Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
We Don’t reply in this website, you need to contact by email for all chapters
Instant download. Just send email and get all chapters download.
Get all Chapters For E-books Instant Download by email at
etutorsource@gmail.com
You can also order by WhatsApp
https://api.whatsapp.com/send/?phone=%2B447507735190&text&type=ph
one_number&app_absent=0
Send email or WhatsApp with complete Book title, Edition Number and
Author Name.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 04/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Aristotelica
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 04/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Aristotelica
Studies on the Text of Aristotle’s
Eudemian Ethics
C H R I S T O P H E R R OW E
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 04/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022942797
ISBN 978–0–19–287355–2
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192873552.001.0001
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 04/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Contents
Introduction
vii
Eudemian Ethics I
1
Eudemian Ethics II
22
Eudemian Ethics III
71
Eudemian Ethics VII/IV
102
Eudemian Ethics VIII/V
180
Appendix
228
Index
256
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Introduction
The following Studies are designed primarily to explain the reasoning
behind the choices that, line by line, shaped the text of the Eudemian
Ethics (EE) printed in the accompanying Oxford text (OCT). As is well
known, the transmitted text of EE is in many places highly corrupt. The
studies below attempt to justify the solutions I have adopted to the problems of the text and explain why I have rejected rival solutions; they lay
no claim to exhaustiveness (not all available solutions are considered),
but rather constitute a record of the route by which I arrived at my decision in each case, in conversation mostly with others, in many cases long
since gone, sometimes with myself. A secondary function of these Studies
is to provide more complete information about the Greek manuscripts
than is given in the apparatus.1 An Appendix, at the end of the present
volume, brings together full sets of data, for the four primary manuscripts, that reveal not only the relationships between these four manuscripts but also the idiosyncrasies of the three copyists involved, and the
typical errors that we tend to find from time to time in all of them.
Information about such errors is particularly important insofar as it
provides a warning against relying too heavily on ‘what the manuscripts
say’, even when there is unanimity between them. True, since the manuscripts represent the only primary evidence we have (with a little help,
for two small portions of the text, from Latin translations), we should
not be too ready to deviate from them. But they do go wrong, in
1 Frequent references will be found, in the following studies, to ‘the B copyist’. This designation is shorthand for ‘the copyist of B and/or the copyist(s) of any manuscript(s) that may have
preceded in the line of descent from the hyparchetype α´ ’: for all we know, either part or indeed
all of what I attribute to the activity of the B copyist might properly be attributable to an intermediary or intermediaries. But since we shall presumably never know if that is the case, everything in question may as well be assigned to the copyist of B, i.e. the manuscript the contents of
which are actually known to us. L itself may very well be descended directly from the archetype
ω, so that references to ‘the L copyist’ can be taken with some safety as being just that. As for P
and C, even though their antigraphon, α, is lost, the fact that they are non-­identical twins
allows us considerable insight into the contributions of their copyist, Nikolaos of Messina.
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
We Don’t reply in this website, you need to contact by email for all chapters
Instant download. Just send email and get all chapters download.
Get all Chapters For E-books Instant Download by email at
etutorsource@gmail.com
You can also order by WhatsApp
https://api.whatsapp.com/send/?phone=%2B447507735190&text&type=ph
one_number&app_absent=0
Send email or WhatsApp with complete Book title, Edition Number and
Author Name.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
viii
Introduction
predictable ways, and quite often all at the same time, as the data put
beyond question.
The Studies are intended to be read with the text and apparatus. They
started life as footnotes to a draft text; they and the apparatus may have
been separated physically from each other, but their shared origins will
be quickly apparent to the reader.
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Eudemian Ethics I
[The style of the titles of the books in PCBL varies slightly: the title can
be just ‘ἠθικῶν εὐδημίων’, or ‘ἀριστοτέλους ἠθικῶν εὐδημίων’, or
‘ἠθικῶν εὐδημίων ἀριστοτέλους’; varying as it may do within a single
MS, the style used is evidently arbitrary.]
1214a2 συνέγραψεν (PCBL) on the face of it looks unlikely, given (a)
the general pattern of usage of this compound, (b) the fact that such
usage can specifically connect it with the writing of prose (n.b. the
immediately following ποιήσας); ἀναγράϕω, by contrast, as suggested
by Richards, would be a natural choice for the present context, and
for ἀν- to become συν-, perhaps especially after the final sigma of
ἀποϕηνάμενος, would be well within the limits of the sorts of errors we
typically find in these MSS. Nevertheless, the case is still not quite
proven (see Dirlmeier1 ad loc.), and given that the policy of the present
text is to make as few changes as possible where our primary MSS are
unanimous, συνέγραψεν stands.
a5 Αmbr.’s placing of the δέ before ἥδιστον corresponds with its pos­ition
as it evidently was in the original, i.e. Theognis 256 = πρῆγμα δὲ
τερπνότατον τοῦ τις ἐρᾷ τὸ τυχεῖν, but since Aristotle has announced
the lines as poetry, they should be metrical, as they are in the different
­version at NE I.8, 1099a27–8; for that to be the case, unless we read τοῦ
for οὗ, the δέ will have tο follow ἥδιστον. —ἐρᾷ τὸ Bessarion: i.e. Bessarion
in Parisinus 2042, though he also adds ται above the τὸ, then crosses ται
out. (See Preface to text: ‘Bessarion’ in the apparatus here and from now on
refers exclusively to this MS, a vast collection of Aristotelian excerpts
1 The absence of a full reference for an author and work cited indicates that bibliographical
details of the author/work appear in one or more of (1) the Preface in the sister volume of the
present Studies (hereafter ‘Preface to text’), (2) the Bibliography to that Preface, or (3) the list in
the same volume of authors that are cited in the apparatus.
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
2
Eudemian Ethics I
(1214a5) Cardinal Bessarion wrote out in his own hand; he certainly contributed, especially in the form of marginalia, to other MSS, especially Rav.
210, Marc. 200, and Marc. 213, but since (a) it is usually hard to be sure
exactly what is attributable to him in these, and (b) it hardly matters for
my purposes, I leave him uncredited there, except in special circumstances,
in the same way that I do other named figures we know to have been
involved with our MSS, whether because they commissioned, copied, corrected, or commented on them.) The Aldine later makes the correction to
ἐρᾷ τὸ independently, no doubt from direct knowledge of Theognis.
Bessarion writes out a version of Theognis’ line in the margin of Par. 2042
(πᾶσι δὲ τερπνότατον οὗ τις ἐρᾷ τὸ τυχεῖν) above and to the left of
the first line of EE, and then tries out τερπνότατον δ’ ἐστ’, apparently as a
substitute for the MSS’ ἥδιστον, in the margin opposite that.
a6 συγχωροῦμεν Laur. 81,12: an easy mistake (the ου is corrected by
another hand [= ‘Laur. 81,122’] to omega, s.l.); it might be a conjecture,
but ‘perhaps we don’t agree with him’ is not obviously an improvement
on ‘let us not. . .’.
a10 In B both μὲν here and the δὲ following have what appears to be a
double accent. Similar double accentuation, especially with μὲν, occurs
here and there in B; it is not clear why.
a10–11 καὶ περὶ τὰς πράξεις τοῦ πράγματος: if there is a problem
here, Langerbeck’s solution (simply bracketing καὶ περὶ τὰς πράξεις)
seems better than either of Spengel’s; the second, indeed, given that we
are actually going to talk about the κτῆσις of the πρᾶγμα in question,
seems to make matters worse. But while there may be some awkwardness in the Greek, it seems tolerable. Woods’s bracketing of τοῦ
πράγματος, which after all is prepared for by περὶ ἕκαστον πρᾶγμα
earlier in the sentence, seems high-­handed when the context is actually
about ἕκαστον πρᾶγμα (a9). Inwood and Woolf, in their translation of
EE in the series Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy (2013:
hereafter ‘Inwood and Woolf in the Cambridge translation’), seem covertly to adopt Spengel’s first solution.
a13 Dirlmeier interprets the MSS’ ἦν as a ‘philosophical’ imperfect, taking Aristotle to be referring to things he has said prior to the EE (‘once a
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Aristotelica
3
Grundsatz, always a Grundsatz’, to paraphrase Dirlmeier). That, however,
involves the unwarranted presupposition that Aristotle thinks of himself
as writing the EE as part of a collected body of work. So if it is that sort
of imperfect, we would evidently need an unusual, as it were forward-­
looking, use of it, i.e. ‘whatever turns out to have been appropriate. . .’.
I prefer a suggestion by Christopher Strachan (in correspondence), who
compares Plato, Cratylus 388a10 Τί ἦν ὄργανον ἡ κερκίς; Οὐχ ᾧ
κερκίζομεν: ‘this seems to be a sort of aoristic use, akin perhaps to a
gnomic aorist designating something that is always or generally the
case.’ This is surely more than plausible enough to render Richards’s
­emendation (ὅτιπερ ⟨ἂν⟩ οἰκεῖον ᾖ) unnecessary.
a23 With δαιμονίᾳ (CBL), the following τινὸς would be orphaned and
unexplained; the feminine dative is by attraction to the preceding
ἐπιπνοίᾳ. So P’s δαιμονίου it must surely be (presumably it is an
emend­ation by the copyist: δαιμονίᾳ, being in both recensiones, is likely
to have been in ω, the common source/archetype). Incidentally,
Bessarion (ap. Par. 2042) also has δαιμονίου. This is not an independent
conjecture of his: my trawl through Par. 2042 makes it almost certain
that there, throughout, he was using either (a corrected version of) P, or
more probably its descendant Pal. 165, which includes many corrections
to P: so for example in the continuation of the present sentence he reads
διὰ τὴν τύχην rather than L’s διὰ τύχην (and so he continues right to
the end of Book VIII/V). This is in one way a surprise, because Bessarion
is other­wise associated with MSS that are mostly descended from L,
i.e. that belong to the other recensio, but in another way it is not so
­surprising, given that P is itself sometimes corrected from a represent­
ative of the recensio Constantinopolitana; see Harlfinger 1971: 9 on the
complexity of the relationships between the extant MSS of EE.
a24 ταὐτό: C is the only one of the four primary MSS to write in the crasis
mark here (crasis marks are more often than not omitted in all four).
a25 εὐτυχείαν PC for εὐτυχίαν: ει for ι in such endings is a signature
feature of P and C.
a26 τῇ παρουσίᾳ [διὰ] τούτων, κτλ: as subject of the sentence, which
all of PCBL make it, ἡ παρουσία appears peculiarly redundant; the
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
4
Eudemian Ethics I
(1214a26) subject is surely εὐδαιμονία, and translators sometimes (see
e.g. Solomon [in the Oxford Translation of 1915], Woods, and Kenny [in
the Oxford World’s Classics translation]) pretend that it—εὐδαιμονία—­and
not παρουσία is actually subject in the transmitted text. One possibility
would be simply to bracket ἡ παρουσία, but it would then be a mystery
how it ever got into the text. For Spengel’s proposal, i.e. to bracket διὰ
instead, and write dative for nominative, a story is much easier to construct: the dative—­because of its position, and the lack of an expressed
subject?—was corrupted into a nominative, but then διὰ had to be supplied to make sense of the following genitives. (This story would work
rather less well with Spengel’s alternative proposal, ⟨ἡ εὐδαιμονία⟩ τῇ
παρουσίᾳ [διὰ] τούτων. . . .)
a29 τὶς B2: it is feature of all of PCBL that they tend to accent in­def­in­ite
τις/τι, and of B that it likes to give τίς/τί a grave accent. —συναγάγει
in Laur. 81,4, a descendant at this point from C, is corrected to
συναγάγοι (also in Marc. [descended from L], according to Harlfinger);
B too, presumably, was faced with συναγάγει, and made the same correction. All the variants offered by the MSS would, incidentally, have the
same Byzantine pronunciation. (‘Errors arising from similarity in pronunciation’, comments Christopher Strachan, ‘are among the most common of all, and very frequent in these MSS.’)
b7 ἐπιστήσαντα in P is by attraction to the following ἅπαντα; the two
dots, vertically arranged, associated with the -τα ending are converted by P2
to the sign for -ας. —Woods claims that ‘ἐπιστήσαντας [sc. τὴν διάνοιαν]
with a dependent accusative and infinitive is doubtful Greek’, but while
admitting that there are no precise parallels I think it possible to construe
the noun clause, i.e. the accusative and infinitive, as being—­as it were—­in
the dative: ‘paying attention, in relation to these things, [to the fact] that
every person. . .’. Though strictly δεῖ in b12 might govern ἐπιστήσαντας (sc.
ἡμᾶς) here, it is too far away to make that entirely plausible—­hence Allan’s
⟨χρὴ⟩ and P2’s ⟨δεῖ ⟩ (see next note); my own view is that the sentence
becomes so extended, especially with the—­unexpectedly ­expansive?—
explanatory clause ὡς τό γε . . . σημεῖόν ἐστιν in b10–12, that Aristotle
simply forgets where he started, and in effect starts again. (Pace Woods, I see
no reason why Aristotle should not be claiming that everyone does in fact
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
We Don’t reply in this website, you need to contact by email for all chapters
Instant download. Just send email and get all chapters download.
Get all Chapters For E-books Instant Download by email at
etutorsource@gmail.com
You can also order by WhatsApp
https://api.whatsapp.com/send/?phone=%2B447507735190&text&type=ph
one_number&app_absent=0
Send email or WhatsApp with complete Book title, Edition Number and
Author Name.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Aristotelica
5
set themselves an end: the list of possible ends is restricted to popular-­
sounding choices [n.b. also the non-­
technical/non-­
Aristotelian use of
καλῶς just before the list], and that it would be very foolish not to set oneself an end in life [b10–12] could be taken as evidence for the claim rather
than, as Woods suggests, conflicting with it.)
b8 δεῖ post θέσθαι suppl. P2, in the margin: but pace P2, and Woods ad
loc., the point Aristotle is leading up to is that while everyone sets themselves an end, they need to be careful about their choice; there is no reason (apart from—­what some suppose to be—­an orphaned infinitive) for
him to be exhorting them to set themselves an end: cf. preceding note.
b12 ‘δὴ sine causa secl. Spengel’, Susemihl, with justification. —ἐν αὑτῷ
Victorius (‘γρ.’), and then Bekker, followed by other editors: but what is
in the MSS is ἐν αὐτῷ, i.e. ‘in the matter in hand’, to be read with
πρῶτον rather than, or as much as, with διορίσασθαι.
b17 οὐ deest in P1CL: οὐ is added above line in P, surely by a later hand,
with an insertion mark. This is one of a significant number of occasions
on which B is the only one of PCBL to preserve the right reading.
b19 τῆς ⟨καλῆς⟩ ζωῆς Richards: but καλῆς presumably can and should
be understood in any case.
b24 περὶ πάντων: P2 writes ἴσως: περιπάτων in the margin; L’s
περιπάτων is post corr., but the corrections in L, evidently currente
calamo, are only in the formation of the iota and the alpha, and there
was evidently only ever one word.
b35 Spengel’s τῶν πολλῶν ⟨ἐπισκεπτέον⟩ is part of a solution to larger
problems that follow.
1215a1 εἰκῇ γὰρ Victorius (Pier Vettori), annotating one of his copies
of the Aldine edition; a brilliant emendation. (This is one of the many
conjectures/corrections of his that is not marked by a ‘fort.’ [see Preface
to text], just with a ‘γρ.’) For P2’s οἱ μηδὲν see next note.
a1–2 περὶ ἁπάντων καὶ μάλιστα περὶ ἐπισκεπτέον μόνας P1CL,
περὶ ἁπάντων καὶ μάλιστα ἐπισκεπτέον μόνας B: Chalkondyles in
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
6
Eudemian Ethics I
(1215a1–2) Ambr. leaves a gap after περὶ—­something must be missing
after περὶ in its precursor, L (and in PC). But what? Spengel’s proposal is
pleasingly economical, proposing as it does no more than the loss of the
first part of εὐδαιμονίας, but it has its own problems, the worst of which
is that it leaves us with two different explanations (εἰκῇ γὰρ . . . a1,
ἄτοπον γὰρ . . .) for our not having to consider the views of the many,
the second of which follows as if the first was not there; the transposition
of ἐπισκεπτέον, which causes this double explanation, then also looks
questionable, and one might also ask how likely it is that εὐδαιμονίας
would be corrupted to μόνας in a context about εὐδαιμονία (even
though stranger things do happen in the text of EE). Dodds’s proposal,
for its part, has the advantage over Fritzsche’s (on which it builds, as
Fritzsche’s builds on P2’s) that it comes with a beautifully simple
explanation of how the mess in the MSS came about, i.e. through a
­copyist’s eye slipping straight from περὶ to πέρι; but it too has important
weaknesses: in its prolixity and in the unclarity of the reference of the
supplied ταύτης (Fritzsche), seven lines after the περὶ αὐτῆς that might
have explained it. My own proposal for completing the sentence goes
back to P2’s οἱ (i.e., presumably, οἳ?) μηδὲν λέγουσι σχεδὸν περὶ
ἁπάντων δὲ καὶ μάλιστα περὶ τούτων τὰς τῶν σοϕῶν ἐπισκεπτέον
μόνας (written out in full in the margin of P). My first step, after accepting Victorius’ εἰκῇ γὰρ before λέγουσι, is to suppress the δὲ and supply
the περὶ ὧν that is then needed to restore the syntax of the sentence.
That would give us, for the sake of argument, περὶ ἁπάντων, καὶ
μάλιστα περὶ ⟨τούτων περὶ ὧν τὰς τῶν σοϕῶν⟩ ἐπισκεπτέον μόνας,
which would (a) offer a solution that is more economical than either
Dodds’s or Fritzsche’s, (b) avoid the problem of the reference of (the
supplied) ταύτης, and (c) provide the sort of sense that everyone, beginning from P2, thinks is required. But of course P2’s supplements have no
authority, as is confirmed by the lack of syntactical coherence in the sentence he offers us here; and when Aristotle generally spends so much
time on, and attributes so much importance to, the endoxa, could he
really have announced, out of the blue, that actually it is only the σοϕοί,
the experts, that we should listen to on the subject in hand? Surely not.
In the present context, the class to be contrasted with οἱ πολλοί would
more naturally be the ἐπιεικεῖς, a fairly indeterminate group whose
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Aristotelica
7
chief distinguishing feature is typically that they are not (the) many, and
who will make an appearance a few lines down (a12). So περὶ ἁπάντων,
καὶ μάλιστα περὶ ⟨τούτων περὶ ὧν τὰς τῶν ἐπιεικῶν⟩ ἐπισκεπτέον
μόνας—­except that by borrowing an element of Dodds’s solution (see
above), and writing περὶ τούτων, ὧν πέρι, we would begin to have
a story about how the corruption might have started: better ⟨περὶ
τούτων, ὧν⟩ πέρι, then, since strictly it would be the first περί that was
lost; the comma, too, is important, in order to avoid the appearance of a
mere tautology. Beyond that (apart from noting the double ἐπι-, which
might help explain the loss of ἐπιεικῶν?), I merely repeat that we know
in this case—­pace Spengel—­that the transmitted text is lacunose. I adopt
the reconstruction proposed on three grounds: first, that it gives an
appropriate sense, i.e. one that at least does not commit Aristotle to
something he would be unlikely to say; second, that it is superior to any
alternative presently on offer (see above); and third, that it would be
unhelpful, even a dereliction, to reproduce the nonsense we find in
PCBL, or to follow Chalkondyles and print a lacuna, or indeed to deploy
the obelus, which fastidious readers can easily import for themselves if
they prefer.
a4 Jackson’s πειθοῦς for πάθους is surely implausible: does persuasion
not typically involve λόγος? The mess in L (the copyist has merely run
ἀλλὰ and πάθους together) is a lapse, and does not indicate uncertainty
around πάθους; and contra Barnes, πάθους/πάσχειν can surely be used
by Aristotle on its own to refer to a bad experience/suffering, as at Rhet.
II.5, 1382b29ff.
a5 There are some traces of a correction above βίον in P, and it is nat­ural
to assume that the correction is to βίου, before τοῦ κρατίστου. The mistake, shared by all of PCL, is surprising enough to suggest that βίον was
in ω, the common source of PCBL, in which case B is evidently correcting independently. Ambr. (Chalkondyles) also has βίου.
a9 ⟨τὴν⟩ πᾶσαν σκέψιν Dirlmeier: it is true that not literally all σκέψις
has to be as specified, just ‘this whole [present] σκέψις’, but πᾶσαν σκέψιν
will naturally be read, in the context, as ‘all σκέψις of the sort we are
involved in’.
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
8
Eudemian Ethics I
1215a10 τῳ B (also P2, crossing out the circumflex accent) provides a
vi­able alternative—‘if someone should find it presumptuous . . .’—to the
impossible τῷ P1CL. Given that these MSS so regularly confuse omicron and omega, Victorius’ τὸ is also possible; the same consideration
renders Fritzsche’s compromise, τῳ ⟨τὸ⟩, unnecessary.
a11 καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐλπίδα: P2 writes ἴσως: καὶ τὴν ἐλπίδα in margin.
a14 ἔσται ci. Walzer, for ἐστι: but we can take the reference to be to the
acquisition of τὰ διὰ τύχην ἢ διὰ ϕύσιν γινόμενα in general, rather than
to what would be true of the acquisition of εὐδαιμονία were it to be one
of these.
a19 [ἃ] τοῖς αὑτοὺς: τοῖς αὑτοὺς is all that is needed if we take κεῖσθαι
to mean ‘be available’ (‘laid up’, ‘in the bank’: see LSJ2 s.v. III); the ἃ could
perhaps be descended from an earlier dittography, i.e. αὐτοῖς for τοῖς
before αὑτοὺς. P2’s ἐν τοῖς αὐτοὺς, in margin, preceded by ἴσως,
looks a non-­starter: εὐδαιμονία might lie ἐν τῷ αὐτοὺς/αὑτοὺς
παρασκευάζειν . . ., but scarcely in the individuals doing it. (Woods
accepts ἐν, taking τοῖς as neuter: ‘happiness consists in those things
which cause human beings . . . to be of a certain kind’, but this would
surely be an odd thing for Aristotle to say about happiness, if it is not
just a way of making ἐν τοῖς come to the same thing as ἐν τῷ.)
a27 τῶν μὲν ⟨οὐδ’⟩ Bonitz, τῶν μὲν ⟨οὐκ⟩ Rav.: one could try arguing
that the negative is in effect retrospectively supplied by the following
ἀλλ’ ὡς τῶν ἀναγκαίων χάριν σπουδαζομένων—‘some dispute [the
title in question] but on the grounds that they labour for the sake of the
ne­ces­sar­ies of life [sc. and they must clearly be ruled out on the basis of
what has just been said, at some length, about the need to distinguish the
goods that constitute happiness and those that are merely its necessary
conditions]’. But this is surely too much of a stretch, and in any case no
one, or no one that mattered to Aristotle, ever suggested that the ‘vulgar’
and ‘banausic’ lives in question could claim to be best. Rav. sees the need
for a negative, but Bonitz’s emphatic οὐδ’ seems preferable.
2 A Greek–English Lexicon compiled by H. Liddell and R. Scott, revised . . . by H. Jones . . .
9th edn, with a revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Aristotelica
9
a28 In P a first correcting hand puts in an elision mark and rough
breathing over what was plainly once ἄλλως, apparently erasing an
acute accent after the initial smooth breathing; a second correcting hand
then writes ἵσως: τῶν μὲν ὡς τῶν ἀναγκαίων (not ἀλλὰ τῶν μὲν ὡς,
as reported by Walzer/Mingay) in the margin. The problem is with the
ὡς in CBLP2 ἀλλ’ ὡς, which even translators who claim to retain it
appear not to translate, and not surprisingly, because it is worse than
redundant; the sentence actually works better without it. Spengel’s brilliant emendation—­which gets some slight support from P’s original
error, i.e. ἄλλως for ἀλλ’ ὡς, the latter presumably being what was in the
common source of PCBL—­gives a perfect sense: the lives in question
make no claims at all for themselves precisely because they randomly
busy themselves with the necessaries, i.e. with no reference to the larger
question ‘what is it for?’
a29 Woods’s τὰς for τῶν before περὶ χρηματισμὸν and Russell’s ⟨τὰς⟩
τῶν both tidy up the list, perhaps in an attempt to make it all fit better
together, but it is not clear either that they succeed in that, or that it
needs to be tidier.
a32–3 πρὸς ὠνὰς μόνον καὶ πράσεις scripsi. Ιn P, the rough breathing
over ων is apparently changed to (the sign for) -ας, though with the circumflex left in place, and ἴσως: πρὸς ὠνὰς is written either by the same
or by a different hand in the margin, apparently with the intention for it
to replace ἀγορὰς. (Harlfinger reports that πρὸς ὠν becomes πρὸς ὧν
[‘πρὸς ὧν C et p. corr. P2’]; I read the evidence differently, but it is
admittedly hard to be quite sure what the sequence of events was.) Ιn C,
the iota of πρᾶσι is overwritten with ει; in L a sigma is inserted between
πρὸ and ὧν, ὧν marked for deletion, and, if this corrector follows the
same convention as others (after all, the point is to make the Greek make
sense, and the correctors like the copyists appear generally either to
speak Greek or to know their Greek well), πράσει is by implication
changed to πράσεις. (Similarly, perhaps, with P2’s correction of πρᾶσι
to πρᾶσις; might he even be implicitly deleting ὦν, with L?) B, for his
part, if he was faced with the same mess as PCL, as he presumably was,
went straight for simplification—­and interestingly both Bessarion, in
Par. 2042, and Marc. 213 independently offer the same solution as B;
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
We Don’t reply in this website, you need to contact by email for all chapters
Instant download. Just send email and get all chapters download.
Get all Chapters For E-books Instant Download by email at
etutorsource@gmail.com
You can also order by WhatsApp
https://api.whatsapp.com/send/?phone=%2B447507735190&text&type=ph
one_number&app_absent=0
Send email or WhatsApp with complete Book title, Edition Number and
Author Name.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
10
Eudemian Ethics I
(1215a32–3) perhaps it just was the obvious way out. How to explain
the mess in PCBL themselves? My own thought is that ἀγορὰς was
originally a gloss on ὠνὰς μόνον καὶ πράσεις, but became absorbed
into the text, with μόνον corrupted to μὲν—­for which, clearly, there is
no use in the context; P2’s reconstruction is consistent with this.
a33 τῶν εἰς L1, τῶν οὖν εἰς L2: L2 inserts οὖν above the line (a decent
conjecture: resumptive οὖν?).
a34–5 τῶν καὶ πρότερον . . . τοῖς ἀνθρώποις secl. Walzer: the whole
clause does have something of the feel of a gloss, and would not be missed;
on the other hand, if a gloss is what it is, or originally was, it is well adapted
to the syntax of the sentence, and there is no compelling reason to expel it.
a36 What appears here in the margin in P, i.e. τρεῖς βίοι εἰσὶν ἀρετὴς
ϕρονήσεως καὶ ἡδονής, is plainly a summary or heading, not a suggestion for emending the text; L, in its margin, has a more laconic
τρεῖς βίοι.
a37 ἐπ’ ἐξουσίας τυγχάνοντες: an alternative to Spengel’s proposals
might be to suppose that an ὄντες has slipped out through haplography,
but it is easily enough understood in any case.
1215b1 The gap in B after ἀπολαυστικόν is not caused—­as some gaps
are—­by any fault in the parchment; a heavy dot resembling a Greek
colon appears after ἀπολαυστικόν, and the gap may just be B’s way of
indicating the beginning of—­what he sees as—­a new section (cf. on
b14 below).
b10 ἐρόμενον BP2, ἐρώμενον P1CL: P2 corrects omega to omicron above
the line. Either the omega was in ω, the original common source of PCBL,
and B made the correction independently, like P2, or else PCL all made
the same—­very common—­mistake (omega for omicron or vice versa).
b14 ὡς ἄνθρωπον εἰπεῖν: both Russell’s and Richards’s emendations are
surely unnecessary; ὡς ἄνθρωπον εἰπεῖν is perfectly intelligible for the
required sense, i.e. ‘if it’s a human being we’re talking about’. —There is
another slightly shorter gap in B here, after μακάριον εἶναι, also with
what looks like a Greek colon (cf. on b1 above).
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Aristotelica
11
b19 δι’ ἃ suppl. P2/3: i.e. P2 writes ἴσως: διὰ προΐενται τὸ ζῆν οἷον νόσους
ὠδύνας χειμῶνας in the margin, and then another hand corrects διὰ
to δι’ ἃ.
b20 For P2’s ὠδύνας, see preceding note. —καὶ is surrounded in C with
four dots, indicating deletion.
b23 B2 adds a breathing over the second alpha of ἀνακάμψαι: B is often
lackadaisical about splitting words/observing gaps between words, and
here the ἀν becomes separated from the rest of the word.
b24 The μὲν after ἐχόντων is plainly superfluous, ἐχόντων μὲν being a
doublet of ἐχόντων μὲν in the next line: so, once again, is B in­de­pend­
ent­ly correcting?
b29 κἂν is in the margin in P, with insertion marks there and beside καὶ,
which is the first word in the line.
b29–30 ἀπέραντον, τί scripsi, ἀπέραντόν τι PCBL: changing the
accents—­on which PCBL, as a group, are in any case less than wholly
reliable, especially where τις and τίς are concerned—­is a more economical
solution than Rav.’s ἀπέραντόν τι ⟨οὐ⟩, adopted by editors.
b33 πορίζοι PCBL, πορίζει Bekker: the optative fits well enough, given
the context (‘who would choose . . . without whatever pleasures x, y, z . . .
might provide?’).
b34 πορίζοι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις is repeated after προτιμήσειε in P but
crossed out, whether by the original copyist, looking back, or more likely
by another hand.
b35 δῆλον appears in the left margin of C, on the first line on the page,
crammed up against the γὰρ, apparently—­messily—­supplied by a second hand, with what looks like a confirmatory eta above, either from
this corrector or a third hand.
b36 διενέγκοιεν L: the -εν is added as a compendium, unusually for
this MS, above the line and above the second iota.
1216a2 μοναρχιῶν: Fritzsche and Susemihl both write μοναρχῶν, following Lat. (the late Latin translation), but Aristotle would surely have
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
12
Eudemian Ethics I
(1216a2) used μόναρχος (so Rackham); but μοναρχιῶν, on which
PCBL all agree, while surprising is not terminally objectionable.
a3 ἐν τῷ: editors before Walzer/Mingay for some reason preferred τοῦ,
but the unity of PCBL around the perfectly acceptable ἐν τῷ is de­cisive.
—τὶ B: as observed above, there is a general carelessness in B about the
distinction between acute and grave accents, no doubt partly because of
its tendency to integrate accents with characters.
a8 καθεύδοντα δὲ: another independent correction by B (the μὲν is
nonsensical, as Rav. also sees)?
a12 B2 adds οι above the alpha of ταῦθ’.
a18 To reiterate: ‘δὴ] δὲ PCL’ indicates, by elimination, that B has the δὴ
(attributed by Walzer/Mingay to all of Marc.2, Langerbeck, and Allan); a
happy mistake, another independent correction, or did the hyparchetype α´ reproduce a δὴ in ω?
a19 ϕαίνονται τάττειν PCL, τάττονται B: ϕαίνονται τάττοντες?
a23 ἀληθῶς: the special sign after ἀληθ in C indicating an ending in
-ως (cf. πως in b10) seems to postdate the apparently partly erased sign
for -ους.
a34 The καλῶς proposed by Bonitz for PCL’s καλὰς is found in B.
a36 A definite article before ἡδοναὶ here would not be out of place (B,
Rackham, and by implication Inwood and Woolf in the Cambridge
translation), but ‘there are other pleasures . . .’ makes perfectly good
sense, and since it appears in both recensiones we should probably
keep it.
a38 The ligature used here in B for -αρα in παρὰ is standard, and is barely
distinguishable from the one used for -ερι (see e.g. περὶ at 1217b40);
­similarly with the somewhat different ligatures used by P and C, and no
doubt also ω. PCBL all not infrequently confuse the two prepositions.
1216b2 λόγου: an upsilon is introduced by a correcting hand—­perhaps
contemporaneous with Rav., perhaps not—­in Laur. 81,20 above the iota
of λόγοι; also by Victorius in his Aldine. (The abbreviation λόγ´ in C
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Aristotelica
13
[see Walzer/Mingay] indicates that it has the same ending as the previous word, so: λόγοι.)
b3 The τοῦ for τὸ, before γινώσκειν, preferred by B2 (introducing a
­ligature for ου over the tau) is an interesting variation.
b7 P2 changes the breathing but as usual leaves the other part of the
correction—­ὥστ’ to ὥσθ’—to be understood.
b8 The μὲν is omitted/deleted in Marc., then by Bekker; Susemihl
restores it.
b12 τέλος post ἕτερον suppl. Casaubon: we certainly cannot understand τέλος, but nor should we; the sense is ‘there is nothing else
­belonging to astronomy. . . ’.
b19 The acute accent on ἤ in B suggests but does not quite make it certain (given B’s sometimes cavalier relation to accents) that the grave on
τι is a later addition.
b23 ἀνδεῖοι P1: the rho is supplied above by P2 with an insertion mark.
b27 Spengel’s conjecture τούτων πάντα (with πάντα as masculine singular) starts from the order τούτων πάντων preferred, without justification, by e.g. Oxon., the Aldine, Bekker, and Rackham, and supposes/
explains χρώμενον in the line below; but Spengel himself remains
un­decided between τούτων πάντα (χρώμενον) and τούτων πάντων
(χρωμένους).
b28 P2 writes ἴσως: χρωμένους in the margin.
b35 γνωριμώτατα ends in B in what is apparently a version of the
shorthand used for τατα in MSS like P and C; there is a mark below the
line of a sort apparently used elsewhere (e.g. at 1217a36) to indicate
­separation between words, which perhaps suggests that one reader might
have wanted to read the τατα as ταῦτα. —Richards’s ἀντὶ would be in
keeping with Aristotle’s general usage, and I know of no parallels for
μεταλαμβάνειν as it would be used here, with acc. and plain gen., of
­taking one thing in exchange for another; nevertheless to print the ἀντὶ
would be to close the door on the possibility that the verb could have
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
14
Eudemian Ethics I
(1216b35) been used in such a way, when PBCL are unanimous in proposing that it can.
b38 The genitive τῶν πολιτικῶν, pace Victorius (‘fort. τὸν πολιτικὸν’ in
margin), looks sound enough, with τὴν τοιαύτην θεωρίαν, and though we
might have expected Aristotle to refer to the politician per se, there is no
reason why he should not for once be referring to politicians in general.
b40 For Fritzsche’s ϕιλοσόϕου, cf. 1217a1; and the difference between
-ον and -ου, when they are written out, is minuscule. However the copyists of PCBL all evidently had ϕιλόσοϕον before them, and it looks
vi­able enough.
1217a6 τῶν μήτ’ ἐχόντων B, ὑπὸ τούτων τῶν μήτ’ ἐχόντων PCL:
translators (Solomon, Woods, Kenny, Inwood/Woolf), reading ὑπὸ
τούτων τῶν μήτ’ ἐχόντων, take the preceding ὧν (ὑϕ’ ὧν) as referring
to ‘reasons’ given or ‘arguments’ made by the subject of the preceding
ποιοῦσιν, i.e. the τινες of a1, but this is awkward, because it leaves us
with ὑπό occurring twice, in the same sentence less than ten words
apart, with the causation/agency assigned to two different things. The
difference between them could perhaps be elided, since after all the
arguments will belong to the τινες. But in my view it would be more
natural to take ὧν itself to refer to the τινες (given that they are the
subject of the main verb of the present sentence), in which case ὑπὸ
τούτων τῶν κτλ would be epexegetic of ὑϕ’ ὧν; and then ὑπὸ τούτων
appears out of place, insofar as Aristotle now introduces a further
description of the people already being referred to in the clause (I note
that none of the translators mentioned above appears to translate
τούτων). Langerbeck recognizes the problems and recommends surgery, cutting out the whole of ὑπὸ τούτων τῶν . . . 7 ἢ πρακτικήν (perhaps as a gloss?). But the lack of ὑπὸ τούτων in B—­whether by chance
or by judgement: presumably the copyist of B had the same text in front
of him as those of PCL—­offers a more economical solution, namely to
take τῶν μήτ’ ἐχόντων κτλ itself as straightforwardly in apposition to
the relative ὧν; I surmise that the relatively unexpected, though perfectly regular nature of the construction led to the introduction of ὑπὸ
τούτων as a false correlative of ὑϕ’ ὧν.—ἔχειν post μήτε suppl. Ross:
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
We Don’t reply in this website, you need to contact by email for all chapters
Instant download. Just send email and get all chapters download.
Get all Chapters For E-books Instant Download by email at
etutorsource@gmail.com
You can also order by WhatsApp
https://api.whatsapp.com/send/?phone=%2B447507735190&text&type=ph
one_number&app_absent=0
Send email or WhatsApp with complete Book title, Edition Number and
Author Name.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Aristotelica
15
Dirlmeier is probably right to say that ἔχειν is to be (and can be) understood. It would certainly have been easier on the eye if Aristotle had
written in the ἔχειν, but that is not always his way in EE, even in its
more fluent parts.
a12 πάντως Langerbeck: but πάντα, ‘in everything’, is surely better.
a14 καὶ διότι is the pair of a11 διά τε τὸ ῥηθὲν ἀρτίως. This edition
does without parenthesizing brackets, chiefly on the grounds that
Aristotle’s parentheses tend to be part of the forward sweep of his argument: that is, rather than being hermetically sealed units, like their
modern counterparts, they can include elements that are indispensable
to the onward movement of the surrounding argument. That may not be
quite the case here, and brackets would in this instance certainly make
the text more immediately readable; thus Bekker, then Susemihl and
Walzer/Mingay, all bracketing off a13–14 νῦν δ’ . . . τοῖς εἰρημένοις. But
in following his train of thought Aristotle quite often writes unwieldy
sentences, and if brackets make them more reader-­friendly, they often
unhelpfully obscure the argument in the process; even here, a13–14 is
actually of a piece with what precedes it. In extreme cases, where a
parenthesis actually interrupts the syntax, I use dashes.
a19 δὲ: καὶ L; δὲ καὶ Ald., and then also Walzer/Mingay, attributing
it to Walzer. The crucial question, introduced by L’s καὶ, is how far
back the proemion is meant to stretch; I take it to be just to the beginning of the last paragraph, which looks to be a proemion par excellence, and so prefer PCB’s δὲ. Walzer/Mingay’s δὲ καὶ derives
immediately from Susemihl’s ‘δὲ om. [Oxon. Marc.] // καὶ secl.
Spengelius Susem.’ Bekker also had δὲ καὶ (‘δὲ om. [Marc.]’). But
PCB all have just δὲ, and I see no compelling reason to combine this,
as the expected connective (though connectives are not infrequently
missing in EE), with L’s καὶ.
a21 ἐπὶ τῷ σαϕῶς (B): i.e. ‘for the sake of clarity’ (see LSJ s.v. ἐπί
Β.ΙΙΙ.2), picking up on the σαϕῶς of 1216b34, with εὑρεῖν not part of
a noun clause (i.e. τῷ σαϕῶς εὑρεῖν) but rather a straightforward
infinitive after ζητοῦντες; το (PCL) for τω and vice versa is a standard error.
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
16
Eudemian Ethics I
1217a34–5 οὐδὲ τῶν ἀγαθῶν: I understand ‘so not participating in the
relevant goods either (i.e. those involving movement, as πρακτὰ ἀγαθά
do)’—another example of the often elliptical style of EE.
a38 What B writes here is apparently πράξεως; it is hard, at any rate, to
see what else it could be (at first sight it seems to end -κης, but the accent
is against it, appearing as it does over what ought to be a preceding
alpha). The mess may reflect the copyist’s own uncertainty about what
was in his source.
b5 Bessarion evidently saw there was something wrong with τῷ αἴτιῳ,
but changed the wrong word. —The same correction he then makes of
ἀγαθοῦ to ἀγαθοῖς is also later made by Victorius (with a ‘γρ.’).
b10 ἐκείνης: the ἐκείνοις in B is corrected with an eta above the οι.
b21 ἰδέας: editors adopt Marc.’s ἰδέαν (also proposed by Victorius, with
a ‘γρ.’), not knowing of B’s ἰδέας—­which Bessarion also reads, it seems
independently, in Par. 2042.
b22 B has a wavy line under the ουο of ὁτουοῦν, perhaps signalling
(wrongly) a need for correction; cf. L at b27.
b27 τῷ ὄντι ἀγαθόν: the evidence overall suggests that ω, the common
source of PCBL, lacked the definite article before ἀγαθόν; P inserts it,
while B adds a τὸ in a different place, creating a new and different, and
wrong, sense. Cf. 1218a14–15 πᾶσι γὰρ ὑπάρχει κοινόν, another exactly
parallel case where we might have expected the article; perhaps also
1218a21, 38 (L has a wavy line under the omega and omicron of τωόντι,
evidently indicating the need for correction; cf. B at b22).
b29 πρός τι for πότε in Marc., as reported by Walzer/Mingay (I have
not checked), would presumably be attraction to the following πρὸς
(τούτοις).
b33 ⟨τὸ⟩ διδασκόμενον is preferred by editors, but the omission of the
second article under these conditions is common in EE. (Walzer/
Mingay attributes the article to Rav., while Susemihl, saying that P and
Pal. 165 omit it, implies that C, Marc., and Oxon. also have it. C does not;
Marc., copying from Rav., presumably does have it, and it would not be
particularly striking, or interesting, if Oxon. supplied it independently.)
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Aristotelica
17
b34 παρὰ: B here, unusually, mimics the shorthand for παρά found in
MSS like P and C, which the L copyist presumably misread in ω.
1218a2 Bessarion’s πρῶτον for πρότερον is perhaps just an error of transcription (but cf. Spengel at 1217b13); he goes on to write προτέρου for
πρῶτου in the next line, as does Spengel, independently, and πρῶτον for
πρότερον in a8, all of which plays havoc with the argument (this is a rare
lapse on his part). Spengel himself then writes πρότερον for πρῶτον in a5
and a6; it is not clear whether his version does any better than Bessarion’s.
a8 Barnes calls Rassow’s conjecture of ἔτι for the MSS’ εἰ ‘palmary’, but
(a) the ἢ both provides the required connective and suitably introduces
a new (step in the) argument: ‘or else τὸ κοινὸν turns out to be the ἰδέα’,
i.e. in all cases, whereas we have just been considering the cases ἐν ὅσοις
ὑπάρχει τὸ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον; (b) ἤ and εἰ are not infrequently
confused, because the ligature for εἰ in these MSS is close in shape to ἤ,
while being clearly distinguishable from ἔτι, which is always written out
in full. The latter is not a decisive consideration on its own, but provides
support for (a), if (a) holds.
a14 Susemihl, and then Walzer/Mingay, accept Rassow’s supplement
(τὸ ἀγαθὸν μᾶλλον ἀγαθὸν τῷ ἀίδιον εἶναι· οὐδὲ) between οὐδὲ and
δὴ, but such a conclusion is surely obvious enough not to need stating
(and in any case one would have expected οὔτε . . . οὔτε . . . rather than
οὐδὲ . . . οὐδὲ . . .). Woods, in his commentary ad loc., thinks even more is
missed out, sketching what he thinks needs to be added to make a
decent argument. But I propose that a satisfactory sense can be made of
what the MSS give us. Just as we can easily supply the conclusion that
the good is not made more of a good by being ἀΐδιον, so we can supply
‘and if the [form of] the good is more of a good’ to complete what follows: ‘and so (ὥστε), sc. if the ἰδέα is more of a good, then neither
(οὐδὲ) is τὸ κοινὸν ἀγαθὸν ταὐτὸ τῇ ἰδέᾳ (the hypothesis we were
working with: a8–9 ἢ συμβαίνει τὸ κοινὸν εἶναι τὴν ἰδέαν, κτλ [hence
οὐδὲ δὴ]), because it—­a15 κοινόν = τὸ κοινόν, subject­—­belongs to
every good [sc. which the form will not if it is somehow more of a good
than other goods]’. This is standard Eudemian ellipse. —ταὐτὸ: C alone
has the crasis mark.
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
18
Eudemian Ethics I
1218a15 ‘γρ. ἢ ὡς’, then (a17) ‘γρ. ἀνομολογουμένων’, Victorius.
a23 τάξις καὶ ἠρεμία: or should we read τάξεις καὶ ἠρεμίαι, rather
than accepting B’s τάξις—­which appears in Rav., Matr. 4627, and
Ambr., all independently, it seems, of B—­in the same phrase? After all,
we have just had τάξεις . . . καὶ ἀριθμοί (a19), as part of the same dialectical
argument. On the other hand, the plural there could be the cause of the
­plural τάξεις here in PCL. —P2’s ἀριθμοί, in the margin, prefaced with
ἴσως, continues the process, substituting for ἠρεμία because of the
­plural τάξεις, and in imitation of a19.
a27 γρ: τοῦτο P2 in margin. Τhe γρ is followed by something superscript; probably αι, as Harlifinger says, so γρ[άϕετ]αι, but possibly (see
on a38 below) -ον, so γρ[απτέ]ον.
a29 ἀλόγοις L: an easy error, perhaps, after the ending -εν. (It is perhaps
worth recording that P, for instance, has two separate ligatures/marks
for -ως, one of which lends itself easily to being confused with that for
-ου; both appear, I notice, in this stretch in P, apparently with no rule as
to when or why one might be preferred over the other.)
a36–7 Cook Wilson actually proposed to bracket a37–8 ἔτι οὐ πρακτόν
as well, but that seems a step too far; it is ἔτι καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ
γεγραμμένον, ἢ γὰρ . . . ἢ πάσαις ὁμοίως that is suspect, for the following reasons. Aristotle is summing up (ἔχει ἀπορίας τοιαύτας, κτλ).
Now ἔτι καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ γεγραμμένον . . . either (a) refers back, or
(b) refers to some other work. If (a), then he has no need for τὸ ἐν τῷ
λόγῳ γεγραμμένον; the point in question has been made (at considerable length, if only implicitly) in 1217b24–1218a1, and the ones mentioned in the last sentence were already similarly ἐν τῷ λόγῳ
γεγραμμένα—­why, then, describe this point thus and not the others?
So—­if it is a backward reference—­τὸ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ γεγραμμένον must
have been written by someone else. If (b), i.e. if the reference is supposed
to be to some other work, its form is too vague for Aristotle to think it
could be useful to a reader, or perhaps even to himself (we should not,
I think, rule out the possibility that he could indulge on occasion in
notes to himself ); indeed, it would not even be useful to the glossator.
I conclude that the sentence in question refers back to the discussion we
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Aristotelica
19
have just had, and that it was written by someone other than Aristotle; it
was a glossator’s amplification of Aristotle’s own summing up, and got
itself incorporated into it in the process of transmission.
a38 αὐτοαγαθόν B2: there is what looks like a circumflex over the final
letter of αὐτὸ and the gap between it and ἀγαθόν, probably intended to
indicate that the two words should rather be one. Aristotle presumably
cannot be saying that τὸ κοινὸν ἀγαθόν is not itself good, and while
αὐτὸ ἀγαθόν could possibly be Eudemian Greek for αὐτὸ τἀγαθόν
(P2, regularizing, writes in the margin γρ[απτέ]α: οὔτε αὐτὸ τἀγαθὸν
ἐστὶ or ἔστι: the α, or what looks like α, is superscript: Harlfinger reads
γρ[άϕετ]αι), it seems reasonable, in the absence of the definite article
from all of PCBL before corrections, to accept the gift from B2,
αὐτοαγαθόν being an Aristotelian formation (Met. 998a28). (We might
have wished for a def­in­ite article with αὐτοαγαθόν itself, but so too we
might have wished for one in 1217b27.) The crasis mark on P2’s
τἀγαθόν appears to be written twice, probably as a result of his moving
it so that it is more clearly over the first alpha: either that, or P2 intends
τ’ ἀγαθόν, which seems unlikely, although oddly Walzer/Mingay prints
it in the text.
1218b2 ὑπάρξη CBL: the final character in B is actually somewhat
ambiguous; it is probably an eta, but is nonetheless close in some
respects to the ligature for ει—­thus illustrating the ease with which the
mistake, eta for ει, can be made.
b5 πρακτὸν2 in B is split πρα-κτὸν between two lines, and there is what
looks like a hyphen before the second part.
b6 τοῦτο Laur. 81,42 (and Spengel): but see e.g. 1219a24.
b8 L puts a heavy stop after ϕανερὸν (accenting -ὸν), seemingly taking
it as marking the end of the previous sentence, which suggests how a
connective could have fallen out (and οὖν [Brandis] would perhaps be
the most at risk after -ὸν). Connectives are sometimes absent in EE, but
probably not here, where Aristotle is announcing the conclusion of a
major set of arguments.
b15 τοιαῦτ’/τοιαῦτα is quite defensible, if we take Aristotle to be saying
‘by their being things of such a sort’, i.e. each such as to be something, in
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
20
Eudemian Ethics I
(1218b15) its own way, κύριον πασῶν, sc. ἐπιστήμων. L’s τοιαύτας looks
like a ditto­graphy after ἄλλας, which Bekker then makes into proper Greek.
b18 τἄλλα CB1L: B2 adds what looks like a second crasis mark but which
is probably a signal to split up τἄλλα into τὰ ἄλλα.
b19 τοῦ P1CBL, τὸ1 P2: there are clear signs of an erasure after the τὸ in
P; the likelihood is that there was originally a τοῦ, as in CBL, mimicking
the following οὗ. —τοῦ P1CBL, τὸ2 P2: here the correction in P is
achieved by crude overwriting.
b21 Woods adopts Ross’s καίτοι, translating ‘but an efficient cause of
health’s existence, not of its being good’, but (a) this would perhaps be an
unusual way to use καίτοι; (b) ‘not of . . .’ suggests καὶ οὐ rather than
ἀλλ’ οὐ, and (c) τόδε, picking up αἴτιον, as it does, is both a more economical solution for the impossible τότε and makes perfect sense.
b28 [μετὰ ταῦτα ἄλλην λαβοῦσιν ἀρχήν]: Aristotle might have c­ hosen
to finish a book with the same words he would use to start the next one
(minus the connective, which of course won’t fit here), as a way of
­marking the continuity between Book I and Book II, but it seems more
likely that someone else did it. (P has the title of the following book,
‘ἠθικῶν εὐδημίων – – – – β´ ’ starting a line and λαβοῦσιν ἀρχήν, officially the last two words of Book I, ending the same line, an arrangement
that perhaps suggests the same idea, i.e. that the repetition is there simply to link the two books.) Susemihl’s proposal to bracket either the
whole of the last sentence of Book I or the first sentence of Book II is
probably excessive, although it must be said that even without μετὰ
ταῦτα ἄλλην λαβοῦσιν ἀρχήν, the end of Book I as the MSS preserve
it, with its threefold ἄριστον, is distinctly problematical (‘turbata quaedam in his verbis esse monet Bu[ssemaker]’, Susemihl). Allan’s supplement of καὶ after ποσαχῶς gives the sentence a better structure, but it is
not clear that Book II actually does examine ‘in how many ways τὸ ὡς
τέλος ἀγαθὸν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ τὸ ἄριστον τῶν πρακτῶν is also τὸ
ἄριστον πάντων’—if that is what Allan intends. Not dissimilar problems arise with the last full sentence of EE VIII/V: there in EE VIII/V
I emend, and it may be that surgery is needed here too, but it is hard to
see exactly where to begin the cutting. (I might start with the definite
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/08/23, SPi
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Aristotelica
21
article before the second ἄριστον, and perhaps the one before the first;
but this would be no more than tinkering.) —Against Dirlmeier’s πῶς
for ποσαχῶς in b26 there is the previous use of ποσαχῶς at 1217b1,
where he mistakenly translates λέγεται ποσαχῶς as ‘wie viele
Bedeutungen das Wort hat’, when the reference is plainly to three different views (‘Meinungen’) people take, and/or might take, of τὸ ἄριστον
(hence Kenny’s more neutral ‘in how many senses the expression is used’
[Oxford World’s Classics]); in the present context too, in the first few
lines of Book II, Aristotle will reintroduce the main three main views on
the nature of εὐδαιμονία (ϕρόνησις . . . καὶ ἀρετὴ καὶ ἡδονή, ὧν ἢ ἔνια
ἢ πάντα τέλος εἶναι δοκεῖ πᾶσιν: Ι.1, 1218b34–6), between which he
will choose. So ποσαχῶς fits; πῶς will fit too, but not so obviously better as to justify the emendation.
Download Complete Ebook By email at etutorsource@gmail.com
We Don’t reply in this website, you need to contact by email for all chapters
Instant download. Just send email and get all chapters download.
Get all Chapters For E-books Instant Download by email at
etutorsource@gmail.com
You can also order by WhatsApp
https://api.whatsapp.com/send/?phone=%2B447507735190&text&type=ph
one_number&app_absent=0
Send email or WhatsApp with complete Book title, Edition Number and
Author Name.