possible, but the 
 passive participle points to vtt' avrov. 
 
 35. 16 <7)> KecfiaX-^. rj lost after v (H N). 
 
 36. 27 TtVoS €Ve/Ca TOV KOCT/XOV (f>0€Lp€L 6 ^£os; 
 
 There follow a number of future tenses, as the general 
 sense requires. Read either (fiOepii or rtVos Ii/ck' av . . . 
 
 cf)$€Lp0L ; 
 
 154 
 
FRAGMENTS 155 
 
 37. 13 aicTTC )(€p€LOV k\i<x6ai afx.€woripoiv. 
 
 TrapeovToiv after d/x-civorcpoDv is vital to the sense and could 
 not be omitted. 
 
 51. 17 TO fjikv irpioTov Tov <Tu>fxaTO<s, Tovrea-TLV rj i(/v)(i]t 
 apfxovCa h\ varrepov. 
 
 irp(oTov should certainly be irponpov, and in 61. 14 
 again we should probably read irporepai for Trptorat. The 
 words are often confused. In 61. 21 we have however 
 irdvTOiv ta<f)€\Lfi(OTaTov tS)V aA.\o>v. 
 
 59. 22 Does not to. aA.Xa Travra TrdOri need some infinitive 
 with the general sense of produce to govern it? Trapa- 
 <rK€va^{D, 7rapi)(<j>, Tropi^io is the sort of word wanted. 
 
 61. 22 Put fjL€v after tov. 
 
 69. 15 I think irpoa-i^KiLv, like ctvai. 
 
 78. 10 'Apio-TOTeXrys • . • ypoi<f>€L ' ovkovv ovhk ififxirpov^ tovs 
 KaXovfJLevovs 2a>^/oovos fitixov^ fit] (f}S)fi€v cTvat Aoyovs kol 
 fjLLfx-qaeis '; 
 
 It is very hard to see how ouSc efxixerpovs comes into the 
 sentence as it now stands. Read ouSe e. < ovTas > . 
 
 Aristotle's question implies that people existed or could 
 be imagined who denied that the mimes of Sophron were 
 Xoyot (SiaA-oyoi, as in the next sentence ?) kol fjufxi^creis, but 
 how could this possibly be questioned 1 
 
 92. 4 Tot 8' ov A-cycTtti (Ta<f>(i)<;, <.olov> €v6v^ Tot rrepl rrj^ 
 
 ib. 24 €vy€V€ts yap oi TraXat < TrXovo-tot > , KpeiTTOvs 8e oi 
 vvv is what the sense requires. Cf. ck TraAat irkova-iiov in 17. 
 ttXovVioi cannot be understood. 
 
 93. 2 Bead cKaoros for Ixao-Tov. SoKct with accusative 
 and infinitive is not possible, except when 8oK€t = placet^ 
 and it would be very awkward here, even if in itself 
 legitimate. Cf. p. 50, 
 
156 FRAGMENTS 
 
 95. 7 ou8' oi iK TTpoyovoiv ayaOiov cuytvets Travra?, dW ocroi? 
 Tuyp^avoucriv ap)(r)yoi tojv TrpoyovuiV oi^rcs- 
 
 The sense is imperfect until we add at the end ayaOoi, 
 which can no more be understood than ttAouVioi in 92. 24. 
 
 A few lines below read aya06<; for cuycv^ys in eav 6 Trarrjp 
 €vy€vrj<i tJ. €uyev>/s makes no proper sense, and is repeated 
 by error from ^vyeveU in the line before. ayaOov appears 
 duly in the next sentence. 
 
 110. 12 ct ravrov to. TrXelcrTov a7r€)(ovTa to) to. TrXilcrTov 
 Sta(f>ipovTa. 
 
 T<3 with the latter words points to to with to. TrXela-rov 
 direxovTa to correspond. The cause of the loss is obvious 
 in -Tov or -to preceding. 
 
 120. 25 TO. ivavria arvfxfirjvaL ^ i^ovXevcTO. 
 
 Should we not read ifiovXiro 1 The confusion is familiar. 
 
 121. 10 Lva . . . i^iKvrJTai rj (fxovj} ws «7ri /ACi^ova Or /tct^ov. 
 Can cTTt fiei^ov be used for further 1 i-Trl irXiov would be 
 
 legitimate, or, what I should guess here, ctti /aSo-ctov. Cf.p. 151. 
 
 129. 9 ws or oTi has been lost after cittwi/. 
 
 131. 24 The meaningless to. avrd should be ravra or 
 TOtaOra. 
 
 135. 10 C7ra(r;(€ yap KaKois i$ dvOptoiriov rj Oeljiv o(ttl<5 tovto 
 
 TmrOLT^KtV. 
 
 Sense and grammar point to iireTroi-qKcij probably written 
 without the augment. So on the next page, line 9, ettoBe 
 must be €l(i)6€i. 
 
 136. 11 v7ro\j/La Tis <av> cyeVcro is needed, unless indeed 
 by an idiom sometimes found (p. 137) the writer used iyivero. 
 
 155. 3 avTos again seems unmeaning and should be avras. 
 
 176. 27 Kttt 8ta TOVTO TTcp a;(pis av y Oepfxd fJiixP'- Toa-QvSe 
 KOI rjSCo) <f>atv€Tai. 
 
 A very extraordinary use of Trcp. It seems to have gone 
 astray from its proper place after a^pis- L. and S. give no 
 instance of it with a;)(pts, but it might well stand there. 
 
 I 
 
FRAGMENTS 157 
 
 304. 26 : 305. 2 Though i;rjfXLovv {-ovaOai) \iTpa<: does 
 seem possible as a cognate construction, ^r]fx.iovv is found so 
 regularly with the dative that we may reasonably doubt, 
 unless more accusatives are forthcoming, whether AtTpat? 
 should not be read. But the two passages support one 
 another. 
 
 314; 13 doKYjo-av ^wpioi/ KopttKas is quite incomplete and 
 must be filled out from line 3, perhaps with the actual 
 words of that passage cKtt KaXiaavTis to. 
 
 ib. 14 Tov ^ojov avaL^ov<s Koi Svtlkov tiov avOpuiWisiV oi/TOS. 
 
 If I understand Rose's note, hvTiKov is his own emenda- 
 tion of the MS. hwariKov ; but it seems to make no sense 
 and to give tu)v avOpoiirtnv no construction or meaning. 
 Although the word would be rather far removed from 
 SwariKov, I am inclined to conjecture SaTrrtKov, apt to feed 
 on human fleshy i.e. corpses. The changes may have been 
 
 SaTTTlKOV, hcLTLKOV^ hwaTLKOV. 
 
 359. 23 <TvvriBov<i 8c yjxov d^ovo-avTC? ol lttttoi, too-Trcp ^oiKOt 
 i8i8a.a-K€TO, d7roo-eicra/>t€i/oi tov<; dvaySaras VTroip^^ovvTO 7rdvT€<;. 
 
 Read cSiSdo-KOj/ro. What ivas taught was not the sound, 
 but what to do when they heard the sound. Nor, again, 
 could eSiSdo-KCTo well be impersonal. 
 
 The expression used of the horses in line 1 3, roiq Trpoo-^iot? 
 wa-rrep )(€LpovofxovvTa<: op^acr^at, is not cited by Mayor on 
 Juv. 5. 121, saltantem spectes et chironomunta volanti 
 cultello, but looks as though taken from that. 
 
 In 1 7 a particle is needed after irto-TcOcrai, Sc or ovv. 
 
 371. 22 BvvrjOevTa for Bvvr]6€i<s is due to rvpawovvra and 
 should be corrected. 
 
 372. 12 avoiKohofiaxTiv, in the sense of block, should 
 probably be corrected, like dvotKo8o/A€ti/ in Ar. Peace 100, 
 to diroLK-. 
 
 373. 3 The second KpvTTTovTai is just a repetition by 
 error of the first. The original word was probably 
 i$€pxovraij TrepUpxovrai, or something similar in sense. 
 
158 FRAGMENTS 
 
 374. 3 01 TraiSc? . . . SiaiToii'Tai kv l/xaTiio Bipov^ koX \ii- 
 
 jXiOVOS. 
 
 iu i/AttTto) makes little sense. In Thuc. 2. 70. 3 we read 
 e^cXOeiv aiuTOvs • • . $vv evl IfxaTiia, ywatKas 8c ^vv Suotv, and 
 that points to the right plirase here, Iv or o-vv kv\ l., the 
 preposition probably being necessary. 
 
 ib. 5 d^' eKaa-rrjs {dyeXrjs) dp^cov yiVcrat. 
 
 As the commander would not himself be a boy, d^* 
 seems wrong. Read c<^'. 
 
 ib. 16 KaBrjfiivoi <iv> 6p6voi^1 Is not the simple dative 
 too poetical ? 
 
 375. 23 fXTjSiv would give a really better sense than 
 /AT/SeVa, which points to an arbitrary discrimination between 
 this man and that rather than between classes of people. 
 
 378. 21 There must have been some further description 
 of the TLvd, giving some reason for offering him the 
 crown. 
 
 In 22 we should certainly read d/Aa^o7rotov. 
 
 380. 11 rpets fiva^ StSovras diroTrkelv makes no sense, and 
 probably dTroTre/xTrciv will be right. In Thuc. 6. 1. 1 and 
 8. 23. 4 MSS. differ between the two words, irAcvo-avTcs 
 being needed in the one case and TrapairefXTrei in the latter,, 
 where all MSS. but B have TrapanXil. 
 
 In the previous line ovt<o seems all but indispensable 
 with <f}LX6^€voL, not necessarily preceding it. 
 
 391. 20 ofjuovv/j-ov, if right where it is, lacks the article ; 
 but it is very oddly placed between BeBiSax^vai and iv do-rci. 
 It could stand before vlov, or with an article after either 
 vlov or avTov. o/xwvvixov <6vTd> is also possible, but hardly 
 after the verb. 
 
 392. 7 6 Me'Ar/TOS OiSiTrdSctav eSrjKe. 
 
 WrjKcv is no doubt a mistake for KaOrJKtv. nOevai is not 
 used of bringing out plays, whereas KaOUvat is a technical 
 term for it. Cf. 390. 3 and 16. See above on Poet. 24. 
 14596 24 
 
FRAGMENTS 159 
 
 398. 19 The undesirable hiatus will be avoided if we 
 read t^Sc for ^Se. Cf. ^vOahi in 399. 17 and 20. 
 
 412. 12 crvvrjv avraJ tov />tfXP' t€A.€V7T7S avTov )(p6vov irkrjv 
 oXiyov ovTa. 
 
 The last three words make no sense : it is indeed 
 impossible to translate them. ttX^v oXCyov without ovra 
 would give a sense, but not the right one. What we really 
 want is ^6vov <TpieTrj> TrXrjv oXiyov ovra, all hut three 
 years. Cf. ')(p6vov elKoaaeTrj just below. Three years are 
 specified in line 19. oXCyov cannot, I think, stand in this 
 use : we need oXiyov. 
 
 420. 24 *ApL(rTOTeXrj^ yovv os fxaXiara €7rtT€T€v;(€Vat SokcZ 
 
 TOV TVTTOV €Tn(TToXlKOV. 
 
 So Rose with the note ' tov tvttov Victorius pro avrov.* 
 Radermacher in his Demetrius text says, what is not quite 
 the same, 'avrov del. Spengelius, in tvttov mutabat Vic- 
 torius.' TOV TVTTOV, if right, requires another tgv before 
 cVio-ToAiKov, while tov iina-ToXiKov without tvttov (Spengel) 
 seems unlikely, tov and avTov etc. are certainly sometimes 
 exchanged, so that as far as avTov goes there is no need to 
 make a tvttov out of it. The truth may be that tov iir. 
 tvttov or •)(apaKTrjpo<i was the original. 
 
 428. 5 6 vovs a.TT€(TTi, KOi<f)ov TOLKpoiTT^pLov being neither 
 sense nor metre, KW(f)ov aKpoaT-qpiov is presumably the proper 
 correction, if the words are really a verse and if koj^ov is 
 right. 
 
INDEX I. 
 
 Spaced type iiidicates emendations suggested, usually of the Jirst word 
 
 to the second, when the supposed corruption seems due to similarity of 
 
 letters. Emendations resting on other principles are not indexed here. 
 
 Some of them may be found with the help of Index II. 
 
 k- Sua- 107 
 &yav ay air S> a IV 109 
 6.ya) avdyw 56 87 
 at iKwv S ia> KMV 146 
 at pa (pepoj atpaipSi 135 
 aiadeaeai, aXaerjais 117 120 129 
 aiffXP^^ aiffxi^ov 145 
 atriov oLTTiSv 143 
 airios with ace. and infin. 136 
 alrw airtCTw 108 
 aKovff iw s € Kovff lea s 106 
 ii,Kpo) 5 aKpifia s 4 
 OLKpur^p lov a.K poarii p lov 
 159 
 
 OA.7J06UW 19 
 
 aWd — fiiv 39 
 aXAa aW ¥i 39 54 71 etc. 
 aXKa afjLa 66 91 
 HlWos avrds 66 107 
 &\\ot noWoi 50 91 138 
 &Wos yevSfievos 35 
 rwu &\\(i)p after superlative 123 
 afiapTia 128 
 
 afivi] fxav ay v w fiw v 36 
 fii/ 107 110 111 117 136 148 
 „ missing 5 96 97 136 145 
 
 151 156 
 &v a 5 5-h 41 46 107 
 &v oZv 144 
 av- d IT- 157 
 avayvupl^w, -itrts 121 twice 
 ivayopfvw 102 
 ayaypd<pa, 52 102 
 
 ARISTOTELICA 
 
 d»'oAo7/o -70S 13 32 46 64 
 
 avaTr\-i]pw<Tis 8 38 49 
 
 avo/jLoKoyovfievos 53 
 
 av a> fia\o s av aKw fia 97 
 
 d|ior e|6irj 147 
 
 airXot &\\oi 122 123 
 
 airXus 81 
 
 a IT 6 {,ir6 136 142 
 
 apy6s 36 
 
 'ApeoTToyiTij ' 102 
 
 6,pTios atrios 138 
 
 apxai 19 55 
 
 are irep 69 
 
 &T01T0S 16 
 
 avT6s 18 41 89 twice 
 avT 6s &,\\os 107 
 avT6s ovros d aitros 
 
 ToiovTos often 
 avrSs ovTU 121 
 avT6v r6v etc. 121 159 
 avrSiV, rd 14 
 a<l>eis a<p€deis 136 
 &XP^^ 156 
 
 3/otos 1 
 )8AeVw 69 
 
 povXofJia t -XevofMai ) 
 fiovK-i), $ov\€vofiai with geni- 
 tive 85 
 
 161 
 
 ydp y ap & V 77 
 yap S4 7 15 etc. 
 
162 
 
 INDEX I 
 
 7€ 24 48 52 82 91 113 
 'Y€v6ixevos y LP- etc. 24 49 
 
 74 111 118 
 7' i pdfMfv s irpid/jLevos 
 
 123 
 y f CO py 6 s y f CO py I k6 s 95 
 yfcapyu 75 
 
 y iv6 fifv s \ey6fievos 119 
 yv<i> fir] fjLvfi /XT] 36 
 yv do fit] ff vyyuw nr) 20 
 7j/ft)pfC'«' ;8o5t^w 137 
 
 ^OLK pv OU SUK pV € IP 135 
 
 5 6 7 6 105 
 
 5 6 S^ 8 37 39 etc. 
 
 Seexc'Oa' S 4 x^ c ^'"■'^ 150 
 
 5 6 1 d 6 f 94 
 
 56t rivd Tivos 86 
 
 TTphs SetATjs 152 
 
 5er|ts \e'|ts 112 
 
 56'oj/ 23 
 
 577A.01/ with ace. and infin. 152 
 
 5i' 5^ 96 
 
 Sid 6 12 67 74 79 84 93 96 
 
 111 121 148 
 5 1 a \iav 64 
 ^idiceip.at 95 
 Sia\va> 108 
 TO 5ta Ti, rb SioTi 28 
 5i5wjU£ i kS'iS CO fi I 33 
 Si-{}yr)(ns 126 
 5t/c<£Cw /caefCc^ 101 
 Sii/za 29 
 Sow-et with ace. and infin. 50 
 
 155 
 5pa;ua, Spav 115 118 
 5 p « 6 p w 152 
 Svua/xis 61 
 
 SuVOTOl 118 
 
 d war I K 6 s S air T I k6 s 157 
 5uo-. 6£r- 107 140 
 
 il 146 
 €t Kai 119 
 
 -6i -6t;/ 23 30 57 67 72 91 
 155 
 
 6ie' ri/flej/ ? 145 
 
 6tK0's 117 
 
 fiKco dpx'^ 72 
 
 elvat = hoKflv elvai 24 
 
 6li/a£ tevai 112 
 6tViwi' iuiaurSs 102 
 flcr<l)€p((rdai elfftppeadaL 
 
 147 
 € KatTT s e Kdr € po s 53 
 6/f5o(ris 139 
 iKK\-naid(u> 102 
 
 e/cdl'TeS 6t5<{T€S 105 
 
 iKirlirru) 6 
 
 ^A6a>(rti' iSxT IV 107 
 
 i\Tri(co with aorist infin. 109 
 
 e>(5s 73 
 
 6»' auTois eavTois 4 149 
 
 6*" auT^J 149 
 
 e' 1/ I »/ i 158 
 
 iu oTs 6 12 116 
 
 ivapTios 99 
 
 ivapyi)s 37 125 
 
 e^aywyr) 15 
 
 at 6 ^ € t s 5 t o A e' I 6 t $ 63 
 
 e tt' ^ j/ 50 
 
 6'7rr ^o-rr 63 
 
 iiri in 149 
 
 iTn€iK'{}S 118 
 
 iiTidvfiia ev0€7a 184 
 
 ^ py ou '6 pov 95 
 
 6'p6r 47 
 
 r(r/c6 60 
 
 ro-Ti 5 22 102 
 
 e'trri ^ffrat 4 104 
 
 fT € pov € Kdr e pov 135 
 
 ev/cpoTws iy Kpar w s 135 
 
 efJvoia ev-l} 0€ la 70 
 
 €>' o<^' 83 158 
 
 i<t>apfj.6TToo Tl 
 
 iX- o-x- 65 146 
 
 60)5 6»' 146 
 
 C 6 6 5t 134 
 ^TJiUioSf Xirpai 157 
 
 H N 7 25 106 etc. 
 « r,' 124 
 fj Kai often 
 i^ IxaWov 83 
 fJ5 6 Tp5e 159 
 7)^0 vf} Suit dvri 59 
 
 jj06J X67d|U61'0S 110 
 
 7] 1 K 6 s a CO fiar ik6 s 44 
 r] L Kwv ^0 S)V 90 
 
INDEX I 
 
 163 
 
 ^v etv 56 
 ^1/ 7^ 52 
 
 flaAoTTO 7] irpaiTT] etc. 142 
 
 edKiru edWw 135 
 
 BfKw 99 
 
 ee6v e^lov 152 154 
 
 efan6s 102. 
 
 6vpas dvpiSas 96 
 
 larpos, laTpiK6s 43 
 
 tSerc etSeVat 65 
 
 ISios 74 
 
 lews Ka-Tiv w s or ttcws 63 
 
 KaQdtrfp 2 
 
 Kddapais 90 130 
 
 Kadlvfii 125 
 
 Kot misplaced 19 54 etc. 
 
 «ot — 5e 11 
 
 « o f <^ often 
 
 Kal Kal yap 60 
 
 K o t vpo s 54 
 
 K a ^ w s see us 
 
 are Kal ar' 4Ke7 152 
 
 Ka\6v KaWiov 81 138 
 
 KUT a Ktti 68 
 
 KaTaSwpodoKov(j.aL 76 
 
 Karopdo) 131 
 
 KeAeuo; 17 
 
 K\T]pwr6s 34 
 
 KOIVOS 74 
 KOIVWVOS 14 
 
 Kparovfxai 25 26 
 
 Kplvai 115 
 
 «(B)u<ji>5twi/ fca>/i^S«K 11 
 
 KaficpSol 129 
 
 K&x^^s 159 
 
 Aavd<£i/ft, 62 104 
 AetTrerat yiverai 61 
 AeTTT^TOTOJ' AeTTTbi/ tJj/ 
 
 139 
 Aw6«r0at €? \4y€ a0ai 80 
 
 fidXiara KdWurra 118 
 /uaAAof 86 2 
 /laAAoy KaA(ji' 81 
 /xSAAoi/ jikJi'oi' 152 
 fieya\ovp4Treia 8 
 /jLtyedos 116 
 
 fieyitrro s fieiCov 12 
 
 fi4y KTT o 5 v\€7(Tr s 44 
 
 fiel^ov dfieivoy 151 
 
 ^et^oj/ fxaaaop 151 156 
 
 ouSe fjLeWu 3 
 
 /ifV 2 18 25 39 40 42 147 etc. 
 
 /u 6 y ^ J/ 149 
 
 ^cv ixovou 52 73 
 
 /icv oSi/ fievT 1 87 
 
 /xerd Kar d 88 
 
 fieraSiSufMi 12 
 
 fierpou fjLvOos 116 
 
 M^ 46 56 
 
 /i -^ /U.€T d 146 
 
 fjLwf) fir} yv(i> fir) 36 
 /AoVos, ;u<J»/oi' 70 89 151 
 
 V fJUKU S Xoy IKU) s 90 
 
 j'ous 19 
 j/w^pifs 100 
 
 o S 64 
 
 6 6t 11 
 
 8 &'Ti 27 71 
 
 oTos 50 57 
 
 ofos irotos 141 
 
 616 s re 5 
 
 o'lvep Si6Trep 8 
 
 '6 flO 10 I SflOVOil 63 
 
 'djXQios, KaO' 6fjL0i6rrira 22 31 
 
 6fxoi(jo5 K&v 150 
 
 ov^o-ete 6 V 7) Be 11] 68 
 
 ^Trep efTrep 137 
 
 tJ) Se oittikSp, rb Cutikov 
 
 134 
 ^P9s 133 
 
 '6 pKia Si Kaia 98 
 8s ofos 67 
 offirep olJo-irep 30 
 oTaj/ of past time 98 
 orav h &v 45 
 8t€ fidv, ore Se 78 
 
 T € OTl 96 
 
 2ti €Vt£ 111 126 138 
 
 St* a /*€!/ vofiiCofifv 139 
 
 St* a>s OTTws 133 
 
 OV € ( 148 
 
 o £» '6 133 
 
 O V K O / 72 
 
 ovK ^ari 5 
 
164 
 
 INDEX I 
 
 ovS4 —HS 
 
 ovffia 92 
 
 oStos 7 105 
 
 oStos avT 6 s etc. often 
 
 oSt Of T OVT 2 77 
 
 otpdaXfiois 6pav 99 
 
 TT ri IT 133 143 
 vaer}TiK6s 121 
 
 TTcfj/TaS OUTOUS 106 
 
 ■jrav rh diKaiov 18 
 
 TTopatreto) 10 
 
 trapdv 22 
 
 TToJo-xw 13 
 
 riev/o, riAovTOS 145 
 
 Trep 69 156 
 
 irepnreTeia 127 
 
 netpvKa 2 54 151 
 
 irXeLoov 71 
 
 TrXetwJ' TrA6t<{j/wv 71 
 
 TrXf'aJ IT € flTT CO 158 
 
 7r\oiJ(rios ttXoGtos 66 
 TTot^trai Tretffot 59 
 TroTos ir({<ros 65 
 TToiw 7 13 22 
 
 ir 0\lT Ik6 5 TToXlTTJS 91 92 
 ■K 0\lT IK-i] IT 0\ IT € ia 20 42 
 iroXLTlKWS 129 
 
 ■np&TTo} of drama 115 
 
 Trpoyapya\i^it> 26 
 
 TT p ori petT IT po"}} y fT 100 
 
 irp({s ' 53 64 76 152 
 
 IT p6 s fifpos 66 
 
 7rp({s TTopct 87 
 
 7rp<$s Trpd 135 152 154 
 
 TTp COT OS IT p6t€ pO S 142 155 
 
 IT u s 8«rov or 67ro(row 65 
 
 ^T)TCOp 104 
 
 -o-ete -0€f7) 68 
 
 -(Tdai -Tot 149 
 
 (Totp'ia 151 
 
 rb cro^6v 60 
 
 (nrouSoros 21 32 
 
 (rvyypd<l>Q3 52 
 
 (TvyKpivco (TvvTeivw 92 
 
 (TUfKJJCpOVTa 5 
 
 (T u v- a J/- 52 
 
 O- U V- €' V- 100 
 
 (TWO'TTJO'ai'TCDI' 
 
 o'Too'toa'avTWj' 94 
 
 (TXVfJ'-O-Tt^C^IJ-^VO^ 115 
 
 a u) (xa a x^ fJ^f- 117 
 
 TCITTOJ TTpaTTW 89 
 
 T avT a T aiiTd etc. often 
 T6 3 57 95 144 
 T e 6 uaor IV t e d u aic u 2 
 TfXfOV 151 
 
 Tf/xvofiai 38 
 
 Tcx^n 19 
 
 -TTjs adjectival 1 
 
 Tt qualifying infinitive 20 
 
 Tt0i>/it 21 88 
 
 Tie-nfii Kadiriiii 125 158 
 
 T tvd elva I 58 
 
 Tis = «s 28 
 
 TiSOS '6 (TT IS 77 
 tJ)OUT<{ TOtrOUTO 140 
 
 T J) OUT J etc. 121 159 
 
 T 6 W 0) S OVT CO S 22 
 
 T«{ Tt 25 109 111 
 
 Th t6 119 143 152 
 
 t6v Tivd etc. 45 48 
 
 T 6t i T 65 e 53 
 
 TpayepSoi 11 129 
 
 Tp OTTOS XP^^<^^ see xp^^"^ 
 
 T(fSe '6t cf> Sif 65 
 
 U7t€ti'({s (T vyy ev I k6 s 64 
 vtrepox'h 14 32 
 virepTcivco 134 
 
 V1T0KpiT'i]S 131 
 
 (paivo/Jiai -eTai 36 49 123 
 <f>avep6v with ace. and infin. 88 
 
 149 
 <ftavep6s ■novt\p6s 148 
 tpatri Ttdfaffi 117 
 <j)i\dvdpwiros 127 
 (poBov/xai with infin. 107 
 <p pov ifios XP"^^ '■P-o ^ 21 
 
 X£»pt»' 21 
 
 Xftpovo/xw^ 157 
 
 X^poiu 113 
 
 Xpedov 23 
 
 Xpt^vos Tp({7ros 72 106 134 
 
 XP<^»'y 97 
 
INDEX I 165 
 
 us 
 
 2 82 111 
 
 
 
 is &v 60 102 105 
 
 i) S 
 
 Kai 63 111 
 
 117 
 
 120 148 
 
 i>s etW 93 116 
 
 U> S 
 
 '6a ov 88 
 
 
 
 US elirelv airavra 152 
 
 O) ^ 
 
 5 (T o 62 
 
 
 
 S,(Ti C«<^* 72 
 
 i) S 
 
 &<nr e p 48 
 
 
 
 cS(nrep 2 23 54 76 80 83 
 
 U S 
 
 &<rT€ 107 
 
 HI 
 
 
 li) anr e p elir ( p 93 
 
INDEX 11. 
 
 Accusative 6 58 64 79 86 97 
 105 106 112 137 157 
 
 Adverb = adjective 105 
 
 Amusements 40 
 
 Animals 137 144 150 
 
 Anticipation of words : see Re- 
 petition 
 
 Aorist 10 35 100 101 109 146 
 
 Attraction 121 139 
 
 Baths, theft at 
 Beauty 81 
 Burke 121 
 Bywater's Poetics 
 
 147 
 
 126 foil. 
 
 Comparative and superlative 
 
 confused 12 48 66 88 136 
 Comparisons 4 
 
 Dative 46 47 51 54 60 97 99 
 111 116 119 136 147 158 
 
 Euripides 16 25 {Bacch. 311) 
 
 119 
 Eyes, seeing with 99 
 
 furtum 17 
 
 Genitive 12 24 46 47 52 72 74 
 79 85 (twice) 94 110 (twice) 
 113 
 
 Hazlitt 35 
 Heat and cold 149 
 Hiatus 84 88 90 159 
 Hippocrates 25 
 Hume 24 
 
 Imperfect 47 76 137 
 
 Infinitive 11 20 88 107 114 
 
 115 149 152 155 
 Isocrates 41 129 
 iuheo 17 
 
 Law 17 
 
 Mandeville 35 
 Massilia 131 
 Mimes 151 
 
 Names lost 75 106 
 
 Negative lost 9 43 62 78 105 
 
 108 140 141 147 
 Negative to be omitted 58 141 
 
 143 
 Niobe, story of 122 
 Nominative 115 149 
 
 Optative 5 58 78 99 
 
 Parenthesis 18 24 
 Participle 3 10 22 23 94 110 
 Passive (or middle) and active 
 
 confused 28 76 84 
 Perfect for pluperfect 156 
 Personification 145 
 Plural and singular mixed 66 
 
 139 145 
 Poetry, origin of 127 
 Present 22 150 
 
 ,, and imperfect confused 
 
 47 
 ,, and future confused 12 
 57 69 75 97 106 111 
 114 154 
 ,, = future 5 
 Punishment 128 
 
INDEX II 
 
 167 
 
 Quotations, imperfect 28 
 
 Repetition and anticipation of 
 words (the right words being 
 lost) 74 125 and very often 
 
 Repetition of another kind 17 
 38 40 etc. 
 
 Second person, 
 133 
 
 idiomatic 47 
 
 Sophron 155 
 Subjunctive 98 117 
 Superlative : see Comparative 
 
 Thebaid 122 
 
 Theft 147 
 
 Tragic KdOapats 90 130 
 
 Transposition often 
 
 Votes in trials, equalit}'^ of 145 
 
PRINTED IN ORKAT BRITAIN BT 
 
 ftlCHAED ClAT and SONS, LIMITED, 
 
 BRUNSWICK STREET, STAMFORD STREET, S.E. 
 
 AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 S 
 
 QCTlSIWiliTtRUBRARnOAN 
 
 ■ m^ 1 8 1993 
 
 #> 
 
 j2 
 
 •^.0FC'Uif..Rti7!C 
 
 \rr 
 
 /■'■ 
 
 Tjdt 
 
 ♦jS^aAOt^ 
 
 OCT J3!941 
 
 vlUS*^ 
 
 CTiftA- 
 
 •j" 
 
 ..;__,: 953 11^ 
 
 Ov:i.3 1904 
 
 CIRCULATION D5?r 
 
 LD 21-100m-7,'39(402s) 
 
Aristo 
 
 tELE' 
 
 OCT 13 mi, /. 
 
 ^ /^ /- 
 
 £45=5- 334546 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
I.J^,^^»^^w^» 
 
 
 
 ''mMi^mm^