^R 
 
 I 
 
 B 
 
 liMMHe 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 iw!' 
 
 B M SOti Obb 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES 
 
 -n 
 
 a -i 
 
 T 
 
 ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE SEVENTH BOOK 
 
 OF THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 CHAPTERS I— X 
 
 BY 
 
 J. COOK WILSON, M.A. 
 
 FELLOW OF NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 IIONORAKY FELLOW OP ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 
 1879 
 
 A POSTSCRIPT ON THE AUTHORSHIP 
 OF THE PARALLEL VERSIONS 
 
 OXFORD 
 AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 
 MDMCXJI 
 
ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES 
 
 ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE SEVENTH BOOK 
 
 OF THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 
 
 CHAPTERS I— X 
 
 BY 
 
 J. COOK WILSON, M.A. 
 
 FELLOW OF NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 IIONORAEY FELLOW OF OKIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 
 1879 
 
 Q 
 
 A POSTSCRIPT ON THE AUTHORSHIP 
 OF THE PARALLEL VERSIONS 
 
 OXFORD 
 AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 
 MDMCXII 
 
W5Z. 
 
 « • 
 • » 
 
 « • m ■ • o 
 
POSTSCRIPT ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE 
 PARALLEL VERSIONS 
 
 H 
 
 255799 
 

 
 POSTSCRIPT ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PARALLEL 
 
 VERSIONS. 
 
 §1. 
 
 Some years ago I had an experience which has made a difference to 
 my view about a difficulty I had always been in with reference to the 
 authorship of the parallel versions. The main thing" I had to contend 
 was that the passages in question were parallel versions, and as such 
 not intended for the same context, so that whether by the same author 
 or not, their appearance in the same context is not author's work proper, 
 but of the nature of compilation. 
 
 Of the supposed versions each seemed prima facie Aristotelian in its 
 general form, notwithstanding such differences as those pointed out, e.g. 
 in paragraph 37, p. 28. But then I found this difficulty, that where 
 there seemed to be evidence that one version was later than the other, 
 there were sometimes signs of a kind of inferiority not easy to account 
 for if we assume the later version to be a rewriting by the same 
 author of his own earlier work (see paragraph 41, p. 34). This 
 evidence was not represented as conclusive (see e.g. paragraph 42, 
 p. ^^, and other places), but as being, so far as it went, against unity 
 of authorship. As a matter of fact, one of the best known of foreign 
 Aristotelian critics thought the evidence I put forward conclusive in 
 certain passages. But the argument proceeded on the assumption 
 that the writer of the later version had the earlier one before him. 
 This assumption is natural if the parallelism of the versions is admitted, 
 as the general correspondence is so close ; and it did not occur to me 
 to question it, nor, as far as I am aware, has it occurred to any one 
 else to do so. 
 
 Now some years ago it happened that I wanted to make use of a 
 discussion on a philosophical subject written by myself some consider- 
 able time before. Not being able to find it I had to rewrite it. I 
 remembered the general drift of my argument, but not the phrasing, 
 and it took me some time to arrive at the formulae which seemed to 
 me most suited to what I wanted to express. I could not recall my 
 previous formulae, and the mental effort of finding those which I 
 
 H 2 
 
88 ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES. 
 
 eventually decided upon seemed quite new. Not long* afterwards 
 I fortunately came across my original paper, and I was greatly sur- 
 prised to find that the languag-e was in the important places almost 
 exactly the same, and that the phrases which had taken me some 
 pains to arrive at were precisely what I had got by a like mental 
 process years previously. 
 
 A similar phenomenon, not quite of the same kind, is the un- 
 conscious reproduction of something which a man takes for his own, 
 though it can be proved that he heard it or read it some time before. 
 This is fairly well known ; but I have observed such striking instances 
 of it that I have come to think it reaches much further than is usually 
 suspected, and that it is the true account of certain rather strange 
 cases of supposed plagiarism. 
 
 Some of the parallel versions in the Nicomachean Ethics are much 
 longer than the passage of my own writing which I unconsciously 
 reproduced, but it seems to me quite possible that they should have 
 originated in the same way, if Aristotle had occasion to rewrite parts 
 of the treatise, and for some reason or other had not his original 
 manuscript before him. On this hypothesis the argument in favour 
 of the later writing of a given version would be weakened in some 
 cases, perhaps in all, because it depended on the assumption that the 
 writer of the one version had the other before him : and even if the 
 one still gave the impression of being later the evidence of inferiority 
 may be invalidated, because (e. g.) the omission of an interesting or 
 important part may, in some cases, well be due not to a want of 
 appreciation of it, but to mere forgetfulness. Whether this is likely 
 to be so or not will depend upon the comparative importance of the 
 point itself. 
 
 I have indicated in the text (p. 4) that the evidence of diverse 
 authorship seemed to me stronger in some other books of the Ethics. 
 I hope to return to this subject if I ever find opportunity to prepare 
 for publication a discussion of the Fifth Book, which formed part of 
 the work offered for the Conington subject in 1882. (See p. 95 below, 
 n. I.) 
 
 § a. 
 As regards the bearing of inconsistency upon unity of authorship — 
 a consideration which enters into the argument of Part IV, Section VII 
 — a study of writings of which the authorship is certain, especially 
 modern writings, convinced me long ago that the possibilities of 
 incoherence are not merely greater than what I may have thought 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 89 
 
 of when I wrote this study of Nie. Eth. VII, but far beyond what is 
 usually admitted in contemporary criticism. I venture to hold that 
 the modern criticism of ancient books suffers much from the want of 
 such a comparative method applied to modern books. More especially 
 I believe that a consideration of the anomalies actually presented by 
 modern books is destructive of certain forms of argument used in 
 Homeric criticism. Further, I have come to hold that there are 
 certain kinds of anomaly which only occur in original composition — 
 mistakes that no one but the author himself would naturally make,^ 
 and just of the sort that an editor or compiler or rewriter would 
 naturally avoid. Such anomalies, which are actually evidence of unity 
 of authorship, get mistaken for evidence of the contrary. 
 
 To these views, which I have held for years, I have not given 
 expression otherwise than in lectures and in papers before the Oxford 
 Philological Society, with the exception of a short article in the 
 Classical Review (xxiv. 4) on Anomalies natural to original composition. 
 
 To return to the matter of Part IV, Section VII, and the incon- 
 sistency of Nic. Eth. VII. iii. § 3 sqq. with Aristotle's general view 
 of OLKpaaia : — 
 
 I have long maintained that in the special analysis of -npoaipeais 
 in Eth. Ill Aristotle developed a view inconsistent with the use of the 
 word everywhere else in his writings, with a doubtful exception in the 
 Ethics; and that he was led into it quite naturally: in the main 
 through certain difficulties inherent in the subject, likely to make 
 themselves felt when an attempt was made to analyse and define 
 precisely the nature of the conception — difficulties about the relation 
 of Reason to Desire which have produced a somewhat similar effect 
 in modern moral philosophy ; and partly, also, because it is quite 
 natural, especially in philosophic subjects, that when a man tries to 
 define precisely a conception which he is constantly using the result 
 should not be adequate to his own use of it. From a want of 
 recognition of this fact commentators are not uncommonly misled into 
 interpreting the philosopher's use of the conception in general from 
 these singular and exceptional passages. In the matter of irpoaCpeai^ 
 Eudemus set the example of this kind of misunderstanding to modern 
 interpreters, and he got himself into much confusion. 
 
 Certain difficulties also in the special analysis of (/)poVrj(ns seem to 
 be most reasonably explained in the same manner. 
 
 ^ It may give satisfaction to that paladin of the Organon — ^Mr. Charles Cannan — that 
 I now incline to think the difficulty about the introduction to the Prior Analytics raised 
 in my lectures may possibly be met in this way. 
 
pO ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES. 
 
 But whether Aristotle, when he came to a special analysis of 
 OLKpaaia, could have g-one so far in inconsistency (par. 60, a, ii-iv), I am 
 not prepared to say. The omission in the Eudemian Ethics of all 
 allusion to the doctrine seems to me remarkable, and the omission of it 
 from Plutarch's treatise on moral virtue, under the circumstances to 
 which I have drawn attention below (p. 99, addition to p. 56), seems 
 also remarkable.^ 
 
 Yet the passage I have quoted (p. 51) from the Eudemian Ethics 
 (1225^ 11) favours the opinion that the writer had 1146^ 37 and 
 1147* 10 before him ; so possibly he may have felt the inconsistency 
 of the doctrine with Aristotle's general view, and omitted it because 
 he disbelieved it. On the other hand, he has shewn no such dis- 
 crimination in the case of ■npoaipeai.s and (ppovrja-Ls, and if it were 
 allowed possible that the Nicomachean passage was not Aristotle's, 
 then it would be possible that this passage had been affected by the 
 Eudemian text. 
 
 I venture to think that the reasonable interpretation of some of 
 the contradictions in Aristotle is that he came to definitely abandon 
 earlier views. Thus in the De Interpretatione and in certain parts 
 of the Metaphysics is found the doctrine that the conceptions 
 (I'OTjjuara) which are elements in the proi:)Osition are neither true nor 
 false (truth and falsehood belonging only to the a-vvOea-i^), whereas in 
 the De Anima it is maintained that certain vo-qp-aTa are true (and cannot 
 possibly be false) just because there is no (rvvO^a-is in them.^ The prob- 
 able account of this is not that the De Interpretatione and the part of 
 the Metaphysics concerned are ungenuine, but that they represent an 
 earlier stage in Aristotle's thinking.^ If such were the explanation of 
 the present case it might account for the omission by Eudemus. 
 
 But beside the disagreement with everything else relevant in 
 Aristotle (par. 60, a, ii-iv), the difficulty here is that he should ever 
 have held the doctrine at all (par. 60, a, i). Yet I admit one may 
 observe that able thinkers occasionally drop into what seems quite 
 unworthy of their penetration. It is a question of degree ; and while 
 in face of the facts I have observed I would not say the thing is 
 impossible, I do not find it easy to credit Aristotle with so grave 
 a lapse as this. 
 
 * Cf. also the relation to Post. An. pointed out below, p. 99, addition to page 56 (/3). 
 
 ' It is curious that Trendelenburg has overlooked this, and has associated the passage 
 from the De Anima, imperfectly quoted, in El. Log. Ar. § i with the passages from the 
 De Interpr. and the Metaphysics, as if it conveyed the same docti'ine. 
 
 ' For a change of view in Prior Anal. II see my article in the Transactions of the 
 Oxford Philological Society, 1883-4, p. 5. If Aristotle wrote both of the treatises on 
 Pleasure in the Nic. Ethics we have the same thing on a large scale. See, however, 
 next note. 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 9 1 
 
 The experienced reader of Aristotle will attach great weight to the 
 Aristotelian form of the part of the text under consideration, and 
 rightly ; but what is left of the writings of Aristoxenus, Eudemus, 
 and especially Theophrastus,^ including the remains in Priscianus 
 Lydus of his rewriting of the De Anima, shew that the style of the 
 pupils was often undistinguishable from that of the master. And that, 
 in rewriting an Aristotelian treatise, they did not hesitate to develope 
 doctrines of their own is shewn by the Eudemian Ethics, especially 
 in the latter part of it. See also above p. 79, paragraph 90. 
 
 In another part of the text where there are duplicates — ch. viii — I 
 still find the afiinity of one of them, 1151* 11-19, to a doctrine dis- 
 tinctively Eudemian somewhat striking, though I have indicated in 
 the Study itself (paragraph 46 a) how the difficulty may be got over. 
 The afiinities also of other passages in phrase and style to the Eude- 
 mian Ethics, confined as they are to one of the versions in each case 
 (pars. 38, 49, 59), are of interest ; and the differences in general pointed 
 out in the versions seem worthy of consideration in themselves and of 
 a kind not to be ignored whatever view we take of their origin. 
 
 § 3. 
 
 I have said above that one of the arguments which I had advanced 
 
 against unity of authorship in the parallel versions — one which had 
 
 weighed much with me — would be met if we suppose that Aristotle 
 
 might sometimes substitute something for what he had previously 
 
 1 I remember that once the late Professor Chandler, when talking to me about the 
 authorship of the two treatises on Pleasure in the Nicomachean Ethics, remarked on the 
 affinity of what Cicero quotes from Theophrastus on the possibility of happiness under 
 torture to the passage on the same subject in the first of these treatises — Nic. Eth. VII. 
 xiii. 2 (1153'' 3 sqq.), and its bearing on the authorship of this treatise. To the best of 
 my recollection Chandler did not express any strong opinion either way. The Ethics 
 passage is as follows — ol 5e tov r poxi-^oyavov Kat rbv Sucttux'"'? ij.eya,\ais iripiir'nTrovra 
 evSaifiova (p&dfcovTes tlvai, eav ^ dyaOos, ^ eKovres ■q aitofTes oiidtv Xiyovcn. Cicero de 
 Finibus V. xxvi. 77 says — ' Theophrastus cum fortuna, cum dolore, cum cruciatu coniungi 
 beatam vitam nullo modo posse putavit' (quoted in Orelli and Baiter's Onomasticon 
 TuUianum). Grant quotes (after Fritzsche) Tusc. Disp. V. ix. 24, which is as follows 
 ' Nam quum statuisset (sc. Theophrastus) verbera, tormenta, crticiatus, patriae eversiones, 
 exsilia, orbitates, magnam vim habere ad male misereque vivendum, non est ausus elate 
 et ample loqui, quum humiliter demisseque sentiret . . . vexatur autem ab omnibus 
 primimi in eo libro quem scripsit de vita beata, in quo multa disputat, quamobrem is 
 qui torqueatur qui crucietur beatus esse non possit : in eo enim putatur dicere in rotain, 
 vitam beatam non escendere.* It might be suggested that the passage in the Ethics was 
 the original of a version by Theophrastus, and that Cicero referred to the latter. 
 However, Cicero knew that Theophrastus rewrote Aristotelian subjects, and if he had 
 known of an Aristotelian original here he was far more likely to have quoted that than 
 Theophrastus, considering the strictures he passes upon the view itself. For Cicero's 
 familiarity with the fact that Theophrastus paraphrased Aristotle cf. the following 
 (quoted in the Onomasticon), De Fin. I. ii. 6 ' Quid ? Theophrastus mediocriterne 
 delectat, cum tractat locos ab Aristotele ante tractates ? ' 
 
92 ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES. 
 
 composed without having the original before him. Is it not worth 
 suggesting that this might the more easily happen if the work, at least 
 in its final form, was dictated to an amanuensis ? Aristotle might from 
 time to time wish to recast something already dictated, without 
 taking the trouble to look at the passage in the manuscript of the 
 amanuensis or to have it read up to him. Here again I may be 
 allowed to add another possibility derived from an experience of my 
 own — the more so as I suspect it is not uncommon. I find that 
 when I want to recast something written on a philosophic subject, 
 I feel a certain unwillingness to look at my first draft, and prefer 
 to think the matter out afresh. There might be a greater or less 
 difference between the versions accordinfi- to the interval of time 
 between the two dictations. One can understand that even a further 
 version or versions of the same passage might arise in this way. On 
 the other hand, short and unimportant duplicates might sometimes be 
 due to unconscious repetition on the part of the person dictating, or 
 sometimes to conscious repetition, merely for clearness, accompanied 
 by some change of phrase, not always intentional. We may well 
 suppose, in the immense amount of thinking and composing done by 
 Aristot]e, that he did not always trouble to revise the final manuscript 
 himself.^ A manuscript presenting such anomalies might later be 
 subjected to some editing by a disciple, who would play the part of 
 a compiler in so far as, from a wish to preserve all the words of the 
 master, he allowed the duplicates to stand as if in a continuous text, 
 and perhaps made some alteration either by re-arrangement (which 
 might disjilace a duplicate) or by adding a few connecting words. 
 
 Something like this happened to the works of Hegel, from the desire 
 to preserve as much as possible of the original. See the prefaces by 
 the redactors, e. g. Works, Vol. 2, p. vi, especially line 9 — ' der Darstel- 
 lung durch leichte Anderungen zu helfen ' : Vol. 6, p. vi. Also the veiy 
 important introduction by Michelet to Hegel's Lectures on the History 
 of Philosophy, Works, VoL 13, where (p. x) should be noted especially 
 — ' die Aufgabe fiir den Herausgeber bestand hier iiberhaupt in der 
 Kunst des hieinanderscJiiehens, und zwar nicht nur grosserer Stiicke 
 verschiedener Vorlesungen, sondern auch, wo es nothig war, einzelner 
 Satze '. On the combination of duplicates see p. x of the same preface. 
 But the material here was in some cases the author's own notes for 
 
 ^ Mr. Case, President of Corpus Cbristi College, Oxford (whose lectures on the Organon, 
 combining enthusiasm with sound judgement, I gratefully remember among many other 
 benefits), adds to my suggestion here that such negligence would be the more liliely in 
 Aristotle's later years, when, according to tradition, he was in such ill health. 
 
POSTSCKIPT. 93 
 
 lecture, together with those taken by his pupils, and I cannot believe 
 that the Aristotelian treatises were put together from such sources. 
 That they did originate thus is indeed one of the first hypotheses that 
 suggests itself in the early stages of one's reflection on the subject. 
 But I soon became convinced — like perhaps many others, when their 
 reading of Aristotle advanced — that this idea was not to be enter- 
 tained.^ The internal evidence from style seems to me convincing ; 
 and, as regards notes taken by hearers, the external evidence points in 
 the same direction, if we consider the mechanical difficulty (even with 
 tachygraphy), in those days, of taking such notes as could account for 
 the text we have, and consider also the absence of confirming tradition. 
 Indeed, as Chandler once remarked to me, when I was putting my 
 view before him, tradition tells the other way : for Aristotle was said 
 to have taught by discussing as he walked about. In modern phrase, 
 then, his method was ' informal instruction.' As to the vise of 
 <J/cpoar^s, in the Aristotelian treatises, for a student of the subject. 
 Chandler maintained the term would naturally be applied to those 
 who studied in a book as well as to the hearers of lectures, because the 
 practice was to have books read up by a slave. To which I may add 
 that, accordingly, (pvaiKri aKpoaais as the title of a book would mean 
 \ * Lessons in Physics.' Cf. also the use of ' Lefons ' in French. 
 
 There are only two passages, as far as I know^ in Aristotle which 
 might conceivably be taken as evidence that the treatises in which they 
 are found are lectures : 1 104^ 18 (ttp(oi]v) and the singular passage at the 
 end of the Topics, where vixlv and vixoiv are supposed to mean the hearers 
 of the lecture. In the last passage rjtxLv and rifxciv have authority in 
 MSS. and ancient interpreters (see Waitz). But if we accept the 
 harder reading, the address may merely be to the readers or students 
 of the book. Compare 1329'' 34 (quoted by Waitz), where a similar 
 sentiment is expressed without any address. The solitary instance of 
 TrpwTjy is best explained as a colloquialism = ' lately ' (see L. and 
 S. Trpwrjy I, and Jacobi's Comieae dictionis index), or, less probably, 
 may be a mere slip, as Aristotle, when dictating, recurred in imagina- 
 
 ^ It will be obvious in what respects I have to differ from the opinion of Michelet 
 expressed in the preface above quoted about the materials from which the traditional 
 text of Aristotle had been compiled. I may add that if it had been put together from 
 notes taken in lectures, or with the help of them, there would probably have been a far 
 larger number of duplicate passages than we actually find. Compare what Michelet says 
 (1. c, p. xi) on the systematic combination of duplicate treatments in the text of 
 Hegel. The peculiar feature of the Aristotelian doublings is that they do not run 
 at all continuously through a book, and that nevertheless when they do occur they are 
 sometimes in sets of more than two. 
 
Q4 ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES. 
 
 tion to the time when the passage referred to was dictated. The 
 Vulgate is irporepov : K'' alone is quoted for irpior^v (read by Bywater). 
 
 The hypothesis above proposed would make it easier to understand 
 not only (i) why the parallel versions should be so sporadic, but also 
 (2) why, where they do occur, there should be sometimes more than 
 one (as, e. g., in Nic. Eth. V. v), and (3) why they should be sometimes 
 so short and apparently purposeless : also (4) why the later version 
 might, in some respects, be inferior. 
 
 (I may add that, in lecturing on the Post. Analytics, I have had 
 occasion to notice other features of style which might be due to 
 dictation.) 
 
 The recasting of a passage in the dictation of the final form of 
 a book might sometimes follow at once and be written in the same 
 roll directly after the original.^ The afterthought, however, might 
 come when the writing had advanced beyond the proper position for 
 it, and whether then the new version was written in the same roll 
 with directions for placing it, or on a separate leaf, it might get a wrong 
 place in the redaction, which would be one cause of the fact (if it be 
 a fact) that some duplicates are out of their true context. 
 
 Again, the recasting of single passages might happen when a fresh 
 set of copies of a book was wanted, corresponding to a modern 
 reprint.^ Later, the variants might be associated by a redactor in one 
 context. Here too there would be a possibility of short duplicates. 
 
 Thus, if we do not think the evidence against unity of authorship 
 conclusive, a fairly simple hypothesis would cover the repetitions, 
 with one exception. Aristotle, one may think, was sometimes led to 
 discuss a subject over again when he came to treat, or treat again, of 
 something else with which it was connected.^ The rewriting in 
 Metap. M of the criticism of the Platonic Ideas in Bk. A may be an 
 example. For such changes as Aristotle there makes ^ he may well 
 have looked at the original. Yet, though considerable portions of 
 the text correspond almost word for word, I think it quite possible 
 that he did not, or not very carefully. 
 
 ^ e. g. the duplicates in De Sensn, 444* 8-28 and 444* 29-444'' 7. Chandler told me he 
 had noted a doubling in the Parva Naturalia, and I think it was this. For other instances 
 in these treatises see my article Philolog. Rundschau I, No. 39, 1240. 
 
 2 The fragments in the E ras. of the De Anima may prove such a reissue, with frequent 
 but comparatively unimportant verbal changes, and a few slight improvements in the 
 matter. If so, though the simpler cause may explain the generality of the repetitions, 
 the hypothesis in par. 89 (11. 14-16) is not always excluded. See also p. 100 1. 24 below. 
 
 ' There are curious instances of this in Thackeray, where the first treatment is 
 forgotten. 
 
 * See my article in the Classical Review, xviii, 5, p. 250, n. 2. 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 95 
 
 Certain other anomalies in the Aristotelian text, particularly as 
 illustrated by the Polities, which critics are inclined to explain by 
 supposing that we have the notes or first draft of the author 
 rather than the finished work are, I would suggest, to be explained in 
 a very difierent way. In philosophy the very effort to give our 
 thoughts precision by writing them down (or dictating them) often 
 serves to bring out possibilities we had not provided for. And in this 
 difficult subject it may well happen— and here again I feel that the 
 experience of others will agree with mine — that when, the drafting 
 process being complete, a man is writing what he intends to be the 
 quite final form, he is disturbed by something he had not thought of, 
 and the result may be a certain interference with the plan already 
 fixed ^ for the whole in his completed draft. I believe this accounts 
 for the peculiar anomalies of the Politics, and that the traditional order 
 of the books is the true order. The incoherences of the treatise seem to 
 me just of the kind not likely to be produced by any one but the author 
 himself. I hope that sometime I may be able to treat this subject 
 in more detail.^ 
 
 Lastly, to return to the point with which I began (p. i, para- 
 graph I fin.), I would maintain that whatever view may be- taken of 
 the origin of the duplicate passages, the recognition of the existence 
 of alternative versions, never intended to stand both in the context, is 
 necessary for the right understanding of the argument in the text, as 
 well as for points of grammar and interpretation.^ 
 
 § 4- 
 
 I may take the opportunity to make some additions to my 
 discussion of Nic. Eth. VII. i-x. 
 Page 4, note 3. Add vi after v. 
 
 Page 8, bottom. Add ' The Magna Moralia does not give the double 
 
 treatment of the subject, and seems to follow the second version.' 
 
 Page II. At the end of paragraph 1 3 add ' The Magna Moralia does 
 
 ^ Cf. above p. 79, 11. 17-18, par. 94. I believe the diflSculties of Nic. Eth. V are due 
 to a very similar cause, and, demonstrably, not to dislocations of a coherent original. 
 
 * Subsequent to a paper on such anomalies, read before the Oxford Philological 
 Society, I received, in answer to a request of mine, some valuable instances of incoherence 
 in modern books which others had noticed. In musical composition I had an important 
 one from Mr. Case. I should be grateful to any reader of this Postscript if he would 
 send me anything of the kind which has come under his observation. 
 
 * I am jroud to think that Mr. Bywater approved my view that there were structural 
 difficulties in Nic. Eth. I. vii. 14-15 caused by the fact that 1098* 12-16 was an alternative 
 version of the preceding. To Mr. Bywater, I need hardly say, I myself owe dfirjxa,vov oaov. 
 
g6 ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES. 
 
 not shew the characteristics of either version, except that it has 
 the Aj form of d . . . . d.' 
 
 Page 13, line 16. At the end of (/3) add 'Nor does the first part. 
 Cf. (e) below.' 
 
 Page 14, bottom. Add ' In Nic, Eth. II. ii. 3, 1104* 2, to Nic. Eth. 
 I. iii. 4, 1094^ 19.' 
 
 Page 15, line 2. Add ' In Plato's Laws, Bk. IV, 705 D to Kar' apxas 
 clprjixivov refers to Bk. I. 62,^. In 664 E the reference is to 6^^ E.' 
 
 Page 15, note i. Add ' e£ apx^l? generally means "original". Cf. 
 De Somniis 460* 32 ti]v i^ o.px>]S (rKi-\\nv, " the original question," 
 Prior Anal. I. 22, and many other places.' 
 
 Page 1 6. At the end of paragraph 1 8 add ' The treatment of the 
 subject in the Magna Moralia corresponds to A, and Bj.' 
 
 Page 17. At the end of Section V add ' It is noteworthy that the 
 author of the Magna Moralia (II. vi. 42-3, 1203^ 29-^ 2) com- 
 bines A (vii. 8) and B (x. 4) in the same context. He has here 
 what corresponds to the first sentence of B and B^, but with the 
 lx€Xay\oXiKoi (which he seems to misunderstand) and not the 
 (Ko-TaTLKOL of B^. That he had the rest of B before him seems 
 evident from another passage (II. vi. 49, 120, 1203'' 30), where 
 he makes a strange use of it.' 
 
 Page 18. At the end of Section VI add 'The Magna Moralia agrees 
 with Aj, and does not seem to have the characteristics of A^.' 
 
 Page 23, paragraph 30. At the end of the paragraph add ' The 
 author of the Magna Moralia may have had the traditional text 
 before him. There seems nothing, however, in his reproduction 
 to correspond to A and A^ nor to the distinctive features of Dj 
 (i 147* 24-^ 3) except the word ivepydv. The passage correspond- 
 ing to Dg is Mag. Mor. II. vi. 20, 1202"* 1-8. Bg he certainly 
 follows, but it is doubtful whether this is true of Bj. C^ he com- 
 bines with Cg. To the part which I have doubtfully associated 
 Dg, viz. §§ 13-14 (1147'' 9-17)5 there seems nothing corre- 
 sponding.' 
 
 Page 23, paragraph 31. This criticism of Rassow's view is objected 
 to by Susemihl, but it is confirmed by Magna Moralia, 1201'' 
 9-20, 34 sqq. 
 
 Page 25, bottom. Add De Sensu, ch. i, 437* 3 ; De Resp. ch. i, 
 470^ 13 ; Nic. Eth. VIII. i. 6, 1155^ i. 
 
 Page 26, Pt. Ill, Section VII. Add ' eKo-TariKoC has in De Div. in 
 Somno, ch. ii, 464* 25, the same kind of sense as in Nic. Eth. VII. 
 viii. 2.' See also passages quoted in Bonitz Index. 
 
POSTSCKIPT. 97 
 
 Page 29, 1. 31. Cancel dvai, (as in the original corrigenda slip of 
 
 1879). 
 Page 30, line i. Add after 1148^5 '(The author of the Magna 
 
 Moralia, II. vi. 28, 1202'' 4-9, takes \}reKT&v to refer to the objects 
 
 of CLKpaaCa). 
 Page 30, paragraph 38. Add at the end of (/?) 'This use of yeVet 
 
 confirms the reading of the best manuscript in Uepublic 442 B 
 
 against the reading yevav adopted by Stallbaum and Bekker. 
 
 See my article in Class. Rev. xxi. 4, and Bywater (1. c). Cf. 
 
 also ayaOQv roJ yevei, Mag. Mor. II. vii. 24, and passim.' 
 Page 31, paragraph 39 (a). Add to the passage illustrating the use 
 
 of eiret : Pr. An. 35* I, Post. An. 94^ 20, 95^ 38, 112^ 27 ; De Sensu 
 
 445^ 29 ; De Juv. et Sen. 467'' 13 ; De Sensu 446° 29 ; Politics 
 
 1282'' 14 (cf. Eucken, p. 27), 1253^ ^3 i^^- Eucken, p. 27). Some 
 
 of these have Se in the apodosis. Pol. 1282^ 14 seems to be one 
 
 of these, notwithstanding Bonitz, Arist. Studies, II. iii. p. 128. 
 Page 32, 1. 32. For II read III. 
 Page ^^, paragraph 39 fin. Add to Nic. Eth, III, vii. 13 the passage 
 
 in Nic. Eth. III. ix. 2. 
 Page 34, paragraph 40 fin. Add at the end of 41 ' The Eudemian 
 
 Ethics shews an acquaintance with the Politics and the De Anima 
 
 not found in the Nieomachean Ethics.' 
 Page 35, line 4. To this add the note * For this sentence cf. Mag. Mor. 
 
 II. vi. 28, 1202^ 4-9.' 
 Page 38, note i. For Eud. Eth. II. ix read Eud. Eth. II. xi. 
 
 In consequence of what Grant has said of this note in his generous 
 notice of the Study in the preface to the last edition of his Com- 
 mentary on the Ethics, it is better to explain at more length what 
 I was referring to, though I cannot here give the matter in full. 
 
 There has been, I venture to think^ a curious oversight in the con- 
 troversy about the authorship of the fifth, sixth, and seventh books of 
 the Nieomachean Ethics, which in the MSS. of the Eudemian Ethics 
 form the fourth, fifth, and sixth books of the latter treatise. It was 
 assumed that these books were common to the two treatises in the 
 strict sense, and that the Eudemian Ethics had not a distinctive version 
 of these books. 
 
 Now it should have been noticed that it was the plan of the writer 
 of the Eudemian Ethics to collect together in one context the matter 
 of various passages relating to a given subject separated from one 
 another in the Nieomachean Ethics. 
 
 This, e.g., is the account of the relation between the discussion of the 
 
^8 ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES. 
 
 voluntary in Eud. Eth. II and the two discussions of the same subject 
 in the Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. Ill, and Bk. V (one of the disputed 
 books). The Eudemian passage combines the characteristics of the two 
 Nicomachean passages.^ 
 
 Consequently, instead of assuming* the disputed books are common 
 to the two treatises, because in the MSS. of both, we ought first to 
 make sure that no parts of them are reproduced in the admittedly 
 ' Eudemian' books in some relatively different position. It turns out that 
 the last topic of the third of these books is actually reproduced in the 
 second book of the Eudemian version in a position different to that 
 which it occupies in the Nicomachean Ethics. This is only natural, 
 because the author of the Eudemian Ethics, when he comes to the 
 discussion of irpoaipecns in the part of the treatise corresponding to 
 Nic. Eth. Ill, according to his habit, collects together discussions of 
 the subject separated in the Nicomachean Ethics. It will be found 
 that the passage from the sixth book is not only, in part, rewritten, 
 but that the writer has misunderstood most seriously the relation of 
 it to the passage with which he is combining it, and developed entirely 
 erroneous consequences. Could there be any completer proof of diversity 
 of authorship than reproduction with clear evidence of misunderstand- 
 ing ? For my own part I am convinced that we have here a striking 
 instance of the difference between the work of the disciple and that of 
 the master. 
 
 It is implied in what I have said above that another part of the 
 disputed books — that on the voluntary — has also been reproduced in 
 the Eudemian Ethics ; and in this Study (Part V, Section II, p. 60, 
 q.v.) I have noticed the reproduction in the Seventh Eudemian book 
 of a passage in the Seventh Nicomachean book. 
 
 Page 40, line 6 up. Add the note ' Cf. especially 1138^ 34 KUKia fj 
 reAeia kol aTrAo)?.' 
 
 * The works of the Greek tacticians present an instructive parallel. The view accepted 
 by modern editors is that the treatises attributed to Aelian and An-ian were based upon 
 the completer treatise of Asclepiodotus. But an examination of these texts has convinced 
 me that the opposite is true. The treatise attributed to Asclepiodotus is the latest of the 
 three, and it is founded upon the other two. The plan of the writer was evidently to 
 reduce the material in these others to systematic form, and to make additions to it. 
 (I may add that the treatise of the Anonymus Byzantinus is founded upon Aelian, 
 supplemented probably from Asclepiodotus. I should also maintain that the so-called 
 Military Lexicon, notwithstanding its ancient titles, is not an Onomasticon at all, but 
 merely a compendious rewriting of the subject as presented in Aelian, Arrian, and Ascle- 
 piodotus. Kochly eiToneously supposes that the source of it is almost exclusively Aelian. 
 I hope I may some day be able to vindicate these views on the relations of the Greek 
 tacticians.) 
 
POSTSCRIPT. QQ 
 
 Page 45, note i, last line. For ' next paragraph ' read 'next paragraph, 
 but one.' 
 
 Page 46, line 18. For 1229* read 1229^. 
 
 Page 46, line 19. For 32 read 39. 
 
 Page 49, line 7 up. To Nic. Eth. IX. iv. 8 add Nic. Eth. IX. iv. 9-10. 
 
 Page 50. Add to the passage in (iv) ' Nic. Eth. III. ii. 14 boKovaC re 
 ov\ oi avTol 'npoaiptiaOai re apia-Ta Kat bo^d^eiv, aW' ei'tot bo^dCdv 
 ixev djxiivov hia KaKiav 8' alpela-dai ov^ o. beV 
 
 Page 51, line 7, read ' It may be replied that this is not the view taken 
 in this chapter, and it by no means follows, &c.' 
 
 Page ^6, line 6. Add ' The use of oXecrdai here and in iii. 2, 1146'' 23 
 and in ix. 7, 1152* 6, is perhaps a reminiscence of the kindred 
 passage in Plato's Protagoras 358 B-D.' 
 
 Page ^6, last line. Add 'Cf. also Rhetoric I. xii. 1372^ 11-13.' 
 
 Page ^6 {(3). After (jS) add ' In Plutarch's treatise Trepl ttjs rjOiKrjs 
 ap€Tr}s, which is based on Aristotle's Ethics, the aKpart^s occupies 
 a large space, but there is not a word about potential knowledge. 
 On the contrary, Plutarch speaks as if complete knowledge con- 
 tended with appetite. See, among many passages, especially that 
 beginning dkXa Kal tco \.6yM Trpds to ttolOos avn^aCvoov, in ch. vii. 
 Tauchn. p. 219, line 21.' To the differences from other parts of 
 Aristotle given in Pt. VI Section VII may be added another. 
 The kind of error ascribed to the aKparris in Nic. Eth. VII. iii 
 should have a special interest for the author of Prior Anal. II. 
 xxi. 8-9, and it would be so important to his theory that he could 
 not, humanly speaking, have failed to discuss the view if it had 
 been familiar to him. Yet there is no reference whatever to the 
 dxparTy? in the passage. This must be associated with the evidence 
 against Aristotelian origin ; but in itself it may prove no more 
 than that Aristotle had not yet developed the view in question 
 when he wrote the Prior Analytics.' 
 
 Page 59. Add at the end of Section I ' The author of the Magna 
 Moralia seems to follow A^ and not Aj, and gives Ag the same 
 position in the context as it has in the Nic. Ethics. He expands 
 the reference to Nic. Eth. VI.' 
 
 Page 61, paragraph 6^ fin. For VII read VI. i. 2. 
 
 Page 67, paragraph 73 end. Add ' That such short and unimportant 
 duplicates could be preserved, even where it would seem only 
 reasonable to leave out one, seems proved by Politics 1301* 22-4 
 (ubi vid. Susemihl).' 
 
 Page 70, line 8 up. For this meaning of d.vTLKd(r6ai cf. De An. II. iv. 
 
lOO ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES. 
 
 415* 20 where to. avTLKCLixd'a = the objects which correspond to the 
 faculties. Cf. also the use o^ avrCcpo^va in Plato's Laws 717 B. 
 
 Page 72-3, paragraph 84. To this paragraph I made the following 
 supplement in Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, Stiick 15, 14 April, 
 1880, p. 452 : ' In § 85 mochte ich nicht so verstanden werden, 
 dass ixaXaKOL (1148* 12) sich nur auf Schmerzgefuhle Leziehen 
 konnte, -nepl ravras kann auch Genlisse mitbedeuten : dadurch aber 
 wird die Beweisfiihrung nicht gestort ; auch bleibt derUnterschied 
 (Seite 74) zwischen 11 48* 11 ff., da die erste Stelle nichts iiber 
 Schmerzen sagt.' 
 
 Page 72. Add to paragraph 84 the note ' With rt yap av k-noUi ; in E^, 
 1150^ 30, cf. Nic. Eth. IV. iii. 7, 11 23'' 12.' 
 
 Page 78, line 8 up, for 6'^ read 6^. 
 
 Page 81. Add to paragraph 95 ' Biichsenschiitz, Studien zu Aristoteles, 
 Politik, endeavoured to shew that there had been some later 
 version of the Politics by some Peripatetic writer. This opinion 
 he grounded upon the compendium in Stobaeus, which he 
 supposed was derived from an original diflPerent to our text of the 
 Politics. The conclusion would have been welcome enough if it 
 could have been maintained, but, as I have argued in a review of 
 the Essay in the Philologische Rvindschau, II. Jahrgang, No. 39, 
 there is the strongest evidence in the extract in Stobaeus that it 
 was based on the very text of the Politics which we have.' 
 
 To the suggestions made here (par. 95) about the sources 
 of duplicates, it should be added that the well-known phenomena 
 in the MSS. of Physics VII are usually held to be due to a 
 mixture of a paraphrase with the original text. 
 
 Table IX. In this table for ' compare Tables I and IV ' read ' compare 
 Tables II and IV.' 
 
 New College, Oxford. 
 Feb. 1 913. 
 
SUPPLEMENTAPvY INDEX 
 
 (See also p. 83) 
 
 Aelian, p. 98 note. 
 
 atperd KaO' aiird, p. 35. 41 : p. 6-7. 
 
 oLKpaaca in the Eudemian Ethics, p. 78 
 mid. 
 
 dfepoarifis, p. 93. 
 
 aKpoaais, p. 93. 
 
 d\ea and ipvxos, p. 31-3. 39, /3. 
 
 Alexander of Aphrodisias, p. 81 top. 
 
 Animonius in Arist. Cat., p. So top. 
 
 dva\VTiKai9, p. 23. 32. 
 
 Anomalies natural to original composi- 
 tion, p. 89 : p. 95. 
 
 Anonymus Byzantinus, p. 98 note. 
 
 dvTiKeiffOai, p. 99 (page 70). 
 
 dvTiipaiva, p. 99 (page 70). 
 
 ottAovj. dirKfj aKpaaia, p. 40. 49. 
 
 dffXcDs. t;. KaO' oixotoTTjTa, Kara fiera- 
 (popdv, Kard irpoaOecnv, p. 7- 8, )3 : 
 p. 1 1 bottom : p. 1 2 top : p. 40. 49 : 
 p. 41. 51, /3 : p. 42. 51, e, iii : p. 73 
 mid. 
 
 (XTTo, \v-nrj diTo, &c., p. 48. 58 : p. 74. 
 86. 
 
 Apuleius, Apol., p. 80 top. 
 
 dpxv- dpx'f) in the aKpar-qs, p. 35-6. 
 43-44 : p. 38. 46, 7. dpxai and 
 vnoOeffeis, p. 36 mid. : p. 37-8. 
 46, a. kv dpxfi, p. 15, note i. f£ 
 dpxv^, p. 1 5 , note i : p. 96 (page 
 15, note i). fcar' dpxds, p. 14. 
 17, 6, i. 2 : p. 15. 17, 6, ii: p. 96 
 (page 15). 
 
 dpiTTj. In the aKpaTTji, p. 36. (pvaiicfi, 
 p. 39- 46, 5. 
 
 Aristotle, and Pseudo- Aristotle. 
 
 Analytica Friora, II. p. 90, note 3. 
 as* I, p. 97 (page 31). 32^ 34, p. 
 15, note I. II. xsi. 8-9, p. 99 mid. 
 Analytica Postei-iora, I. iii. 72'' 5, 
 I. xxii. 84* 32, p. 14. 17, f, i. 2. 
 94* 20, 95^ 38, 112b 27, p. 97. 
 100*14, P- 61 • 65 fin. 
 De Anima, I. ii. 404*17, I. ii. 405'' 
 
 Aristotle (continued). 
 
 10-17, P- 14- 17, €, i. 2. II. i. p. 
 51. 60, a, fin. II. iv. 415*20, 
 p. 99 (page 70). II. V. 417* 23-9, 
 p. 51 middle. III. iii. 427*29, p. 
 
 14. 17, e, i. 2. III. iv. 8, 429'' 6, 
 p. 51. 60, a, fin. III. ix. 8, 
 433* i-3> III. ix-x. 432*1-^10, 
 and X. 6, 433^5-10, p. 50 mid. 
 433" 7, P- 56. 61, /3 fin. III. xi. 
 434*12-14, p. 51. 60, a, iv. 
 Second recension, p. 94, note 2. 
 
 De Caelo, p. 38. 46, a. 
 
 De Divinatione in Somno, ii. 464* 25, 
 p. 96 (page 26). 
 
 JEthica Nicomachea, I. iii. 4, p. 96 
 (page 14). I. iii. 7, 1095* 8, p. 49 
 bottom. I. iii. 4, p. 96 (page 14). 
 
 I. viii. 16, p. 30. 38, 7. I. xiii. 
 
 15, 16, 1 102" 14-25, p. 49. 60, a, 
 ii : p. 50 bottom. II. ii. 3, p. 96 
 (page 14). II. iii. 1104" 18, p. 93. 
 
 II. vii. 3, 1 107*^ 6, p. 79 top. III. 
 p. 47 top. III. ii. 14, p. 99 (page 
 50). III. iv. 5, p. 51. III. vii. 13, 
 II 16* 12-14, P- 33- 39, fin.: p. 46 
 mid. III. ix. 2, p. 97 (page 33). 
 
 III. X. xi. p. 31. 39, jS: p. 32 
 bottom : p. 47 top : p. 72. 83. 
 III. ch. X. § I, 1117^ 24-7, p. 32. 
 39, /3, III. xi. 5-6, 1118" 28- 
 i"9*5, p. 31. 39, /3: p. 47 top. 
 III. xi. 7, 1 1 18* 5, p. 79 top. III. 
 ch. xii. §§ 1-2, 1119* 21-5, p. 32 
 mid. IV. 1123" 12, p. 100 (page 
 72): ii28''33, p. 31, note 2. V, 
 p. 95, note I. V. V. p. 94 top 
 V. 1138*34, p. 98 (page 40). VI 
 i. 2, 1138'^ 26, p. 61. 65, fin. VI. 
 V. 6, 1140*11, p. II. 12: p. 36 
 44, init. VI. (vi and vii), p. 57 
 62. VI. (vii. 7 and viii. 8), p. 57 
 62. VI. xiii. p. 36 bottom. ^ VII, 
 
 * For other passages in Bk. VII see the Index on p. 83. 
 
 I 
 
I02 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY INDEX. 
 
 Aristotle (continv.ecT). 
 
 i. 4, p. 36. 44, init. VII. iii. p. 99 
 mid. VII. iii. 2, 1 146'' 23, p. 99, 
 1. 6. VII. iii. sqq., p. 89. VIL 
 ii49''25, p. 25 bottom. VII. vi. 6, 
 
 1 149'^ 31-1150*1, p. 43. 51, C- VII. 
 vii. p. 46 top. VII. ix. 7, 1 152* 
 6, p. 99 (page 56). VII. xiii. 2, 
 "53'' 3, sqq., p. 91, note i. VIII. 
 i. 1-6, p. 60. IX. iv. 8-10, 1166'^ 
 7-10 sqq., p. 49 bottom : p. 99 
 (page 49). X. 1 1 73'' 29, 1 1 74'' 10, 
 p. 48. 58. X. ix. II 79** 33, p. 46. 
 57, a, I. 
 
 De Generatione Animalium, p. 38. 
 46, a. 
 
 De Inter pretatione, p. 90. 
 
 Be luventute et Senectute, ^6"]^ 11, 
 p. 97 (page 31). 
 
 Magna Moralia, p. 46. 57, a, i init. : 
 P- 95 (pa'ge 8 : page 11) : p. 96 
 (page 16: 17: 18: 23, paragraph 
 30, paragraph 31): p. 97 (page 
 
 30, line I and paragraph 38) : p. 
 
 97 (page 35) : P- 99 (page 59)- 
 
 Metaphydca, p. 90. Bk. A, p. 94. 
 Bk. B, p. 59 mid. B ii. 4, 999** 24, 
 and B ii. 6, 1003^^ 6, p. 14. 17, <, 
 i. 2. A i. 1013" 14, p. 37 note. 
 A viii. ioi7''3, p. 50. 60, a, iv. 
 vi. 1048*34, p. 50. 60, a, iv. 
 init. M X. 10S6* 10, p. 37. 46, a: 
 1086'' 15, p. 14.17, f, i. 2 : p. 37. 
 46, a. 
 
 De Motu Animalium, ch, vii. p. 51. 
 6, a, iv. fin. 
 
 Physica Auscultatio, VIII. i. 250'', 
 V. 260* II, p. 14. 17, «, i. 2. 
 
 De Arte Poctica, 1453* 36, p. 48. 58. 
 
 Politica, p. 95. Supposed later ver- 
 sion, p. 100 (page 81). 1253'' 23, 
 
 P- 97 (page 30- 1253'' I. l^. 31- 
 39, a. 1259*37, p. 31. 39, a. 
 1269'' 20-3, p. 46 mid. 1270'' 3, p. 
 46. 57, a, 1 . 1 270^ 34, p. 46. 57, 
 a, I. 1278* 22, p. 14. 17, e, i. 2. 
 1278'' 27, p. 46 mid. 1279*25, p. 
 
 31. 39, a. 1282'^ 14, p. 97 (page 
 31). I293>'27, p. 14. 17, f, i. 2. 
 1301*22-4, p. 99 (page 67). 
 1322" 7, p. 31. 39, a. 1325^' 33, 
 p. 31. 39, a. 1329* 2, p. 31. 39, a. 
 1329" 30, p. 31- 39, a. 1329'* 34, 
 P- 93- I33i*'26, p. 31. 39, a. 
 
 Aristotle (continned). 
 
 Prohlemata, 880*4-5, p. 46. 57, a, i. 
 949'' i3j P- 64. 70, a, fin. 949^ 26 
 sqq., p. 45 note : p. 46. 57, a, i. 
 953" I4> P- 44 note. 
 
 De Arte Rlietoricu, 1368'' 17, p. 46. 
 57, a, I. I372''ii-i3, p. 99 (page 
 56). i383''35>P-46- 57, a, i. 
 
 De Respiratione, 470'' 13, p. 96 (page 
 
 25)- 
 De Senm, 437*3, p. 96 (page 25). 
 
 444* 8-444*^ 7, p. 94, note I. 
 
 445" 29, 446* 29, p. 97 (page 31). 
 De Virtutibus et Vitiis, p. 46. 57, 
 
 a, I : 1250'' 4 sqq., 1250*28, p. 46. 
 
 57, a, I. 
 Aristoxenus, p- 91. 
 Arrian, p. 98 note. 
 Asclepiodotus, p. 98 note. 
 Asclepius, p. 80. 
 Authors' mistakes, p. 89 : p. 95. 
 avToiv TovTwv, p. 25. 34 fin. : p. 96 
 
 (page 25). 
 
 Compilation, p. 3. 4 : p. 76. 89 fin. : 
 
 p. 92 : p. 94. 
 Cicero, Tusc. Disp. V. ix. 24, De 
 
 Fin. I. ii. 6, V. xxvi. 77, p. 91 
 
 note I. 
 
 Dislocations, p. 95, note i. 
 Dujilicates. Short duplicates, p. 76 : 
 
 p. 92 : p. 94: p. 99 (page 67). 
 
 Misplaced duplicates, p. 16-17. 
 
 19-21 : p. 25 mid. 34 : p. 43, 
 
 54: p. 12-15. 16-18: p. 57-9. 
 
 62-64 : p. 76 top : p. 92 mid. : 
 
 p. 94 mid. 
 
 (KaraTiKus, p. 16 bottom : p. 26. 35 : 
 p. 96 (page 26). 
 
 Emendations, p. 70. 80 : Table IV. 
 
 itni, p. 31. 39, a : p. 63 fin. 
 
 Eudemianisms, p. 30 : p. 37-9. 46 : 
 p. 40. 49 : p. 48. 58 : p. 74. 86 : 
 p. 78. 92 : p. 91, § 2, fin. 
 
 Eudemian Ethics, p. 90 : p. 97 (page 
 34). 1216b i_25^ p. 53. 60, a, iii. 
 1216'' 11-19, p. 48. 59. II. p. 45 
 bottom : p. 53 bottom : p. 55 note. 
 1220* 16-20, p. 61. 65 fin. II. ii. 
 p. 32 bottom. 1 22 1* 28, p. 45 note: 
 p. 46. 57, a, I. II. vi. p. 38. 46, a. 
 
• •• • • • • 
 
 O 
 9 • 
 
 go 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY LNDEX. 
 
 
 103 
 
 Eudemian Ethics (continued). 
 
 1222" II, p. 48. 58. I222''23-28, 
 
 p. 38 top. 1222'' 23, p. 38 mid. 
 II. vii, viii, p. 53 top. 1223'' 7-9, 
 52. 60, /3, I. 12231^32, p. 53 top. 
 1224^30 and " 19, p. 52. 60, )3, i. 
 
 1225"^ 1-5, p. 30. 38, €. I225''II- 
 
 16, p. 51. 60, /3 : p. 90. II. ix. 
 p. 53. 60, /3, ii. fin. 1225*^30, p. 
 46. 57, a, I. 1227*8, p. 37 
 bottom. II. X. 26, p. 51 top. 
 1227*^28, p. 38 top and mid. : p. 
 48. 59. II. xi. p. 38. 46, 7 and 
 note. 1229*1, p. 46. 57, a, i. 
 I229''5, p. 31-2. 39, /3. I229''i, 
 I9> P- 33 top. 1230*3, p. 48. 58. 
 1230'' 13, p. 79 top. III. ii. p. 78 
 mid. III. ii. p. 32. 39, &. III. 
 ii. 6, p. 47. 57. a, 4. 1231*25, 
 p. 47 note. 1231*26, p. 79 top. 
 1231*30, p. 33 top. 1231^3-4, p. 
 47 note. 1232*17, p. 48. 58. III. 
 iv. 5, p. 25. 34 fin. III. vii. fin., 
 p. 39. 46, 8. 1235*4, p. 14. 17, e, 
 i. 2: p. 60. 65. 1235'' 13, 17, p. 60. 
 65. 12351^25, 30, p. 38. 46, a. 
 I2 38''6, p. 40. 49. 1239*^7, p. 14. 
 
 17, €, i, 2. 1246* 35-'" 35, p. 53 
 bottom. 1248'' 16-1249'' 3, P- 3°- 
 38, a. 1249*10, p. 30. 38, 7. 
 1 249'' 3-6, p. 61 . 65 fin. 
 
 Eudemus, p. 91. Not author of Nic. 
 Eth. V, VI, and VII, p. 38 note : 
 p. 60. 65 : p. 97 (page 38, note i). 
 Fragment, p. 38. 46, a, fin. 
 
 7fVet, p. 30. 38, ^ : p. 97 (page 30). 
 Genitive plural of adjective, p. 29 fin. 
 
 Hegel, Redaction of Hegel's works, 
 P- 92-3. 
 
 Inconsistencies, p, 88-91, § 2 : p. 95. 
 
 KaXbs Kol ayaBos, Ka\d Kal dyaOa, 
 Ka\oKayaOia, p. 30. 38, /3. 
 
 KapTtpeTv, p. 17. 22, a : p. 18. 22, 7 : 
 p. 45. 55, 7. 
 
 Knowledge, actual and potential, im- 
 plicit and explicit, p. 19. 26, /3 
 sqq. : p. 48. 60 sqq. : p. 54 top ; 
 p. 99 (page 56). 
 
 Lectures, p. 93. 
 Koyiicius, p. 23. 32. 
 
 Military Lexicon, p. 98 note. 
 
 voarjiMTwd-qs, p. 15, note 2. 
 
 o'UaOai, p. 99 (page 56). 
 olov, p. 20. 26, iS, iii. 
 6p9o5o^eTv. dpOodo^eiv nipt ttjv dpxr]y, 
 p. 36, 44. 
 
 Paraphrast, p. 58 mid. : p. 59 top. 
 
 Pasicles, p. 79. 95. 
 
 Phanias, p. 79. 95. 
 
 (ppovrjais, p. 89. 
 
 (pmfi. (pvaei ^dea, p, 15 : p. 35. 41. 
 (pvaei aipeTot, p. 6. 8, a, init. : [>. 30. 
 38, a : p. 35. 41. 
 
 (()vaiK-fj dpeTT], p, 39. 46. 
 
 (pvcriKus, p. 23. 32. 
 
 Plato, Laws, p. 96 (page 15). Laws 
 717 B, p. 99 (page 70). Prota- 
 goras 358 B-D, p. 99 (page 56). 
 
 Pleasures, unnatural, 13 : 14 : 16 : 17, 
 7, (, ii : 48 : 51 : 52. 
 
 Plutarch, De Virtute Morali, p. 90. 
 
 Priscianus Lydus, p. 91, 
 
 npoaipeais, p. 89 : p. 98. 
 
 irpmr]v, p. 93. 
 
 Tactical treatises, p. 98 note. 
 Thackeray, p. 94, note 3. 
 Themistius, p. 79 note. 
 Theophrastus, p. 79. 95 : p. 91. 
 Tischendorf, Synopsis Evangelica, p. 
 
 77. 90 fin. 
 Trendelenburg, Elementa Log. Arist., 
 
 p. 90, note I. 
 
 vnoOeais and dpx'7, P- 37- 46-47, a. 
 Xenophon, Mem. III. ix. 4, p. 50 top. 
 
■/f. '^i^^, t^av---,-' 
 
1 
 
 if 
 
 i 
 
 III 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 Ml 
 
 1 
 
 II 
 
 i 
 
 ^1 
 
 mi 
 
 rm 
 
 
 I 
 ml 
 
 iiiHiiiiiii 
 
 liiiil 
 
 
 :mm 
 
 ?m 
 
 i!ii.i! 
 
 ■r i1 i'kr 
 
 ii 
 
 
 fliliffi'.''! 
 
 I 
 
 I iif 
 
 ■'' ''''ii 
 
 iISi 
 ilB 
 
 iiaiH,, 
 
 ISi 
 
 m 
 
 \M 
 
YO 07108 
 
 14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORRO\ 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, 
 or on the date to which renewed. Renewals only: 
 
 Tel. No. 642-3405 
 Renewals may be made 4 days pried to date due. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 UCLA 
 
 SEP 1 
 
 T)^H 
 
 ».^^6a 
 
 LD21A-60to-8,'70 
 (N8837sl0)476 — A-32 
 
 General Library 
 University of Califoi 
 Berkeley