Skip to main content

Full text of "The politics of Aristotle"

See other formats

Cornell University 

The original of tiiis book is in 
tine Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 


WJI 1? 

UVl *9 



i 77 ^^r— 



wm -^ 

-VU KP * 


■jaa — anrs . 

t 7 Jia- J 






sfl^nt 8 







Cornell University Library 
JC 71.A43N55 1887 

The politics of Aristotle. 

3 1924 005 693 605 


nn . 










Oxford University Press Warehouse 
Amen Corner, E.C. 










[ All rights r^ei'ved ] 


y-i -1 ^v^/ 






The Politics of Aristotle i 

On the Manuscripts of the Politics and the Latin Transla- 
tion OF William of Moerbeke ...... xll 

Text of Book I i 

Text of Book II 22 

Critical Notes 57 

Notes to Book I .......... 97 

Notes to Book II ... . 226 

Appendices : — 

Appendix A. On the relation of the teaching of the Nicomachean 

Ethics to that of the Politics .... • • 385 

Appendix B. On the Carthaginian Constitution .... 401 

Appendix C. Various readings of MS. Phillipps S91 (z) of 

William of Moerbeke's Latin Translation (Books i, ii) . . 408 


A TREATISE on Politics in eight books, probably The Poli- 
identical with that known to us as 'the Politics/ finds a*','^^"!:. 

' cmded in 

place in all the three catalogues of Aristotle's works which all the 
have been handed down to us — that given by Diogenes Aristotle's 
Laertius in his life of Aristotle, that of the anonymous works, 
writer first published by Menage in his commentary on 
Diogenes Laertius, and that of ' Ptolemy the philosopher,' 
which exists only in an Arabic translation ^. 

It is described in the first thus (No. 75) — ■n-oXtriK^s uKpod- 
(reais as ^ @eo<ppdaTov a ^ y 8 e f f rj : in the second (No. 70) 
— TTokiTLKTJs aKpodcTews 7} : in the third (No. 3a) — if we follow 
Stpinschneider's Latin translation (Aristot. Fragm. 1469 
sqq.) — liber de regimine ciyitatum et nominatur bulitikun 
(s. bolitikun) tractatus viii. 

The list of the Anonymus Menagianus is thought by 
Heitz^ not to be copied from that of Diogenes, but to 
be drawn from a common source. Some of its variations 
from the text of Diogenes, in fact, are too considerable to 
have arisen in the process of copying. It omits works 
named by Diogenes, but also names some which we 
do not find in his list^ We see that the words as fi 
©eo^pacrrou do not appear in its version of the title 
of the Politics. They may probably not have existed 
in the document copied. We cannot tell how they came 

^ The three catalogues will be translation by Steinschneider. 

found at the commencement of ^ Die verlorenen Schriften des 

the fifth volume of the Berlin Aris- Aristoteles, p. 1 7. 

totle — the third of them in a Latin ' Heitz, ibid. p. 15. 


to appear in the list of Diogenes^- Did he find them 
in the source from which he copied his list, or did he add 
them himself? Or are they a gloss which has crept from 
the margin of Diogenes into his text ? Their meaning is 
as doubtful as their origin. They may merely mean that 
the Political Teaching both of Theophrastus and of Aris- 
totle was arranged in eight books : more probably they 
mean that the work was identical with one which was 
ascribed to Theophrastus as its author. Cicero some- 
times cites, as from Theophrastus, statements the like of 
which we find in the Politics ; but it does not follow that 
he may not owe them to Theophrastus, for Theophrastus 
may well have repeated remarks originally made by Aris- 
totle, and we know that Cicero distinguishes between the 
works of Aristotle and Theophrastus on the best con- 
stitution^, so that one part of the Politics at all events 
cannot have been ascribed by him to Theophrastus. 

The term dxpoao-is perhaps implies that the work was 
delivered in the form of oral lectures^, and to associates*, 
not to ot -noKKol, but Galen speaks of Aristotle ' writing ' 
his aKpoaa-eis, and makes no distinction in this respect be- 
tween them and the rest of his works ^. In the Rhetoric 
(i. 8. 1366 a 21) — a reference which may well have been 
inserted by some later hand — we find the Politics called 

^ See on this subject Zeller, Gr. by Heitz, ibid. p. 2 ion.) 

Ph. 2. 2. 678. I. * Cp. Galen, de Subst. Facult. 

^ De Fin. 5. 4. 11: cumque 4. p. 758 Kiihn (quoted by Heitz, 

uterque eorutn docuisset qualem ibid. p. 138), 'Apia-Torekovs /cat 

in re publica principem esse con- Qeocfipda-Tov to. ftev toIs ttoXXois 

veniret, pluribus praeterea con- yeypa<i>6Tav, ras Se oKpoaa-eis rots 

scripsisset, qui esset optimus rei iralpois. 

publicae status, hoc amplius Theo- ^ See the passage of Galen 

phrastus, quae essent in re publica quoted in the last note. It seems 

rerum inclinationes et momenta to have been a common practice 

temporum, quibus esset moder- for the author of a book to read it 

andum, utcumque res postularet. aloud to an audience : cp. Cic. 

' Aristox. Elem. Rhythm. 2. p. Brutus c. 51. 191 : (Antimachus) 

30 Meibom., KaB&irep ' ApiirTOTiXris cum, convocatis auditoribus, lege- 

riel fiH/yeiTo tovto wXeiVtous tS>v ret eis magnum illud quod novistis 

aKovcrdvTdiv Ttapa HKdraivos Tr]v irepX volumen suum, et eum legentem 

TayaSov aKpoacriv nadeiv' irpotrUvai omnes praeter Platonem reliquis- 

yap eKaoTov viroXanfiavovra Xij- sent, 'legam,' inquit, 'nihilo minus, 

■\jfca-6ai Tt Twv vopiCop,4va>v tovtcou Plato enim mihi unus instar est 

dp6pa>7rivav ayadav k.tX. (Quoted omnium.' 


by the name by which we know it {Ta'-noKiTiK&y. The 
Politics itself speaks of its inquiries as being -nepi TroXtretas 
Kttt tLs eKatTTT] Koi TTOio Tis (Pol. 3. I. 1274 b 32: cp. Pol. 6 
(4). 8. 1293 b 29, fiiuv be rrjv ixedobov elvai irepl TroXtreias), and 
refers at the close of the first book to succeeding portions 
of the work as to, Trepl tcls iroXiretas (i. 13. 1260 b 12). It is 
also implied to be irepl t&v iroXirei&v in 6 (4). 2. 1289 a 26^. 

References of any kind to the Politics, especially before Probable 
the time of Cicero, are scarce, and therefore the question of orSin'of 
the probable date and origin of the two first of these lists — the lists 
the oldest, apparently, of the three — is an interesting one, Dro^genL 
for, as we have seen, they mention the work by name. Laertius 

' . ^ . , . ,^ ,. , ,. , , and the 

Diogenes Laertius himself lived no earlier than the Anonymns 
second century of our era and possibly much later, but, as ^^"^j 
is well-known, he derives much of his information from far 
more ancient authorities now lost, and his list of Aristotle's 
works has been thought by many to have come to him 
through some intermediate compiler or other from Her- 
mippus of Smyrna, the disciple of Callimachus of Alexan- 
dria^, or at all events to precede the rearrangement of 
Aristotle's works by Andronicus of Rhodes, who lived in 
the first century before Christ. A short review of the 
grounds for this opinion will perhaps not be out of place 

We are told by Plutarch (Sulla c. 26) that when the 
MSS. of ' most of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus,' 
after being rescued from their long seclusion in careless 
hands at Scepsis*, had been carried off by Sulla to Rome 

^ So Alexander of Aphrodisias from the Politics, uses the ex- 

(in Aristot. Metaph. p. 15. 6 pression iv rdis noXii-iais (ie£-e 

Bonitz), €v Tols HoXiTiKois : Julian IIo\iTeiais), and Eustathius, cV 

(Ep. ad Themist. p. 260 D), ev toU noKireiais (Sus.' p. xlv, note 85). 
TToXiTiKols avyypamia&iv. I take ' Hermippus lived till about 

these references from Sus.^ p. xlv, the close of the third century be- 

note85. The work of the Platonist fore Christ. 

Eubulus also was entitled "ETri- * See the story in Strabo,p. 608- 

(rK€i/fis Tmv xm 'ApiaroTcXovs ev 9. Strabo speaks of ' the library 

SevTepa tS>v UoKiriKav npos tyjv of Theophrastus, which included 

nXaTaji-os HoKiTeiav avTeiprjiiiuav that of Aristotle,' passing to 

(Sus.' p. xlv : Zeller, Gr. Ph. 2. 2. Neleus, and forgets to make it 

678. l). clear whether Apellicon purchased 

' Michael Ephesius, quoting the libraries as a whole, or only 


with the rest of the library of Apellicon of Teos, Tyran- 
nion (a contemporary of Lucullus and Cicero) put them in 
order {lv<jK&ia.(Ta(T6ai rci, voWd), and Andronicus, ' having 
obtained from him the copies which had been made of 
them ' (cp. Strabo, p. 609), 'pubhshed them, and framed the 
lists now current' (irap' avrov tov 'Pobiov 'AvbpoviKov eviro- 
prfcravra t&v dvTiypa.(f)Uiv els ii,i(rov 6eivai, Koi avaypa^ai rovs 
vvv ^epopievovs irtra/cas). We learn further from an equally 
well-known passage of Porphyry's Life of Plotinus, that 
Andronicus arranged the works of both writers on a new 
principle. The passage is as follows: — 'EttcI be avrbs 
(Plotinus) r^z; biAra^iv koi Trjv biopdaxriv t&v ^i^KImv TsoielaOai 
f}p!iv eTrirpeyj/ev, iyli> be Ka.KeLv<f fSyn VT!e(r)(6p,r]V km roiy aXA.ots 
eirrjyyeiXaprjv Troirjaai tovto, Trp&Tov jxev ra j3t/3Ata ov Kara 
■)(^p6vovs eacrai <f>vpbrjv eKbebopLeva ^biKaiwcra, ixi)j,7]criip,evos 8 
' AiroWoboipov rbv ' Adrjvaiov kol ' KvbpoviKov rdv irepntaTrjTiKov, 
&v 6 ixev 'Et! [)(a.pij.ov rbv Ka>p,(obwypA^ov els beKa ro/nous <f>epa>v 
(Tvvriyayev, 6 be to. Apia-TOTeXovs kol &eo<f>p6.(rTov els irpayp-a- 
Teias bieiXe, ras olKeias VTTodicreis els ravrdv avvayaydv, ovtio 
bri Kot eya itevT'^KOvTa recnrapa ovra e)(a)V ra tov IIA.cortj;ou 
fii^Kla 8ierA.oi» piev els ^i evvedbas, Tjj reA.etor;jrt tov I^ cLpi6p.ov 
Ka\ rats evved(TLV acrpLevais einTv\(6v, eKaoTT? be evvedbi to, olKeia 
(j)ip(ov avve(j)6prj(ra, boiis Kal rd^iv irpdrriv rois l\a<^porepot? 
iTpo^Krifj.a(nv (c. 34). 

It would seem from this passage that before the time 
of Andronicus the works of Aristotle were arranged in a 
confused and merely chronological order — the order of 
publication, apparently — and that he introduced the new 
plan of grouping them by their subject-matter, following the 
example of the grammarian Apollodorus of Athens, who 

the writings of Aristotle and forgets that Aristotle and Theo- 
Theophrastus included in them. phrastus must have possessed 
He says that Apellicon purchased many books in addition to their 
' the books of Aristotle and Theo- own compositions. Athenaeus in 
phrastus,' and fails to notice the his account speaks more distinctly, 
ambiguity of this expression. His and tells us that Apellicon pur- 
mind is, in fact, absorbed in the chased ' the Peripatetic writings ' 
story which he is telling about the (ra irtptnaTririKd) ' and the library 
fate of the writings of the two of Aristotle and many others' 
great Peripatetic teachers, and he (Deipn. 214 d). 


had in the previous century arranged the Comedies of 
Epicharmus in ten great To'/iiot^- The writings of Aris- 
totle would include both dialogues and systematic works, 
and Andronicus would seem to have grouped them to- 
gether, making, not form or date, but subject-matter the 
basis of his arrangement. We conclude that in his issue 
of the works the irept hiKaiotrvvrjs, for instance, would be 
grouped with other ethical writings ascribed to Aristotle. 
It is possible also that in some cases Andronicus took 
separate treatises and formed a new whole out of them 
under some general name. Heitz (p. 36) thinks it pro- 
bable that he did this for the treatises which together make 
up the ' Physics ' of our editions. He is not stated, how- 
ever, to have constructed any new treatise out of fragments 
of Aristotle, any more than Apollodorus constructed a new 
comedy of Epicharmus. His work would seem to have 
been one of arrangement, not of manufacture. 

As the dialogues and other exoteric writings were ap- 
parently comprised in his edition and interspersed among 
the rest of the works ^, it must have been very different 
from our own Aristotle. Many spurious works, again, are 
included in our Aristotle which can hardly have been 
ascribed to Aristotle in the time of Theophrastus, or have 
been republished by Andronicus as part of the Scepsis 
'find,' though we can well understand that some works of 
Theophrastus may have been ascribed to Aristotle or vice 
versa, the writings of the two authors having been mixed 
up together. 

Andronicus' issue of Aristotle's works was probably an 
event of great importance, though not quite as import- 
ant as a hasty reader of Strabo might imagine. When 
Strabo asserts, rightly or wrongly, that the Lyceum library 
at Athens had come, after the withdrawal of Neleus to 
Scepsis, to possess only ' a few ' of the works of Aris- 

'^ 'Tofiog here as everywhere Andronicus can have placed the 

else must mean a papyrus-roll ' letters and poems ; it is, however, 

(Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, p. hardly likely that they formed part 

496). of the Scepsis find. 

" It is not easy to see where 


totle, he makes this assertion with respect to that one 
library ; he need not be taken to assert the same thing of 
other great Hbraries of the Hellenic world, such as those of 
Alexandria and Pergamon. Strabo's aim is, in fact, to give 
an explanation of the comparative torpor of the Peripatetic 
school at Athens during the interval between Neleus and 
Andronicus, which was in all probability really due to 
other causes. His assertion is limited to Athens ; the 
libraries of Alexandria and Pergamon were no doubt in 
far better case. But even for them the publication of 
Andronicus' texts may well have been an important event. 
Not a few spurious works may have found a place among 
the writings of Aristotle preserved in these two great 
libraries, and perhaps some of the genuine works were 
wanting. The Scepsis purchase, on the contrary, would 
include only those works of Aristotle which were ascribed 
to him by Theophrastus and Neleus, and would probably 
include all of these. The publication of Andronicus' 
edition, and especially its publication at Rome, would 
serve to concentrate attention on the genuine works of 
these two writers, and to place them before the world in 
their entirety, at a moment when the really great philo- 
sophers, orators, and artists of Greece were being singled 
out from the crowd with an ardour which was altogether 
new. Copies of Aristotle's works acquired after this date 
would probably be copies of the edition of Andronicus. 

The question now arises — Is the list of Aristotle's works 
given by Diogenes ordered after the fashion of Andronicus 
or not ? The answer is not difficult. The list is not quite 
the chaos which it appears at first sight to be : on the con- 
trary, it is to a certain extent in order ; but its order is not 
the order of Andronicus. First we have the dialogues and 
other exoteric works, then two or three early abstracts of 
Platonic lectures or writings, then we come to a part of the 
list in which logical works seem to predominate ; ethical, 
political, and rhetorical works predominate towards the 
middle ; then come physical and zoological works ; last in 
order we have works designed in all probability for Aris- 


totle's own use ('hypomnematic works'), letters, and poems i. 
The arrangement can hardly be that of Andronicus ^. Dio- 
genes' list of Theophrastus' works has been shewn by Usener ^ 
to be derived from the catalogue of a library, and the same 
thing may probably be true of his list of Aristotle's works *. 
As the former list is for the most part arranged on alpha- 
betical principles, and the latter is not, it is doubtful 
whether they can have been derived from the same 
library-catalogue, for if they were, we should hardly ex- 
pect to find the works of Theophrastus catalogued in one 
way and those of Aristotle in another. Be this, howeverj 
as it may, Diogenes' list of Aristotle's works is probably 
derived from the catalogue of some library which had 
purchased its copy of Aristotle's works before Andronicus 
issued his edition — very possibly an Alexandrian library, 
but about this we cannot be certain. The mention of the 
Politics in it may therefore date as far back as the for- 
mation of the libraries of Alexandria, or rather perhaps the 
adoption by their authorities of the practice of dividing large 
works into ' books,' which is implied throughout the list. 
Some believe that this change dates only fi'om the time of 
Callimachus, who was chief librarian of the Museum from 
about 260 to 340 B.c.^, but the point is doubtful. 

We are on surer ground in referring Diogenes' list of 
Aristotle's works to pre-Andronican times than in at- 
tempting to fix its exact date, or the exact source from 
which it ultimately came. Diogenes may have copied it 
himself from some library-catalogucj or on the other hand 

' The list is said by Heitz * Heitz' comment on the title 

(p. 234) to resemble most of those ^raKra ij (No. 127 in Diogenes' 

we find m Diogenes m placmg Ugt of Aristotle's works) is as 

the dialogues first, the letters and follows : ' one would conjecture 

poems last, and last but one the that the substantive to be supplied 

hypomnematic writmgs. is ijro^vfjuaTa. For the choice of 

^ For other reasons which make the title the person who catalogued 

it unlikely that the list of Aris- the papyrus-rolls is unquestionably 

totle's works given by Diogenes responsible, and we must no doubt 

is ultimately derived from An- get it down to some Alexandrian 

dronicus, see Zeller, Gr. Ph. 2. 2. librarian ' (p. 236-7). 

51 sq. s See on this subject Birt, Das 

' Analecta Theophrastea, p. antike Buchwesen, p. 482 sqq. 
13 sqq. 


it may have come to him through intermediaries. The latter 
is perhaps the more probable supposition. Usener believes 
that Diogenes' list of the works of Theophrastus came to him 
ultimately from Hermippus of Smyrna, who was the author 
of a work entitled Btot, which dealt, among other subjects, 
with the lives of philosophers and orators^. He admits 
that there are peculiarities in the structure of this list 
which at first sight make against his view. It is taken, as 
he has shewn, from the catalogue of a library, which 
apparently added from time to time, by purchase or other- 
wise, to the collection of the writings of Theophrastus 
which it originally possessed, and catalogued both its 
original stock and (for the most part at all events) its 
later acquisitions in alphabetical order. Thus the list 
consists of a long alphabetical list followed by a shorter 
alphabetical list, which is in its turn succeeded first by 
a group of books not arranged in any order, and next 
by a third alphabetical group. We know that Hermippus 
was an accomplished writer and scholar^, and it is natural 
to ask, would he have made his list a mere transcript of an 
ill-arranged library-catalogue ? Usener replies that few of 
the early -nivaKoypa^oi. did their work any better ^ Ancient 
authorities speak of Hermippus and Andronicus as having 
drawn up lists of Theophrastus' works*, and mention no 
one else as having done so ; and Diogenes' list of his 
works is clearly not by Andronicus. But if the Biot of 
Hermippus is the ultimate source from which this list 
came, it does not follow that Diogenes' list of the works 
of Aristotle was also derived from it. We do not know 

^ See Miiller, Fr. Hist. Gr. 3. merito: nam omnibus antiquorum 

35. TTivaKojcreliquiis — si librorum tabu- 

^ We owe to him the vivid las ab ipsis scriptoribus aut disci- 
sketch of Theophrastus in his pulls familiarissimis confectas ut 
lecture-room which Athenaeus has par est excipias — id proprium est, 
preserved for us (Deipn. 21 a). quod ea tantum quae in certis 

^ ' Meae sententiae ' (the view bibliothecis siue Alexandrina sine 

that the list came through Her- Pergamena siue aliis conlecta 

mippus) ' ilia ipsa obicere possis erant respici solent uolumina ' 

unde ex bibliothecae usu ortam (Usener, Analecta Theophrastea, 

hanc tabulam esse studui osten- p. 24). 

dere. uerum haud scio an im- * Heitz, p. 47. 


for certain that Hermippus drew up a list of Aristotle's 
works; and if we admit that it is highly probable that 
he did, we are still met by the difficulty of accounting for 
the entire contrast between the structure of the one list and 
that of the other. The list of Theophrastus' works is 
alphabetical ; that of Aristotle's works is not. 

Notwithstanding this difficulty, however, it is perhaps 
more than possible that both lists may have come from 
the work of Hermippus. They may even have come from 
a still earlier source. The Biot of Hermippus was probably 
in part an expansion and revision ^ of portions of the vast 
work of Callimachus (in lao books), entitled Ilfoaf iravTo- 
SairMz; (Tvyypa]Xfi,aTaiv, or irCvaKes t&v ev Ttdcrr) Traibelq StoXaju- 
■^dvTav Koi &v avviypayjrav, which gave lists of authors — 
orators, poets, lawgivers, philosophers — classified in separate 
groups according to the nature of their writings, and 
added in each case the full titles of these writings, the 
number of books, the initial words, and the number of 
lines. ' In the case of writers who were the authors of 
more works than one the total number of lines contained 
in their works was given ^.' We are at once reminded 
of the remark with which Diogenes concludes his list 
of Aristotle's writings, that they contain 445,370 lines. 
His enumeration of the writings of Theophrastus con- 
cludes with a similar mention of the number of lines 
contained in them. The work of Callimachus, who, as has 
been said, was chief librarian of the Alexandrian Museum, 
was probably based on the collection of books preserved 
in the Museum Library and the' stores of other Alexan- 
drian libraries, and this would explain some characteristics 
of the two lists to which reference has already been made. 

The Politics, then, is included in a list of Aristotle's OAer 

.,,,,.,. r 1. 1 indications 

works which dates m all probability from an earlier epoch of theexist- 
than that of Andronicus. Other indications of its existence p°^ti°/s"^^ 

'SeeMiiller,Fr.Hist.Gr.3.46: ^ See Birt, Das antike Buch- 

Hermipp. Callimach. fr. 46. wesen, p. 164. 


are derivable from works whose date is less doubtful and 
also probably earlier. 

Thus in the Eudemian Ethics the following passages 
remind us of passages in the Politics and may perhaps 
be based on its teaching — 3. i. 1229 a 38, cp. Pol. 4 (7). 7- 
1328 a 7 : 3. 4. 1231 b 39 sqq., cp. Pol. i. 9. 1257 ^ ^ ^qq. 
(where however both uses of the shoe are said to be koS' 
aiiTo) : 7. a. 1238 b 7 sq., cp. Pol. 4 (7). 13. 1332 a 10 sqq. ? : 
7. 10. 1242 a 6 sqq., cp. Pol. 3. 6. 1278 b ao sq. : 7. 10. 
124a a 13-31, cp. Pol. 4 (7). 8. 1328 a 28 sqq.^ 

In the Magna Moralia the following — i. 25. 119a a 16 
sqq., cp. Pol. I. 9. 1258 a 10 sq. and 10. 1258 a 21 sq. : i. 34. 
1194 b 9, cp. Pol. 6 (4). II. 1295 b 25: I. 34. 1194 b 18, cp. 
Pol. I. 4. 1254 a 12. 

The so-called first book of the Oeconomics (which is 
ascribed by Philodemus to Theophrastus ^, though Zeller 
(Gr. Ph. 2. 2. 944) is half inclined to ascribe it to Eude- 
mus) is to a large extent a reproduction of the teaching of 
the Politics on this subject, though the writer also makes use 
of the Laws of Plato and the writings of Xenophon. The 
compiler of the so-called second book of the Oeconomics, 
which seems to be of a later date, is also apparently ac- 
quainted with the Politics (compare Oecon. a. 1346 a 26 
sqq. with Pol. i. 11. 1259 ^ 3 sq-)-- 

Indications of an acquaintance with the Politics appear 
also in the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, which is wrongly 
included among the works of Aristotle: e.g. in 3. 1424 a 13 
sqq., with which Zeller (Gr. Ph. a. a. 78. 2) has compared 
Pol. 8 (6). 4. 1318 b 27-38 (cp. also Pol. 8 (6). 5. 1330 b 11 
sqq.): also in 3. 1434b 3 sqq., cp. Pol. 7 (5). 8. 1308 b 34 

'^ Since the above was written, 15. 553 sqq.) holds that in Eth. 

I find that Susemihl has drawn Eud. 2. 1. 1218 b 32 sqq. the writer 

attention to one of these passages had before him, not only Eth. Nic. 

(Eth. Eud. 7. 2. 1238 b S sqq.) in I. 8. 1098 b 9 sqq., but also Pol. 

his third edition of the Politics 4 (7). I. 1323 a 21 sqq. 

(p. xix, note). He also thinks that ^ Phi|^demus de Virtutibus et 

in Eth. Eud. 7. 15. 1248 b 26 sqq. Vitiis lib. ix. col. 7, reprinted in 

the writer had Pol. 4 (7). 13. 1332 a Aristotelis Oeconomica, ed. Gott- 

21 sqq. before him. Zeller {Hermes hng,'p. 45. 


sqq., 1309 a 2,2 sq., and Pol. 6 (4). 13. 1397 b 6 sq. : also in 
3. 1434 b 10 sqq., cp. Pol. 7 (5). 8. 1309 a 14-23. 

A An acquaintance with Pol. 7 (5). 4. 1303 b a8 sqq. on the 

part of the writer of the De Animalium Motione may 
possibly be indicated in c. 7. 701 b 24 sqq. 

So again, in the passage from Theophrastus wept /3ao-t\etay 
of which we have the substance and something more in 
Dionys. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5. 73-4, we seem to detect many 
reminiscences of the Politics, and especially a clear 
reminiscence of Pol. 3. 14. 1285 a 30 sqq. If Bernays is 
right (Theophrastos iiber Frommigkeit, p. 61 , sqq.) in 
regarding Porphyr. de Abstin. 3. I2 sqq. as an excerpt from 
Theophrastus, the disciple perhaps refers in the words d h\ 
\iyoi ris k.t.X. to his master's teaching in Pol. i. 8. 1256 b 
15 sqq. 

In the Fragments of Aristoxenus, again, we seem to 
trace occasional echoes of the Politics : compare, for instance, 
Fragm. 19 from his TlvdayopiKoL airoc/xio-eis (Miiller, Fr. Hist. 
Gr. a. 278) with Pol. 2. 8. 1269 a 14 sq., and Fragm. 20 with 
Pol. 4(7). 16. 1335 a II sqq.i 

■' It is unfortunate that the loss 
of a few letters in the Herculanean 
papyri on which what remains of 
the work of Philodemus de Virtu- 
tibus et Vitiis is written makes it 
uncertain whether Metrodorus, 
the friend and disciple of Epicu- 
rus, had or had not seen the 
Politics. Philodemus says in the 
Ninth Book of this work (col. 21 : I 
quote from the text of it appended 
to Gottling's edition of the Oeco- 
nomica ascribed to Aristotle) — 
KoireiTa 8' .... as exeiv as Tovs re 
TToWoiis e^eXeyxo[vTe]s evB' &v ivav- 
TLtos [ti avTols'] KaT7}yo\j3S3\(rtv VTTep 
tS)V avTatV) Koi Twv ay[vo]ovfieucov ti 
8i8d\(r]K0VTes, 6[jr]ep 'Apt(rToreX[i)»] 
'iiraOev [Kara] tov iv Tai^ne[p\l 
7r[oX«riK^r] \6yov virep tov rSv [lulev 
[dya]floi/ avSpa Ka\ ^PwE"""''''?]'' 
ayaBbv elvat, TOV 8[e] ^[aiXJov' koi 


}(p7]fiaTt(TT^v [(^aOJXoi/, as 6 Mt;* 
Tpodapos [o]n'e[5]et^ei/. Gottling 
(p. 206) supposes that the refer- 
ence is to Eth. Nic. 4. I, but 
the context (col. 17 sqq.) might 
equally well be taken to refer to 
the passage about Thales in Pol. 
I. II. 1259 a 6-18. It is, in fact, 
just possible that the word which 
Gottling supplies as TroXmKrjs, or 
noXcmKrjs, was noXiTeias — Rose 
supplies jToXtTfias and takes the 
reference to be to Pol. I. 8-10 — 
but it seems more probable that 
the reference is to a dialogue, in 
which case we may supply either 
irXovTov (with Spengel, followed 
by Heitz, p. 195, and Zeller, Gr. 
Ph. 2. 2.61. i), or possibly TToXtTiKoO. 
When Metrodorus is related (Plu- 
tarch adv. Colot. c. 33) to have 
found fault with philosophers, who 


Hieronymus of Rhodes, who lived at the close of the fourth 
and in the first half of the third century B.C., seems from 
Diog. Laert. i. a6 to have told in his SiropaSTjv vvoixvrjiiaTa 
the story about Thales which we read in Pol. i. ii, and 
in a form which, though shortened, is very similar to that 
of the Aristotelian narrative ^- It is, however, possible that 
the two writers derived it from a common source. 

In the dialogue entitled Erastae, which is included among 
Plato's works, though it can hardly be his, there are things 
which remind us of Aristotle's teaching : the distinction 
drawn (135 C sqq.) between 6 rr/v rexvqv ex.a)v and 6 ireTratSeti- 
ixevos is perhaps more emphasized than we expect to find 
it in a pre-Aristotelian work and recalls, among other 
passages of Aristotle, Pol. 3. 11. 1282 a 3 sqq. ; we note also 
that the teaching of the first book of the Politics is contra- 
dicted, intentionally or otherwise, in 138 C. But we cannot 
say positively that the writer is acquainted with the Politics. 

Polybins. Polybius has often been said to show no acquaintance 
with the Politics, and it must be confessed that though 
there are passages in his Sixth Book which remind us at 
once of the Politics ^, it is not clear that he had a first-hand 
knowledge of it. His account of the origin of society and 
his constitutional teaching seem rather to be based on the 

in their pride misinterpreted the 4 (7). 15. 1334 a 25 sqq.: Polyb. 
function of philosophy, and made 6. 3. 7 with Aristot. Pol. 2. 6. 
themselves ridiculous by seeking 1265 b 33 sqq. The account of 
to rival Lycurgus and Solon, he ^acriKeia in Polyb. 6. 6. 10 sqq. re- 
may be referring to the Republic minds us of that of Aristotle : 
andLawsof Plato, not to Aristotle. Polybius' fear of aS^Tja-is vTrep to 

^ Since the above was written, 8eov (6. 10. 7) reminds us of Aris- 

I find that Prinz (De Solonis Plu- totle's warnings against aS^i/o-is 

tarchei fontibus, p. 24) and Suse- napa to avoKoyov (7 (j). 3. 1302 b 

mihl (Sus." p. xix) have already 33 sqq.,cp.7 (5).8.i3o8 b losqq.); 

drawn attention to this. and the language of Polybius as 

^ Compare Polyb. 6. 57. 2, to the Roman Constitution (6. 

Svoiv 8e TpoKwv ovToav Ka6' our 1 1. 1 1 sqq.) resembles that of Aris- 

<j)6elpe(rdai Tti4>vK€ irav yivos ttoXi- totle about the Lacedaemonian 

TEi'or, ToO pev e^toSfv, Tov 8' fv avToU constitution (Pol. 6 (4). 9. 1294 t> 

^uo/icVouwith Aristot.Pol.7(5). ID. 13 sqq.), no less than that of 

1312 b 38 sq. and other passages : Plato (Laws 712 C sqq.). 
Polyb. 6. 18. 5 with Aristot. Pol. 


views which were fashionable in the third century before 
Christ than on the teaching of the Politics. 

Society originates, according to him, in the gregarious 
tendencies common to man and many other animals, not in 
the household relation, and just as a herd of bulls is led by 
the strongest, so the primitive form of Monarchy among 
men is the rule of the strongest and boldest. It is only 
after a time, in the view of Polybius, that the experience 
of social life developes in man an e'wota roC hiKalov km. roG 
ahiKov, ToC KoKov xal roC aiaxpov (Polyb. 6. 5. ID : 6. 6. 7, 9) ^ 
— Aristotle, on the contrary, had held perceptions of this 
kind to be presupposed by human society (Pol. i. 3. 
1253 ^ 15 sqq.) — and that the Monarchy of the strongest 
giyes place to Kingship, which Aristotle had said to be the 
primitive constitution. All unmixed constitutions, how- 
ever, have, according to Polybius, a tendency to degenerate, 
and so Kingship passes into Tyranny. Aristocracy, the 
rule of the few good, succeeds, and in its turn passes into 
Oligarchy, the rule of a bad few. Then comes Democracy, 
the rule of a virtuous Many, followed by Ochlocracy, the 
rule of a vicious Many. Combine Kingship, Aristocracy, 
and Democracy in one constitution, and much will have 
been done to prevent constitutional decline and change. 
Thus Polybius recommends a mixture of these three con- 
stitutions ; this is what mixed government means to him, 
something quite different from what it means to Aristotle. 

We know that even in Aristotle's time there were those 
who commended the kind of mixed government which Poly- 
bius commends^. The Lacedaemonian constitution gave 
the hint of it. But in the century after Aristotle's death the 
union of kingship, aristocracy, and democracy rose more 
than ever into credit, vigorously preached by the Stoics, 
and also probably by the Peripatetic Dicaearchus. Polybius 
inherited this theory, and handed it on to Cicero and the 
eulogists of the English constitution in the last century. 

^ Compare the similar view of ^ See Aristot. Pol. 2. 6. 1265 b 
the Epicureans (Porphyr. de 33 sqq. 
Abstin. I. 10). 

b 3 


A connexion has been ingeniously suggested^ between 
the constitutional views of Polybius and those of the 
Eighth Book of the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle 
(c. 12. 1160 a 31 sqq.). Polybius may perhaps have 
been acquainted with this treatise 2, but it is more probable 
that the source from which he drew was the Tpfn-oXtrtKo? 
of Dicaearchus^ or some other intermediate authority*. 
His theory of constitutional change would be suggested 
or confirmed by the history of Rome, in which the \j.ovo.pyJ.a. 
of Romulus was succeeded by the kingship of Numa, and 
the tyranny of Tarquin by the aristocracy of the early 
Republic and the mixed constitution which Polybius com- 

Cicero. Cicero inherited far more from the Politics than Polybius. 

He lived like Aristotle at a time which greatly needed 
moral reinvigoration, and, like Aristotle, he sought this at 
the hands of the State. He accepts Aristotle's account of 
the end of the State (de Rep. 4. 3. 3 : 5. 6. 8), as he accepts 
his account of its origin (de Rep. 1. 35. 39), rejecting that of 
Epicurus (1. 25. 40). It exists to promote ' good and happy 
life.' But if we ask what kind of State best fulfils this end, 
the answer is that a combination of kingship, aristocracy, 
and democracy does so. Here he returns to the views of 
Polybius. As to unmixed constitutions, kingship is the 
best of them, but they are all very liable to decline into 
forms not based on 'iuris consensus et utilitatis com- 
munio' — into tyranny, the rule of a faction, and anarchy 
(de Rep. i. 45. 69). Cicero goes far beyond Aristotle in 
his condemnation of the perverted forms and denies to the 

^ By the late Mr. R. Shute in the Ilepi Aucniotruvjjr, not in the 

an unpublished essay. Nicomachean Ethics. See Cic. 

2 Polyb. 3. 4. II at any rate de Rep. 3. 6. 4: 3. 7. 10: 

appears to echo Eth. Nic. 2. 2. 3.8. 12. This, however, does not 

1104 b 30 sq. necessarily prove that the Nico- 

' See Miiller, Fr. Hist. Gr. 2. machean Ethics was not well- 

242. known at that time; the other work 

* It is worthy of notice that may have been still better known, 

when Carneades wished to attack or it may have contained in its 

Aristotle's notion of justice, he four large books a fuller treatment 

would seem to have sought it in of the subject. 


communities in which they exist the name of ' res publicae' 
(de Rep. i. 35. 39: Augustini argumentum libr. iii: de 
Rep- 3- 31- 43)- 

To devise a best State is, in Cicero's view, beyond the 
power of any single inquirer. The only way to arrive at 
a true conception of the best State is to study the Roman 
constitution, which is the work of many generations and 
centuries, and hence of unsurpassed excellence (de Rep. 
I. 46. 70 : 3. I. a). It is to the experience of Rome, there- 
fore, that Cicero has recourse, when he seeks to discover 
what institutions best promote a good and happy life. The 
institutions which do so are Roman institutions — the cen- 
sorship, the patria potestas, and others. Cicero has too 
much national feeling to follow Greek guidance in politics 
implicitly, and there is a certain originality in the way in 
which he accepts the central principle of the Politics with- 
out accepting its application in detail. His main aim is 
a conservative aim — to recall his countrymen to a sense of 
the value of the triple constitution under which Rome had 
achieved greatness, and which was increasingly imperilled 
every day by the rising tendency to autocracy, 

Cicero inherited much from the Politics, but it does not 
necessarily follow that he had a first-hand acquaintance 
with the book itself. There are passages in the De Repub- 
lica which seem to indicate such an acquaintance. Thus 
it is possible that the procedure of Aristotle in the first 
and third books of the Politics is present to Cicero's mind, 
when he announces his intention of departing from the 
practice of those learned inquirers on politics who begin 
with the union of male and female, the birth of offspring, 
and the formation of a body of kinsfolk, and frequently 
distinguish the various meanings in which this or that word 
is used (de Rep. i. 34. 38 : see vol. i. p. 34). His criticisms on 
Plato's Communism (de Rep. 4. 4. 4) seem still more clearly 
to imply an acquaintance with the Politics. The following 
passages may also be compared : de Rep. i. 34.. 5 ^ with 
Pol. I. 3. 1352 a 30 sq. and with 6 (4). 8. 1393 b 38 sqq., 
1394b i7.sq.— de Rep. i. 35. 55 with Pol. 3. 16. 1287b 


II sqq. — de Rep. a. la. 34 with Pol. a. 9. layi a 20 sq. and 
a. II. ia7ab 38 sqq. — de Rep. 3. a^. 37 J2^(^ ^^- with 
Pol. I. 4. 1 354 a 14 sq.^ 

One would suppose from the De Finibus ^ that Cicero 
was at all events acquainted with the pai't of the Politics 
which treats of the ' optimus rei publicae status/ were it 
not that in the De Republican he makes Laelius contrast 
the method of Plato, who constructed a model State, with 
that of all other inquirers. All save Plato ' disseruerunt 
sine ullo certo exemplari formaque rei publicae de generibus 
et de rationibus civitatum.' Cicero himself will in the De 
Republica so far follow Plato's example as to investigate 
'non vaganti oratione, sed defixa in una re publica.' It 
certainly looks as if Cicero was not aware, when he wrote 
the De Republica, that both Aristotle and Theophrastus 
had sketched the best form of the State. 

Philode- In reading the fragmentary remains of Philodemus de 

Musica. Musica (ed. Kemke), we often notice that Philodemus 
combats, or refers to, arguments which remind us of those 
used in the Fifth Book of the Politics. Thus Kemke 
(pp. xiii-xiv) compares lib. 3. fragm. 5a (in his edition) 
with Pol. 5 (8). 5. 1340a 18 sqq.: fragm. ^'3, with 1340a 
14 sq. : fragm. 65, 66 with 5 (8). 7. 134a a 8 sqq. One or 
two other passages of which the same thing may be said are 
'noted by Gomperz, Zu Philodem's Biichern von der Musik, 
p. 18 sq. (lib. 3. fr. 24: cp. 5 (8). 5. 1340 b a) and p. 31 (lib. 3. 
fr. 54 : cp. 1340 a aa). Perhaps the following passages may 
also be added to the list — lib. i. fr. 16, cp. 5 (8). 3. 1338 b 1 : 
fr. 17, cp. 5 (8). 5. 1340 a a-5: lib. 3. fr. 45 (where a[Tr]o- 
(^a[tj;]era[t] should pi'obably be read in place of d[AX'] & 
(^(i[(rK]eTa[t], Kemke), cp. 5 (8). 5. 1339 b 8-10 : fr. 55 and 
lib. 4. col. 3. 33 sqq., cp. 5 (8). 5. 1340 a 12 sqq. : lib. 4. col. 
15. 5 sq., cp. 5 (8). 5. 1339 a 16 sq. : col. 16. 17 sqq., cp. 5 (8). 
3. 1338 a 34 sqq. On these similarities the observations of 
Gomperz, pp. 38-39, are well worth, reading. The language 

' See also Zeller, Gr. Ph. 2. 2. 151. 6. 
° S. 4. II. ' 2. II. 22. 


of these passages, as he remarks, differs sufficiently from 
that of the Politics to make it probable that Philodemus 
had not the Politics before him, but either some work of 
Aristotle's (a dialogue, Gomperz thinks) used by him in the 
composition of the Politics, or some work which reproduced 
the Politics. It is evident, however, that the subjects dis- 
cussed in the Fifth Book had been much discussed before 
Aristotle dealt with them, and possibly some at any rate of 
the expressions which strike us as similar in the Politics 
and the De Musica may have been originally used by 
inquirers of an earlier date than Aristotle, and have come 
both to him and to Philodemus by inheritance. 

If Meineke is right, and the short sketch of the political 
teaching of the Peripatetics contained in the Eclogae of 
Stobaeus (a. 6. 17) is taken from the work of, Areius 
Didymus, the instructor of the Emperor Augustus, then 
we have clear evidence that the Politics was well known 
to this writer, for nearly everything in the sketch is derived 
from the Politics ^. 

The writer whom Plutarch follows in the latter part of 
the second chapter of his Life of Crassus was probably 
acquainted with the Politics, for the following passage 
contains several expressions familiar to readers of its 
first book. Plutarch here says of Crassus as an owner 
of slaves — roo-owrous IxeKTTjTO Koi toiovtovs . . . aiiTos stti- 
araT&v fiavOAvovtri Koi ■npo<Ti')(av Koi StSacr/cwz' Koi oXais vajxC^tav 
T<3 beffTroTT) Trpoa^Kiiv iJ.dX.KTTa Trjv vepl tovs oiKeVas kTtijj,i\eiav 
u>s opyava ep.'^rux.o- '''^s olKovofJi,iKrjs. Kal tovto p,ev opOSs 6 
Kpacrcros, ehep, ws lA.eyei', fiyeiro to, fjiev aWa 8ia t&v olKer&v 
Xpfjvai, Toiis be ot/ceVay 6t' avrov Kv^epvav' ttjv yap olicovof/,iKriv 
kv di|n/xots ■)(j)r]fx,aTi,<TTiK7iv ovcrav fv avBp^iroLS iroXiTiKrjv yiyvo- 
IJ,ivriv opSip-ev ^' ineivo be ovk ev, rd p.r]biva voixi^ew }t,7\be (j)A(rKeiv 

^ See Stobaeus, Eclogae (ed. said by Aristotle, who would not 

Meineke), torn. 2. pp. clii., cliv-v., allow the identity of any section 

and R. Volkmann, Leben Schriften of oikovo^iki? either with XPW';"''" 

und Philosophie des Plutarch von tikij or ■koKituo], yet his teaching 

Chaeroneia, I. 154 sqq. in the Politics perhaps underlies 

' This is of course nowhere this modification of it. 


eXvai irkov(nov hs ov bvvarai Tpecf)ew diro rrjs ovaias (rrpaToitebov 
(6 yap TToXeixos ov Teraytxeva criTelrai Kara tov ' Ap\ihaii,ov, 
&ad' 6 Ttpos TTokeiiov irXoCros doptoros). Crassus (c. 3) was 
interested in the teaching of Aristotle, and was instructed 
in his doctrines by a Peripatetic named Alexander^ from 
whom these facts about him may ultimately be derived. 

The writer, again, whom Plutarch followed in Agis c. ,5 
may possibly have sought to meet the criticisms which 
Aristotle passes in Pol. a. 9. 1370 a 18 sqq. on the laws of 
the Lacedaemonian State, and to show that Lycurgus was 
not in fault. See my notes on 1270 a 4 and 19. 

Those who are well versed in the Greek and Latin 
writers of the earlier Roman Empire will probably be able 
to add to the following scanty list of passages from writers 
of that epoch, which seem to indicate an acquaintance, 
direct or indirect, with the Politics or with some points of 
its teaching : — 

Plin. Epist. 7. 17 (cp. Pol. 3. 11. 1281 a 43 sqq.)^: 

Dio Chrysostom, Or. 3. 115 R sqq. {}) : the reference in 
Or. 36. 83 R to the ayadriv e^ airavTuiv ayad&v ■n6\i,v : Or. ']. 
267 R, cp. Pol. 2. 6. 1364b 39 : Or. 14. 439 R, cp. Pol. 3. 
6. 1378 b ^6: 

Plutarch, De Monarchia Democratia et Oligarchia (if the 
work be his), c. i, KaQamep yap avdpcairov ^[01 irXeoves, loTt Kal 
briixov voXireta ^los (cp. Pol. 6 (4). 11. 1295 a 40) : several 
passages in the ReipubHcae Gerendae Praecepta — c. 15. 
8 1 2 B, where the irpcapevs is spoken of as the opyavov of the 
KV^epvQTrjs (cp. Pol. I. 4. 1253 t> 39) : C. 15. 812 D, ov yap 
jxavov Trjs bvvaix,ea>s k.t.X. (cp. Pol. 2. II. 1273 b 12 sqq.): 
c. 17 zmi. (cp. Pol. 2. 2. 1 261 a 37 sqq.): c. 24 tmi. (cp. Pol. 
4 (7). 2. 1334 b 26 sq. and 4 (7). 3. 1325 a 34 sqq. ?) : c. 32. 
825 A, d\A.o woWaKts k.t.X. (cp. Pol. 7 (5). 8. 1308 a 31 sqq.). 
In passages like these, however, Plutarch may well be 

^ Some particulars respecting contain a reminiscence of Poet. 7. 

him will be found in Stahr, Aris- 1450 b 34 sqq., rather than of Pol! 

toteles bei den Roemern, p. 18. 4 (7). 4. 1326 a 33 sq. 

" Plin. Epist. I. 20 seems to 


reproducing, not the Politics, but some work which the 
Politics reproduces — very possibly the Polities of Aristotle— 
for we find Plutarch in the last-named passage (c. 33. 835 
A-C) relating stories similar to those told in Pol. 7 (5). 4. 
1303 b 30 sqq., and 37 sqq., but with more fulness of 
detail, and these are stories which may well have found a 
place in the Polities. In Plutarch's An Seni sit gerenda 
Respublica, c. 7. 787 C-D, we are reminded of Pol. 4 (7). 

14. 1333 b 38 sqq., but it would be quite unsafe to infer an 
acquaintance with the Politics from this passage. So again, 
in the De Cupiditate Divitiarum (c. 8. 537 A) the lovers of 
wealth are divided into two classes, just as they are in 
Pol. I. 9 — those who make no use of their wealth and those 
who squander it on pleasures — but Plutarch here quotes 
from Aristotle an expression which does not occur in the 
Politics, and he may well be making use of a dialogue of 
Aristotle in which similar views were put forth. In [Plu- 
tarch] de Liberis Educandis c. 13. 9 C, the saying ttSs 6 
j8ios i]\).S>v €is &ve(nv Koi <r%ovbriv hiripr}Tai reminds us of Pol. 
4 (7). 14. 1333 a 30, but there is so little in the rest of the 
treatise to point to an acquaintance with the Politics that it 
is doubtful whether the writer had the Politics before him. 

We are reminded of the Politics, again, when we read in 
Arrian, Epictetus 3. 10, that ' the whole is superior to the 
part and the State to the citizen,' but doctrines such as this 
were the common property of the Peripatetic school, and a 
reference to them in no way implies a first-hand acquaint- 
ance with the Politics \ 

It is far otherwise when we find Alexander of Aphro- Alexander 
disias distinctly quoting the Politics (in Aristot. Metaph. p. disj^s.^™' 

15. 6 Bonitz, Tov yap Zovkov ev rots IIoA.trtKOis etz^at eiirev &s 
avdpcoTTos 601' 6.XX0V earb) \ Here we have a direct reference 

^ It is uncertain when the acquaintance with the Politics, 

spurious fragments of Hippoda- ^ It should be added, however, 

mus and other Pythagoreans (see that the Laurentian MS. of Alex- 

as to these, Zeller, Gr. Ph. 3. 2. ander (L) has the reading — tov 

85. 2, ed. 2) came into existence, yap 8ov\ov iv toIs HoXitikoIs emev 

but we often find, in them what elvai toi/ avdpamov Toy aXKov ovra 

seem to be indications of an koi p.^ iavrov. 


of an indubitable kind. Susemihl's first edition of the 
Politics (p. xlv. note 85 : cp. Sus.^ p. xviii. sq.) supplies 
a list of references and quotations subsequent to this 
date which need not be repeated here. 

The passages which have been adduced will suffice to 
show that we are perhaps in possession of as many indi- 
cations of the existence of the Politics between the time of 
Aristotle and that of Alexander of Aphrodisias as could 
well be expected, considering the extent of our literary- 
losses and the entire change in matters political which 
resulted from the establishment of the Roman Empire. 

The Poll- It is not impossible that one or two large works had 
already appeared broken up by their authors into ' books ' 


into TrpcuToi ' 

and other — {_£. volumes, or rather papyrus-rolls, of a portable and 
handy size-' — before the Politics came into existence. It 
would certainly seem that the historical work of Ephorus 
was published in this form, for it was divided into thirty 
books, each dealing with a separate subject^. Aristotle 
himself had apparently divided his dialogues — if we may 
thus interpret the phrase e^corepiKol 'Koyoi in Cic. ad Att. 4. 
16. a — into books, prefixing to each book a separate /r<?- 
oemium^. But the Politics was not composed after this 
fashion, which was quite a new one in those days. It was 
divided by Aristotle into irp&TOL Aoyoi and other Xo'yot, the 
first book having as its subject oUovofiia xat bea-iroTeCa (3. 6. 
1378 b 17) and being thus distinguished from ra irepl ras 
■7to\iTe(as (i. 13. 1360 b 12), but falling nevertheless within. 

' As Blass points out (Hand- which a work was to be divided 

buch der klassischen Alterthums- came to be authoritatively deter- 

wissenschaft, i. 313), large works mined at the outset, 

were probably from the first often " See Diod. 5. i : 16. i. Birt 

published in more rolls than one (Das antike Buchwesen, p. 471) 

for convenience in perusal, but does not feel absolutely certain 

each scribe who copied them (see his remarks on the subject, 

would divide them after a fashion p. 466 sqq.), but the fact is highly 

of his own, according to the size probable, to say the least. See 

of his rolls, without paying much Blass udi supra. 

attention to the nature of the con- ' See Cic. ad Att. 4. l6. 2, and 

tents, and it was a decided step in Blass u6i supra. 
advance when the sections into 


the irpSrot A.oyoi (3. 6. 1378 b 17). Where these Trpwrot Xo'yot 
end, it is not easy to say, for we cannot infer from the use 
of the past tense in 3. 18. 1388 a 37, Iv 8e tois irpdrois kbdxdri 
Aoyois, that the irpSroi \oyoi are over before the beginning 
of this chapter, since we have etprjrot 8?) aal Kara tovs Trp(&Tovs 
koyovs in 3. 6. 1278 b 17 — a chapter which certainly seems to 
form part of the irp&Toi Xoyoi, for in 6 (4). a. 1389 a 36 sqq. 
the distinction of the dpdal iro\iretat and the TtapeK^Acreis (3. 7) 
is said to fall within the irpc&Tr] jxidobos. On the other hand, 
there is nothing to show that the Fourth and Fifth Books 
belong to the TrpSrot Ao'yot. But if the point at which the 
■jrp&Toi Xo'yot close is uncertain, there seems to be no doubt 
that the distinction between upStToi and other Xoyoi is due to 
Aristotle, while the division into books is probably not so. 
Still the eight books of the Politics are marked off from 
each other by clear differences of subject-matter, so that 
no great violence was done to the composition when it was 
broken up into books. 

If we take the first three books first, and ask how far Question of 
they hang together, we shall find on examination that t^ePoiitics 
there is some want of unity even here. The First Book, (i) How 
as has been already noticed, proves that the household g^j'^t^j^g^ 
exists by nature, yet the Second treats the question whether books hang 
it should exist or not as one still open for discussion, and °^^ 
makes no reference to the arguments of the First Book. 
Perhaps, however, we should not attach too much import- 
ance to this, for in the First Book itself the slave is 
assumed as an element of the household, long before the 
naturalness of slaveiy is investigated and established. Then 
again, the closing sentence of the First Book, as has been 
noticed elsewhere ^, is not quite in accord with the opening 
paragraph of the Second, nor is there anything in the con- 
clusion of the First (apart from this closing sentence) to 
lead us to expect that immediate transition to the subject 
of the best constitution which we note at the commencement 
of the Second. There is no clear indication, again, in the 
Second Book that the First has preceded it. The passage 
1 See notes on 1260 b 30, 27. 


%. a. 1261 b la sqq., no doubt, reminds us of i. a. 1252 b 
38 sq., as do a. 5. ia63b 37 sqq. and a. 9. 1369 b 14 sqq. 
of I. 13. ia6ob 13 sqq. ; but we are not referred back in 
these passages to the First Book. The Second Book has 
one or two links with the Third (compare, for example, 
a. 9. laji a 18 sq. with 3. 14. 1384 b 37 sqq.), and it stands 
in a close relation to the Fourth, for in constructing the 
best State in the Fourth, Aristotle avoids many of the 
rocks of which we are warned in the Second, and we find 
one or two subjects discussed in this Book which have been 
marked out for discussion in the Second (compare a. 6. 
ia65b 16 with 4 (7). 16). The Second Book, in fact, 
seems to be more closely related to the Third and Fourth 
Books than to the First. Yet we note that while at the 
beginning of the Second Book the best constitution is 
announced as the subject of inquiry, the Third Book, on 
the contrary, addresses itself (3. i. 1374 b 3a) to an inquiry 
respecting all constitutions (wept ToAiretas /cat ri's e/cdor?; 
KoX nola Tis). On the other hand, the Third Book, unlike 
the Second, distinctly refers to the First (3. 6. ia78b 17 
sqq. : cp. I. a. ia53 ^ ^ ^1^-)' ^'^'^ '^^^ discussion of the virtue 
of the citizen reminds us of the discussion of the virtue of 
the woman, child, and slave in the First. 
(2) How If Y^re pass on to the Fourth and Fifth Books, and ask 
Fourth how far they form a satisfactory sequel to the first three, 
BoolSform ^^ ^^''^^ ^ question which has given rise to much debate. 
a satis- Something has already been said on this subject^. We 
seq uefto have just seen that the Second Book prepares the way for 
the first the Fourth^, and we observe also that the conclusions of 
the First and Third Books are made use of in more pas- 
sages than one of the Fourth (compare, for example, i. 3. 
ia53b 18-1. 7. ia55b 39, i. la. ia59a 37-b 17, and 3. 6. 

■^ See vol. i. p. 292 sqq. TroXueiar, and 2. 12. 1274 b- 26, ra 
^ I incline on the whole to agree fthi ovv Trtpi ras noXiTcias, ras 7-r 
with those who take 4 (7). 4. xvpias teal ras vno tivS>v elpri/jtivas, 
1325 b 34, Kai TTfpi TQS SKXas 770X1- eario reSeaprifieva tov rponov tov- 
reias tjfuv TfdeaprjTM jrpoTfpov, as tov). But the sentence is one 
referring to the contents of the which it would be easy to inter- 
Second Book (cp. 2. I. 1260b 29, polate. 
Sfi Kol Tas &\Kas imaKi'^aaBai 



1278 b 30-1279 a 21, with 4 (7). 3. 1325 a 27-31, and 4 (7)- 
14- 1333 a 3 sqq. : compare also 3. 5. 1278 a 40 sqq. with 
4 (7)- 14- 1333a- II sqq.)'. The discrepancies, however, 
which have already been noted ^ between the Fourth and 
Fifth Books on the one hand and the first three on the 
other must not be lost sight of. It is possible that these 
two books, like the Seventh, were not originally written for 
insertion in the work of which they now form a part, at all 
events in its present form, and were incorporated with it by 
an afterthought^. The close relation, however, in which 
they stand to the Second, must be admitted to make 
against this view, and the only safe course is to confess 
that we cannot penetrate the secrets of the workshop, or 
perhaps we should rather say, the Peripatetic school. 

We are far more conscious of a break when we pass (3) Tran- 
from the five books to the remaining three. There are theremain- 
indeed many links between the two groups of books. Not ing three 
only are anticipations to be found in the earlier group of 
the teaching of the later (compare, for instance, 2. 6. 1265 b 
36-30 with 6 (4). II. 1395 a 25 sqq.), but we trace in both 
the same twofold aim — the aim of scientific truth and the 
aim of utility (i. 11. 1258 b 9 : 3. i. 1260 b 32 : 3. 3. 1275 b 
31 : compare 6 (4). i. 1288 b 35). 

But the emphatic announcement at the outset of the 
Sixth Book of the multiplicity of the problems of Political 
Science strikes us as something altogether new. We 
expect that Aristotle will pass quietly on from the best 
constitution (of in other words Kingship and Aristocracy) 
to Polity, the only dp0TJ iroXiret'a still undiscussed, and if it 
is true that he gives good reasons (6 (4). 8. 1293 b 32 
sqq.) for departing from this course and for studying 
oligarchy and democracy before he studies the polity, 
still we are conscious of a considerable change of tone 

' It should be noted, however, been added by a later hand, 

that the references to the irpanoi ^ Vol. i. p. 295 sqq. 

Xdyoi in 4 (7). 3. 1325 a 30 and ' A further question might be 

4 (7). 14. 1333 a 3 can easily be raised, whether they were incorpo- 

detached from the context in which rated with the Politics by the 

they stand, and may well have hand of Aristotle. 


when we pass to the Sixth Book. Aristotle here becomes 
suddenly aware that Political Science has a technical as well 
as an ethical- side ; he insists that the statesman, like the 
physician (Eth. Nic. lo. lo. ii8ob a5 sqq.) or the general 
(Eth. Nic. I. II. iioi a 3 sqq.), must be able to make the 
best of the material which happens to be at his disposal — 
may, that he must understand how to construct any con- 
stitution that may be demanded of him, even if it is not the 
best that the circumstances permit. In the earlier books 
(1-5) TToXiTLK-q and the ttoXis seem to be regarded on the whole 
from a more ideal point of view, as the sources of good life : 
the keynote of these books is the exaltation of voXitikti 
ap\rj over hea-noTLKr) and oIkovoixikt] apxri, of which we hear 
so much in the first book. The wapex^ao-ets are viewed 
throughout them aS' originating in an erroneous view of 
justice (as indeed they still are in 7 (5). i. 1301 a 25 sqq.); 
in the Sixth Book, on the contrary, we discover for the 
first time that they are in some cases the only possible 
constitutions, the social conditions of the community per- 
mitting no other forms (6 (4). 12,. 1396 b 24 sqq.). The 
Seventh Book goes so far as to advise a tyranny how to 
maintain itself in power. Another obvious difference 
between the two groups of books is' that the one is far 
fuller of historical detail than the other. 

A further peculiarity of the later group (6-8) is the 
emphasis with which these books dwell on a fact which 
finds no mention elsewhere — that of the existence of many 
forms of democracy and oligarchy. The Third Book, it is 
true, had distinguished various kinds of Kingship, so that 
there is nothing new in the recognition of sub-forms of this 
or that constitution ; but still we nowhere learn outside 
these three books that democracy and oligarchy have many 
forms. No truth, however, is more insisted on in the three 
books, or rather in the Sixth and Eighth, for in the 
Seventh it is referred to only in the closing chapter^, a 

' The only subdivision of oli- book is that into ewojuoi and Kvpioi 
garchies and democracies recog- (7 (s). 6. 1306b 20). 
nized in the remainder of the 


chapter which, though quite Aristotelian, may well be of 
later date than the rest of the book. 

We might be tempted by the entire silence of the Fourth Question 
and Fifth Books with regard to much that comes before us tle^Fonrth 
in the Sixth and Eighth to regard the former pair of books and Fifth 
as written before the latter. But then it is not by any the Sixth 
means certain that the Fourth and Fifth Books were in a°<l Eighth 

were the 

existence when the Sixth and Eighth were penned. The earlier 
Sixth Book no doubt refers to the inquiry respecting the ™""™- 
best constitution as concluded, but it is not clear that the 
inquiry referred to is that contained in the Fourth and 
Fifth Books. It alludes to an inquiry respecting dpioro- 
Kparia contained in the irp&Toi \6yoi, but we cannot be sure 
that the Fourth and Fifth Books are intended to be referred 
to. The passage is as follows (6 (4). 7. 1393 b i sqq.) : — 

apiaroKpaTiav p.ev ovv koKSh ex^L KakeZv irepl rji fiiTyXflo/xez' ev 
TOts Trp<&Tois Xoyots" Trjv yap « t&v apCaTODV airA.<3s Kar aperrjv 
TTokiTeCav, KoL jutj irpos {modecrCv riva ayaO&v avbp&v, jxovriv 
biKaiov Tipocrayopeueiv apiaroKparlav ev p-ovr) yap aTrX&s 6 avTos 
avfip KOL woXfrTjs ayados eariv' ol 5' ev rais &\kaLS ayaOol irpos 
TfjV TToXtreiav eicrt rrjv avr&v. 

The reference here may well be to the Third Book, in 
which we find all the characteristics of the best constitution 
here dwelt upon mentioned (cp. 3. 18) ; and the same thing 
perhaps holds of the reference in 6 (4). 3. 1290 a 2 to ra 
irepl TTiv apia-TOKpaTLav, where 3. I2. 1283 a 14 sqq. may 
possibly be the passage alluded to. It is true that there 
are two passages in the Sixth Book which remind us of the 
teaching of the Fourth and Fifth Books — c. 2. 1289 a 32, 
where both apia-TOKparla and fiaa-ikeCa are said to rest on 
&piTri Ke)(opTi]yr]fiivr), and c. II. 1295 a 25 sqq., where a 
•noktreia kut' evxriv is spoken of, requiring a type of virtue 
above the ordinary type and an education presupposing not 
only high natural gifts, but also a xopjjyta which only For- 
tune can give. These passages are quite in harmony with 
the teaching of the Fourth and Fifth Books, but they 
might have been written before these books were written. 
It is far more clear that both the Fourth and Fifth Books, 


and the Sixth and Eighth, were written after the Third, 
than that either pair of books was written after the other. 
These two pairs of books seem to be to a considerable 
extent independent of each other. Both, we notice, are 
incomplete; there is no clear evidence that either group 
was ever finished, though the opening of the Sixth Book 
(6 (4). a. 1389 a 30) speaks of the inquiry respecting the 
best constitution as complete, and the Eighth Book, as we 
possess it, appears to close in the middle of a sentence ^. 
It is possible that Aristotle went on with the Sixth Book 
after completing the Third, instead of proceeding with the 
sketch of the best State. If he did so, however, it is 
strange that we find in the Fourth and Fifth Books so few 
traces of the teaching of the Sixth and Eighth. 
The Sixth A noteworthy feature of the Sixth Book is the state in 
which we find its earlier portion. The programme given 
in its second chapter (1289 b ia-a6), as has been pointed 
out elsewhere (vol. i. p. 492 sqq.), does not altogether 
correspond with the list of questions marked out for 
treatment in the first chapter. The repetitions of prior 
discussions which we remark in c. 4 are still more sur- 
prising; c. 4. 129c a 30-b 20 goes over much the same 
ground as the eighth chapter of the Third Book, and c. 4. 
1290 b 31-1291 b 13 not only repeats (with considerable 
variations of method and result) the investigations of the 
preceding chapter, but contains much that is similar to the 
contents of the eighth chapter of the Fourth Book. The 
first four chapters of the Sixth Book may perhaps not have 
received a final revision, or may have been tampered with 
by some later hand. 
The The Seventh Book was probably originally written as 

Book'. ^ separate treatise, and only inserted by an afterthought 
between the Sixth and Eighth Books. Not many refer- 
ences to other books of the Politics occur in its pages ^, and 

' 8(6). 8. 1323 a 9,_!repi pev ouv ^ (5). I. 130I a 28 {mairep fipijT-ai 

Tosv apx^v, las iv tutto), (r)(€86u Kal npoTepov) and 7 (5). 8, I308 a 

€ipr)Tm nepl Trao-wi/, where we have 2 {rrola Se Xeyo/iev tS>ii TroKiTetav 

fiev oiv without any Sc to follow. tro<pi<TiuiTa, wporepov ftprjTai) may 

' Such references as those in easily have been added by a 


it has some marked pecuHai'ities. . As has been already- 
remarked i, it systematically distinguishes between \t.ovo.p^o.i 
(including Kingships) and TroXtreTai^, and it takes no notice 
(till its last chapter) of the many sub-forms of oligarchy 
and democracy dwelt on in the Sixth and Eighth Books ; 
it also advises in one passage (c. i. 130a a 3-8) the blend- 
ing in constitutions of lo-orrjy Apt^fxrjrj/cTj with ZtroVi?? (car' 
a^lav, as the best security for durability*. It is perhaps 
by supposing that the Seventh Book has been inserted 
between two closely related books composed consecu- 
tively, that we shall best explain some difficulties 
occasioned by the references in the Eighth Book to 
the Sixth and Seventh Books. On the one hand, the 
Eighth Book refers more than once to the Seventh as pre- 
ceding it, and one of these references at all events is too 
much interwoven with the context to be easily explained 
away as an addition by a later hand (c. 5. 13T9 b 2,1 sqq-)- 
On the other hand, the Sixth Book is referred to in 8 (6). 
a. 1317 b 34 as ^ fieOobos ^ irph Tavrqs, and in c. 4. 1318 b 7 
as ol irpb TovT(i)v \6yoi. If these references are from the hand 
of Aristotle — which is by no means certain, for they can 
readily be detached from the context — it may well be that 
they were inserted before the Seventh Book was intruded 
between the Sixth and the Eighth, and through an over- 
sight escaped excision afterwards. 

Some further light will be thrown on the subject which Promises 
we have been considering, if we note down from the pages investi- 
of the Politics some promises of future investigations which gations 

'^ " which are 

are not fulfilled in the work as we have it. not fulfilled 

The earliest of these (i. 13. 1260 b 8 sqq.) prepares us to pJlj^gg^ 

later hand, or by Aristotle him- Book conforms to the common 

self, if he incorporated the Seventh way of speaking. The Seventh 

Book with the Politics. Book also agrees with the Third 

^ Vol. i. p. 521. in tracing the plurality of forms 

' Asimilardistinction is implied of constitution to varying views 

in 3. 15. 1286b 8-13. Movapxiaa.nd of what is just (7 (5). I. 1301 a 25 

TToXiTeia axe often distinguished sqq. : cp. 3. 9). 
in the ordinary use of the Greek ' This recommendation, it may 

language (see Liddell and Scott be noticed, is borrowed from 

s. V. TToAtrew), and the Seventh Plato, Laws 757 E. 



expect a full investigation of the virtue of husband and 
wife, father and child, and of the conduct they should 
observe to each other, and also of the various forms which 
each of these relations should assume under each constitu- 
tion; we are to be told how every constitution will educate 
the women and children who fall under its authority. 
Perhaps these inquiries were to find a place in the dis- 
cussions irept ■nailovo^i.Las to which the Fourth Book (4 (7). 
16. 1335 b a) bids us look forward; but at any rate the 
intimation of the First Book leads us to expect an interest- 
ing ethical investigation which we do not find in the Politics, 
though the necessity of adapting education to the constitu- 
tion is often insisted on (e.g. in 5 (8). i. 1337 a 11 sqq. : 7 
(5). 9. 1310 a 13 sqq.: 8 (6). 4. 1319b i sqq.). The Sixth, 
Seventh, and Eighth Books, as we have them, seem in fact 
too much preoccupied with purely political problems to 
find room for the delicate ethical inquiry promised in the 
First Book. Yet we are told at the beginning of the 
Eighth Book that only a few subjects remain for discus- 
sion, and the subject dwelt upon in this passage of the 
First Book is not included in its enumeration of them. 
The announcement there made appears, in fact, to be 
completely forgotten. 

Then again, the intimation in the first chapter of the 
Sixth Book that the making of laws, as distinguished from 
constitutions, is a part of the province of woAtrtxTj, and that 
the whole province of 7roXirt/t^ must be fully dealt with, 
leads us to look for an inquiry on the subject of laws in the 
Politics (cp. 3. 15. 1386 a 5, a(f>fL(Tdw rrjv Trpdrriv}. But, 
as has been noticed already, the programme given in 
the very next chapter (the second) omits all mention 
of this topic, and the opening paragraphs of the Eighth 
Book fail to include it among the subjects which still 
demand treatment, though it certainly is not dealt with in 
any part of the Politics which has come down to us. 

Other intimations of future discussions which never ac- 
tually occur will be found in 4 (7). 5. 1326 b 33 sqq.: 4 (7). 
10. 1330a 4 and 1330a 31 sqq.: 4(7). 16. 1335b 3 sqq.: 


4(7)- 17- 1336^34: S{^).2,. 1338a 32 sqq.: 5(8). 7. 1341b 
19 sqq.: 8 (6). i. 1316 b 39 sqq. These passages, however, 
only prove what we knew without them, that the inquiry as 
to the best State and its arrangements is incomplete, and 
also that the Eighth Book is incomplete. The fact that 
there are no references in the Politics to past discussions 
which cannot be explained as relating to existing passages 
in the treatise as we have it, seems to make it probable 
that no considerable part of the work has been lost, and 
that it was never finished. 

We see then that though there is a certain amount of The 

unity about the Politics, it is not a well-planned whole. Its ^holl*^* 

component parts fit together more or less, but the fit is whose 

"ot perfect. . P^X 

How is it that this is so ? How is it that the Politics, ™pei- 

though indisputably a whole, is yet a whole in which we Question 

trace these discrepancies of plan } ^^ '° '^^ 

'■ '■ probable 

Beyond all doubt, we must not expect a Greek phi- causes of 
losophical treatise to be arranged precisely in the order in ' '^' 
which we expect a modern work of the same kind to be 
arranged. A modern work would not first prove that the 
household exists by nature, and then inquire whether it 
ought to exist. Yet this is what Aristotle does in the 
First and Second Books of the Politics. Cicero has already 
noticed in the Tusculan Disputations some peculiarities in 
the methods of investigation practised by Greek philoso- 
phers, as distinguished from Greek geometricians. ' Verun- 
tamen mathematicorum iste mos est, non est philosophorum. 
Nam geometrae cum aliquid docere volunt, si quid ad earn 
rem pertinet eorum quae ante docuerunt, id sumunt pro 
concesso et probato : illud modo explicant, de quo ante 
nihil scriptum est. Philosophi, quamcunque rem habent in 
manibus, in eam quae conveniunt congerunt omnia, etsi alio 
loco disputata sunt. Quod ni ita esset, cur Stoicus, si esset 
quaesitum, satisne ad beate vivendum virtus posset, multa 
diceret? cui satis esset respondere se ante docuisse nihil 
bonum esse, nisi quod honestum esset ; hoc probato, con- 

c a 


sequens esse beatam vitam virtiite esse contentam, et quo 
modo hoc sit consequens illi, sic illud huic, ut si beata vita 
virtute contenta sit, nisi honestum quod sit, nihil aliud sit 
bonum. Sed tamen non agunt sic. Nam et de honesto et 
de summo bono separatim libri sunt, et cum ex eo efficia- 
tur satis magnam in virtute ad beate vivendum esse vim, 
nihilo minus hoc agunt separatim. Propriis enim et suis 
argumentis et admonitionibus tractanda quaeque res est, 
tanta praesertim ^.' 

Seneca, again, in an interesting passage of his Fortieth 
Epistle, contrasts Greek and Roman oratory, and finds more 
deliberation, reflection, and system in the latter. ' In 
Graecis hanc licentiam tuleris : nos, etiam cum scribimus, 
interpungere assuevimus. Cicero quoque noster, a quo 
Romana eloquentia exsilivit, gradarius fuit. Romanus sermo 
magis se circumspicit et aestimat praebetque aestiman- 

But differences of this kind do not suffice to explain the 
phenomena which need explanation in the Politics. What 
we remark is that, of the three or four parts of which the 
work is made up, those which precede and those which 
follow very nearly correspond to each other, but do not 
quite do so. In passing from one part to another, we are 
conscious that the two parts do not completely match : 
the part which we must place second in order is not 
quite what the part which precedes it leads us to expect 
it to be, though it is very nearly so. Some of the dis- 
crepancies which we notice in the Politics may be accounted 
for on the supposition that the work was never finished and 
never received a final revision at its author's hands, but 
then it must be remembered that a similar, or even greater, 
want of unity has been traced in the Nicomachean Ethics, 
which can hardly have suffered from the same cause. 

Whatever may be the case as to the Nicomachean Ethics, 
perhaps the state of the Politics becomes in general intelli- 
gible if we suppose that Aristotle, notwithstanding his turn 
for systematization, allowed himself some freedom in work- 
* Cic. Tusc. Disp. 5. 7. 18-19. 


ing successively at different parts of the treatise, permitted 
each part to forget to some extent its membership of a 
whole, and failed to force on his investigations that complete 
harmony, of form as well as of substance, which rigorous 
criticism would require^. Very probably his views deve- 
loped as he passed from one portion of the work to another ; 
he seems throughout it to be feeling his way as a pioneer 
would, and we need not be surprised to find in the Sixth 
and Eighth Books ideas of which there is no trace in the 
earlier ones. Possibly some interval of time elapsed be- 
tween the composition of the different parts ^. The Third 
Book is the centre round which the whole treatise is 
grouped ; it is presupposed both in the inquiries of the 
Fourth Book and in those of the Sixth. 

We notice that we have no such programme of future 
inquiries at the outset of the Politics as that which the 
first and second chapters of the Sixth Book set forth for 
the remainder of the work, and it may well be the case 
that Aristotle began the Politics without any definite 
scheme of it before him. He had evidently cast aside the 
programme which we find at the close of the Nicomachean 
Ethics, and yet he framed no fresh one to take its place. 
If he had done so, perhaps he would have prepared us by 
some intimation early in the work for the break of which 
we are sensible in passing from the first five books to the 
remaining three. Something might have been lost in 
freshness and freedom, if the structure of the Politics had 
been more rigorously systematic — if a definite programme 
had been announced at the outset and adhered to through- 
out, but the bisected aspect which the work wears at present 
would have been removed, and the gulf would have been 

^ This will not, however, ex- tions. For instance, a Second 

plain everything; it will not ex- Book may once have existed with 

plain, for instance, the state in a commencement in fuller har- 

which we find the first four chap- mony with the conclusion of the 

ters of the Sixth Book. First than that of the present 

^ It is also possible that some Second Book, and a Fourth Book 

of the books were rewritten, and in fuller harmony with the Third 

that the Politics, as we have it, than the present Fourth, 
is a mixture of two or more edi- 



Apart from 
possible in- 
tions, the 
would seem 
to be the 
work of 
one author, 
and that 
not Theo- 

bridged between the ethical iroAirtx^ of the earlier group of 
books and the largely technical ■koXitik^ of the later. 

Some may be inclined to suspect that the Politics is the 
work of more authors than one. It is very possible that it 
is not free from interpolation, but there seems to be no 
reason to doubt that the bulk of the treatise is to be 
referred to one and the same author. The same peculi- 
arities of style appear throughout it — peculiarities which 
are traceable more or less in other works ascribed to 
Aristotle, and which afford marked indications of character. 
We are sensible of a certain combativeness — of a fondness 
for tacitly contradicting other writers, especially Plato ; we 
feel that we have to do with a writer who is at once eager 
in utterance and circumspect in drawing conclusions. 

If we refuse to trust to the evidence of style, we may 
note that a work composed by more authors than one, 
and especially a work on Politics, would probably betray 
its origin by anachronisms, unless these authors were 
contemporaries. The works of Theophrastus on Plants, 
though far removed in subject from current events, mark 
their own date by referring to events long subsequent to 
the death of Aristotle ^- 

Then again, each of the three or four parts into which 
the Politics falls seems to be the work of a writer who 
is thinking out the subject for himself — a pioneer, not a 
deft expositor and elaborator of another man's system. 
Perhaps the very discrepancies and variations of view 
which we note in the Politics indicate this. The system 
is in making, not made. The earlier books of the treatise 
appear to be unfamiliar with doctrines which are insisted 
on with emphasis in the later ones. The writer is evi- 
dently one who has known Greece in the days of its 
freedom and greatness before the defeat of Chaeroneia — 
one who belongs perhaps rather to the age of Philip than 
to that of Alexander: the opiniopis he combats and 
corrects are those of that day; they are the opinions of 
Plato or Isocrates or the Socratic Schools, not those of a 
^ See Zeller, Gr. Ph. 2. 2. 98 n. : 811 n. 


later time. If the Politics, or any part of it, had been 
written even twenty years after Alexander's death, would 
not the fact be readily discoverable ? Would a writer of 
that date have committed himself to the sanguine view 
that the Greek race, if united, would be able to rule the 
world? Would the passages recommending the consti- 
tution resting on the /xeVoi have been expressed as they 
are, if they had been written after Antipater's' intro- 
duction of a property-qualification for citizenship at 
Athens ? The writer at any rate would not have needed 
to go back to ot itporfpov e<j)' ^yeij.oviq, yeyovores to find a 
statesman of far-reaching authority who favoured a con- 
stitution resembling the polity. 

Nothing surprises us more in the Politics than the 
fact that, though it was apparently written after Chae- 
roneia, it is almost entirely preoccupied with the petty 
States of Greece, and the constitutions prevailing in them. 
Macedon, it is true, might profit by the pages devoted to 
Kingship, but throughout the greater part of the work 
the writer evidently has the Greek City-State and its 
difficulties in view. He seems wholly unconscious that 
the sceptre had passed irrevocably from Greece to Mace- 
don ; he has not fully deciphered the meaning of Chae- 
roneia. We need not blame him for this : if Greece had 
been less exhausted and wiser, Chaeroneia might not 
have been ' finis Graeciae.' But his view of the situation 
probably shows that he wrote not long after the battle, 
and before the magnitude of the catastrophe had been 
fully realized. 

The ais fj ®eo4>paaTov in the list of Diogenes may sug- 
gest the question whether Theophrastus was not the 
writer of the Politics, or of a part of it. Theophrastus 
was only la or 15 years younger than Aristotle, though 
he survived him apparently 34 years or more. It is very 
possible that he wrote some of his books before the death 
of Aristotle ; the Politics might belong to that epoch and 
yet be his. If this were so, we should still feel pretty 
sure that we possessed the gist of Aristotle's political 


teaching, for the work of Theophrastus would certainly 
be based on the views of his master. But we feel in 
reading the Politics that we are in presence of the master, 
not of the disciple — of the originator of the system, not of 
its expositor. There is a difference, again, between the 
style of Aristotle and that of Theophrastus ; the writings of 
the latter were probably far easier reading than those of the 
former — sweeter, more flowing, and less sinewy^- Opinions 
also find expression in the Politics which Theophrastus 
seems not to have held. He would hardly have been 
willing to assert, as the First Book of the Politics asserts 
(c. 8. 1256 b i^ sqq.), the naturalness of animal food^. 
He may perhaps also have rated the importance of external 
and bodily goods to happiness rather higher than we find 
it rated in the Fourth Book of the Politics^. 

Theophrastus was famed for the freshness with which he 
could treat a subject already treated by Aristotle*, and it 
is probable that the treatise in six books entitled WoKixiko., 
which Diogenes Laertius ascribes to him, was different in 
many respects from the work which we know as Aristotle's 
Politics. Cicero distinctly implies that the work of Theo- 

■• Cic. Brutus 31. I3l : quis reasoning (Xoyicr/iols), and above 

Aristotele nervosior, Theophrasto all in perceptions,' which we find 

dulcior ? Heylbut (de Theo- in Porphyr. de Abstin. 3. 25, Theo- 

phrasti libris Trepi 0iXiar, p. 9) phrastus can hardly be the writer 

remarks : 'taceri quidem nequit of such a passage as Pol. I. 2. 

nonnuUa minus severe et magis 1253 a 15 sqq. 
ad communem sensum a Theo- ' Cicero at all events seems to 

phrasto tractata esse, qui longe have thought that he rated these 

suaviore et faciliore quam Aristo- goods higher than Aristotle (see 

teles scribendi genere utebatur.' Acad. Post. I. 9. 33: 10. 35). 

" See Bernays, Theophrastos' Theophrastus appears in his 
Schrift uber Frommigkeit,/fly«»2. Ethics to have thought the ques- 
It is not quite clear that the so- tion worthy of discussion, whether 
called first book of the Oecono- vrpor rm riixas rpiniTai ra tjOrj koI 
mics (c. 2), which Philodemus as- Kivov/ieva toIs rmv arafiarmv irddecriv 
cribes to Theophrastus, contem- e^iaTarai. r^s aperrjs (Plutarch, 
plates the use of animal food. If, Pericl.c.38: Sertor.c. 10). Heap- 
again, as Bernays appears to think pears to have speculated whether 
(Theophrastos iiber Frommigkeit, great calamities might not spoil 
p.96sq.),it is to Theophrastus, and even a good man's character, 
not to Porphyry, that we are to * Cic. de Fin. i. 2. 6: quid? 
ascribe the strong assertion of the Theophrastus mediocriterne de- 
identity of men and animals ' in lectat, cum tractat locos ab Aris» 
desires and anger, and also in toteie ante tractatos ? 


phrastus ' De optimo statu reipublicae ' was not identical 
with the work of Aristotle on the same subject, and if it 
should be suggested that the Fourth and Fifth Books of our 
' Aristotle's Politics ' are the treatise of Theophrastus or its 
remains, it may be replied that internal evidence points 
rather to Aristotle as their author. 

Thus far we have assumed that the Politics is a compo- The Poli- 
sition committed to writing by its author or authors, but b^tiynora 
this is precisely what has been questioned by some. One pupil's re- 

. . - , , , cord of 

or two cntics have drawn attention to the accounts Aristotle's 
given of Aristotle's style by Cicero and others^ who lectures, 

..... but a com- 

were familiar with his dialogues — accounts which are position 
borne out by some of the still existing fragments ofj°"™;^^„ 
those dialogues — and have asked whether the extant by Aristo- 
works of Aristotle, marked as they are by many rough- signed for 
nesses and peculiarities of style, can really have been "^^ '" '"^ 
composed by him — whether they are not, or most of 
them are not, mere notes of Aristotle's lectures taken 
down by his hearers and perhaps put in shape by some 
one disciple. To some of them, indeed, this theory would 
not apply. The History of Animals can hardly have had 
this origin, and the hypopinematic works of Aristotle — if 
they were intended for his own use — must also have been 
committed to writing by him. But setting these on one 
side, and setting on one side also works incorrectly con- 
nected with his name, it has been asked whether many, 
if not all, of the remaining works are anything more than 
reports of his lectures. 

There is undoubtedly a colloquial air about them ; some 
have more of it than others, and none more than the 
Politics. The Politics reads, even more than the Nico- 
machean Ethics, like the talk of an experienced inquirer 
engaged with others in a difficult investigation, and feeling 
his way through it. We know that notes were taken by 

' See Zeller's note, Gr. Ph. 2. well-known passage, Cic. Acad. 
2. III. I, where some of them are 2. 38. 119: veniet flumen orationis 
collected. Among these is the aureum fundens Aristoteles. , 


pupils in the lecture-rooms of the great Greek teachers. 
Aristotle himself took notes of Plato's lectures mepl TayaQov, 
and other disciples of Plato did the same^. We are told that 
the Cynic Metrocles ' burnt the lectures of Theophrastus,' 
an expression which some have taken to mean notes taken 
by him of Theophrastus' lectures^. But then we observe 
that the works which we associate with the name of Aris- 
totle resemble each other in style more than we should 
expect, if they had come into existence in this way, unless 
indeed the report were verbatim or nearly so, or the whole 
of the lectures were reported by a single individual. If the 
reports were, as they probably would be, by different 
hands and not very close, it is natural to expect that the 
rendering of one reporter would differ a good deal from the 
rendering of another, and that in the result the works 
ascribed to Aristotle would differ from each other in style 
more than they actually do. It seems hardly likely that 
any mere ' redaction ' by a single disciple would suffice 
to restore to them the degree of uniformity which they 
exhibit. The question then arises — is it likely that the 
reports would be verbatim or nearly so ? 

Aristotle's report of Plato's lectures inpi rayadov was, it 
would seem, pretty close ^, so fai; at all events as certain 
expressions of Plato were concerned, but it is perhaps 
hardly likely that a long course of lectures would be taken 
down in the close way in which we must suppose Aristotle's 
language to have been taken down, if most of what we 
call his works are in fact reports of his lectures *. If his 

' Heitz, Verlorenen Schriften iv tois irepi rayaSoi) Xo'yois, ols 6 

des Aristoteles, p. 217 sq. 'Apio-ToreX?;! koI 'HpaicXejSijs ital 

Diog. Laert. 6. 95, oSros to. ''Earuilos koI aXXot tou nXaroivof 

tavTov (rvyypainLara KaraKaav, &s eraipoi irapayevoiifvoi aveypa^avTo 

<^rj<Tiv EKartov ev Tcpmra Xpeiav, ra prjBevra alviyiiaTa>BS>s, as ipp^drj. 

eVeXeye,^ _ ^ * It would seem from Plutarch's 

Ta8' eoT oiieipav veprepav <f)avTa(r- treatise De recta ratione audiendi 

fiara, (c. 1 8) that the lecturers of his day 

olov \fipos' 01 6', on Tar eeo^pdorou were liable to be interrupted by 

oKpoda-fis Kara^Xe-^tov eWtXtyc, questions put by some member of 

*H0a«rT€, ■npop.oX SSe, eeVir yu their audience, to which they 

Ti (Tilo yar/fet. were expected to reply. If this 

' Cp. Simplic. in Aristot. Phys. was so in Aristotle's time, a faith- 

362 a 12 (quoted by Heitz, p. 217), ful report of a lecture would give 


lectures, however, were thus taken down, the reports would 
differ but little from compositions strictly so called, for 
ancient authors, like modern, may often have dictated their 
writings to an amanuensis. 

But no ancient authority conceives the works of Aris- 
totle to have come into being in this way. Galen, as we 
have seen, speaks of Aristotle as ' writing ' the oKpoaa-eis 
for his pupils^. Theophrastus, in a letter to the Peripa- 
tetic Phanias cited by Diogenes Laertius^, seems to use the 
term avayvda-fLs of his own lectures. The Tnpl rayadov of 
Aristotle, which consisted of notes of Plato's lectures, was 
never included among the works of Plato, and it would be 
equally easy to distinguish between reports of Aristotle's 
lectures and works written by Aristotle. It seems, besides, 
only natural that Aristotle should write down a course of 
lectures which he probably intended to re-deliver. He was 
not, like Socrates or Carneades, one who systematically ab- 
stained from writing ; he had been a writer from his youth ; 
and is it likely that after composing his Dialogues and his 
History of Animals and his work on Constitutions, and 
even noting down the Problems which suggested themselves 
to him, and accumulating a mass of memoranda, he trusted 
his political and other teaching to the chapter of accidents ? 
Even if, on the first occasion on which each course was 
delivered, he used no notes, and a pupil took down a report 
of the lectures, is it not likely that he would adopt this 
report, and use it, possibly in an amplified and revised form, 
on subsequent occasions ? 

The remark may be added that if the Politics is a pupil's 
record of Aristotle's lectures, it is the record of a course of 
lectures singularly broken up into parts. We ask with some 
curiosity, why a continuous course of lectures should form 
so imperfect an unity. One would have expected that a 
single course delivered without notes would have been far 

these replies, and probably record unsafe to build too' much on the 

the interruption which elicited testimony of an alleged letter, 

them. which may have been, like much 

1 Above, p. ii. of Greek epistolary literature, 

^ S. 37. It would of course be falsified or spurious. 


more of an unity than the Politics seems to be. It is no 
doubt possible that the work is a pupil's record of three or 
four courses put together ; but, on the whole, the supposi- 
tion which involves fewest difficulties seems to be that the 
Politics was written by Aristotle for use in his lecture-room, 
or at all events for the use of his pupils. It is evident 
that Greek teachers had to study with some care how 
best to carry their pupils with them. Some hearers, we are 
told in the Metaphysics^, would accept nothing but strict 
mathematical demonstration ; others demanded a frequent 
use of examples, while others again expected the lecturer 
to adduce passages from the poets in confirmation of his 
teaching. Aristotle is careful to explain at the very outset 
of the Nicomachean Ethics, for the benefit of the first- 
named class of critics, that ethical and political problems 
do not lend themselves to mathematical demonstration, but 
he often illustrates his teaching by familiar examples and 
often also refers to the poets. These methods would be 
especially in place in an educational, or acroamatic, treatise. 
Unlike Plato, who seems for the most part to have written 
in one and the same way for the outside world and for his 
pupils, Aristotle made a distinction between the style of his 
published works and the style of those which he intended 
for use within his school. With his pupils he seems to 
have been less attentive to form, less rhetorical, and more 

His lecturing is not of an ex cathedra or formal type ; on 
the contrary, he seems to regard himself rather as the 
pioneer of a body of investigators, and takes pains to 
select that path through the thicket along which they will 
find it most easy to follow him. He never forgets the 
traditional impressions, prepossessions, and prejudices of 
the better sort of Greek ; he himself has inherited these 
traditions, which need only a certain amount of sifting and 
correction to become the basis of his own philosophical 
system. His tone is thus rather that of a comrade than 
a teacher. We can imagine how great would be the im- 
' Metaph. a. 3. 995 a 6 sqq. 


pression produced on thoughtful Greeks by the Politics ; its 
teaching would be the more effective, because it was so 
little ex cathedra and was conveyed in an unlaboured and 
conversational style. 

It is not impossible that many of Aristotle's works are 
records of his teaching drawn up by him after the lectures 
had been delivered. Several of the treatises comprised in 
the ' Moralia ' of Plutarch are thought to be based on lec- 
tures previously given; the treatise De Audiendis Poetis is 
expressly said by Plutarch to be so (c. i) ^. The orators 
had set the example of writing down their speeches before 
or after delivery. We need not suppose that all the works 
of Aristotle were designed for one and the same purpose, or 
that they all originated in exactly the same way. The 
extreme brevity and compression of his style in some of 
them (for instance, in parts of the Metaphysics and in the 
third book of the De Anima) would seem to render these 
writings more suitable for private perusal than for reading 
aloud. We do not often observe a similar degree of com- 
pression in the Politics. 

The displacement of the Fourth and Fifth Books may be How is the 
accounted for in many ways. It may be due to the un- ^^''1*'^? Ij^ 
finished state of the work : Aristotle may have left his Fomth and 
manuscript in pieces, and the ' disiecta membra' may notj^jj^^^"" ^ 
have been put together aright. Or the particular MS. or counted 
MSS. of whith the MSS. we possess are reproductions 
may have had this defect. Several MSS. of the Metaphysics 
of Aristotle (S, A^ B*", C^ E*")— among them one of the 
best (A*") — place Books M and N before K and A^. 
Bekker remarks at the close of the Sixth Book of the 
HLstory of Animals (581 a 5), that several MSS. place the 
Eighth Book immediately after the Sixth : ' octavum et 
A* subiungit et P Q C* D* E^ F* G* m n, septimo in noni 
locum depresso.' So again, according to Bekker's note at 
the close of the Seventh Book of the same treatise, P A* C* 

' See Volkmann, Leben Schrif- ^ Bonitz, Aristotelis Metaphysi- 
ten und Philosophic des Plutarch, ca, p. v sqq. 


add after &pxovTai, the last word of this book, the words 
TTpowia-ris brj rrjs fikiKlas, 'quod est initium libri decimi': 
here apparently we have a trace of an arrangement of the 
books by which the spurious Tenth Book was inserted at 
the close of the Seventh^. 

Displacements of this kind are said to have frequently 
occurred, when codices of parchment took the place of 
papyrus-rolls and works were transcribed from papyrus 
to parchment^. 

Or again, the same thing may have happened to the 
Politics which some think has happened to the Facta et 
Dicta Memorabilia of Valerius Maximus ^. The Fourth and 
Fifth Books (i. e. the fourth and fifth volumes or papyrus- 
rolls) may have circulated as a separate work, and may 
have been wrongly placed, when restored to the work of 
which they originally formed a part. If, as may well be 
the case, the displacement of the two books occurred at a 
very early date, or at all events prior to the general disuse 
of papyrus-rolls, this may have been the way in which it 
came about. But indeed a mere mistake in numbering the 
eight papyrus-rolls of the archetype would suffice to account 
for it. It is, no doubt, possible that these two books belong 
to a different edition of the treatise from the Third Book, 
and that this circumstance has in some way or other led to 
their being placed at the end of it. It is not easy, however, 
to see how it can have done so ; nor is the position in which 
we find them accounted for, if we take the view that they 
were not originally designed to form part of the work, for 
this may very probably be true of the Seventh Book, which 
nevertheless stands fifth in order in the MSS. 

' Some MSS. of William of linam: quod medium, quod pos- 

Moerbeke's Latin Translation of sibile, quod decens. La division 

the Politics in the Bibliothfeque des livres varie done sans que 

Nationale at Paris (Fonds de Sor- I'ouvrage soit moins complet.' 

bonne, 928 : Fonds de Saint-Vic- ' See Birt, Antike Buchwesen, 

tor, 336) are said by Jourdain p. 374. The change came to be 

(Recherches critiques sur Tige et of common occurrence, according 

I'origine des traductions latines to this writer, in the fourth and 

d'Aristote, p. 181) 'n'annoncer que fifth centuries of our era. 

sept livres ; et le dernier se termine 'See Diet, of Greek and 

cependant par ces mots ; Palawi Roman Biography, art. Valerius 

quia ires hos facienditm ad discij)- Maximus. 


The publication in 1872 of Susemihl's a'itical edition of 
the Politics will always be regarded as marking an epoch 
in the study of the work. It comprises a complete collation 
of all the more important MSS. then known to scholars and 
a partial collation of the inferior ones ; it also contains a 
revised text of William of Moerbeke's Latin translation of 
the Politics, based on a collation of a number of MSS. I 
have not attempted to revise Susemihl's collations. I have, 
however, collated the first two books of the Politics in MS. 
112, belonging to Corpus Christi College, Oxford (referred 
to by Susemihl in his edition of the Nicomachean Ethics 
as O^, but not, I believe, previously collated for the Poli- 
tics) ^, and I have collated the first two books of William 
of Moerbeke's Latin translation in MS. 891 of the Phillipps 
Library, Cheltenham (referred to by me as z), and in MS. 
113 belonging to Balliol College, Oxford, named o by 
Susemihl (Sus.^ p. xxxviii), whose collation of this MS., 
made by Dr. M. Schanz, extends, however, only to the 
First Book. I have also collated a number of passages in 
the first two books of the same Latin Translation in a 
Bodleian MS. (Canon. Class. Lat. 174), which I refer to as 
y. This MS. and the Phillipps MS. have not, so far as I 
am aware, been collated before. The latter MS. is of some 
importance, for though it is neither copied from the a of 
Susemihl (MS. 19, sciences et arts, latin, of the Bibliotheque 
de I'Arsenal at Paris) nor a from it, these two MSS. evi- 
dently belong to the same family, a family of which a has 

^ See as to this MS., so far as the remarks prefixed to the Criti- 
its text of the Politics is concerned, cal Notes (below, p. 58 sqq.). 


hitherto been the sole representative, and Susemihl (with 
whom Busse concurs, de praesidiis Aristotelis Politica 
emendandi, p. ii) says of a (Sus.^ p. xxxv) — 'omnium 
librorum mihi adhibitorum longe est optimus, quoniam, 
etsi ceteris non rarius peccat, tamen longe saepius quam 
alius quis verum retinuit solus.' The words prefixed in a 
to the Translation of the Politics — incipit liber politicorum 
Aristotilis afratre Guilielmo ordinis praedicatorum de greco 
in latinum translalus — which enabled M, Barth^lemy St. 
Hilaire in 1837 (Politique d'Aristote, tome i, p. Ixxix) to 
establish the truth of Schneider's conjecture and to de- 
signate William of Moerbeke as its author, and which have 
not hitherto been found in any other MS., are prefixed to 
this translation in z also, though z does not add at the end 
of it the words which are found at the end of it in a (St. 
Hilaire, ubi supra : Sus.'^ p. xxxiv) ; the closing words in z 
are, in fact, explicit liber polliticorum Aristotilis^. 

Still it is on Susemihl's apparatus criticus that the fol- 
lowing remarks are mainly based, so far at least as the 
more important MSS. of the Politics are concerned, and 
my aim in them will be to derive as much instruction as 
possible from the copious data with which he has fur- 
nished the student of the Politics, and especially to throw 
light on the characteristics and comparative value of the 
two families into which his MSS. fall, and of the more 
important MSS. individually. I am all the more desirous 
to acknowledge my debt to Susemihl, because on ques- 
tions relating to the text I have often been led to con- 
clusions at variance with his. On these questions I shall 
be able to speak more definitively, when I have com- 
pleted my commentary, but something must be said at 
once as to the principles on which I have framed my text. 

Some Palimpsest Fragments of the Third and Sixth 
(Fourth) Books of the Politics ascribed to the tenth century 

^ Seebelow(p.6osqq.)astothese that of a, it does not by any means 

MSS. of William of Moerbeke's always do so; in fact, it occa- 

Latin Translation of the Politics, sionally offers readings peculiar to 

I will only add here as to z, that itself, some of them excellent, 
though its text often agrees with 



have recently-been discovered, or rediscoveredj in the Vatican 
Library 1, but no complete MS. of the work is older than the 
fourteenth. Nor have we any Greek commentaries on the 
Politics, such as we possess in the case of some other 
works of Aristotle, which might aid us in the correction of 
the text. The extant complete MSS. fall, as has been said, 
into two families, the second of them including a superior 
and inferior variety. The chiefs representatives of the first 
family are the two manuscripts, M" (B 105, 'ordinis stipe- 
rioris,' of the Ambrosian Library at Milan), belonging to the 
second half of the fifteenth century, and P^ (MS. 2033 of the 
Bibliotheque Nationale at -Paris), transcribed by Demetrius 
Chalcondylas^, possibly at Milan (see Sus.-' p. vii), at the 
close of the fifteenth or the beginning of the sixteenth 
century*. A full account of these manuscripts will be 
found in Susemihl's large critical edition of the Politics 

^ See the Preface. 

^ They are not its only repre- 
sentatives, for we are furnished 
with many readings characteristic 
of this recension by the correc- 
tions and various readings found 
in P^ and in larger numbers in P*, 
two MSS. of the second family. 
P', a manuscript of mixed type, 
being related to both families, 
would also be of much use, if it 
were not very late (it belongs to 
the sixteenth century), and both 
for this reason and for others, of 
very doubtful authority. It is 
also imperfect, for its earlier por- 
tion is lost, and it commences 
only at 1306 a 6. See on these 
sources Sus.^ praef. p. vi sqq. 

" Or rather Chalcocondylas — 
' of the bronze pen' (Gardthausen, 
Gr. Palaographie, p. 72). In study- 
ing the readings offered by P^ it is 
necessary to bear in mind that 
Demetrius Chalcondylas was no 
mere ordinary copyist ; he was a 
learned scholar, and superintended 
editions of Homer (Florence, 1488), 
of Isocrates (Milan, 1493), and of 
Suidas (1499). Susemihl (Sus.^ 
p. xiv) is no doubt right in regard- 
ing as emendations of his several 
VOL. 11. 

of the good readings which are 
found only in P'. Here and there, 
however, as Busse has pointed out 
(de praesidiis, etc., p. 45), P' ap- 
pears to preserve the reading of 
the archetype more faithfully than 
any other MS. of the first family 
(e.g. in 3. 9. 1280b 5). 

* P^ must be classed with the 
first family, though many of the 
corrections introduced into it by 
Demetrius belong to the second, 
just as P^ and P* must be classed 
with the second family, though 
many of the corrections introduced 
into them by their writers belong 
to the first. It is singular that 
each of the writers of these three 
MSS., and perhaps also the writer 
of the MS. used by Leonardus 
Aretinus, should have corrected 
his MS. from the recension to 
which it does not belong. This 
may indicate that some doubt was 
even then felt as to the compara- 
tive value of the two recensions. 
Some of the corrections of this 
kind in P^ are in the same ink as 
the MS., and were therefore pro- 
bably made either at the time of 
writing or not long after. 


(187 a), pp. vii-xii. Bekker omitted to collate these two 
MSS. for his edition of Aristotle (1831). Some readings 
from them, however, had been communicated by Haase to 
Gottling and had been published by the latter in his edition 
of the Politics (1824), and M. Barth^lemy St. Hilaire 
(1837) carried the study of the Paris MSS. of the Politics 
much farther ; but any one who compares the full collation 
of M^ Pi made on behalf of Susemihl with previous ac- 
counts of the text of these MSS. will see that our know- 
ledge of the readings they offer was greatly enlarged by 
the publication of his edition of 1872. So far then as 
extant manuscripts are concerned, the text of the first 
family has only recently come to be thoroughly known, 
but it must not be forgotten that students of the Politics 
have had at their disposal from the first an extremely 
literal Latin translation published probably about ia6o 
[Rkein. Mtis. 39. p. 457) and based on a Greek text of the 
first family. This translation is the work of one of the 
earliest students of Greek in Western Europe — William 
of Moerbeke, a Flemish ^ Dominican, who was Archbishop 
of Corinth at the close of his life (ia8o-i)^ — and if we 
may judge by the number of copies of it which exist, was 
largely used in the middle ages, notwithstanding the 
censure passed by Roger Bacon on the class of translations 
to which it belongs^ and its occasional almost complete 

^ Moerbeke, or Meerbecke, is a the earliest. Some scribe or other, 
small town of Eastern Flanders, perhaps a Dominican, would ap- 
some miles from Ghent. It is not pear to have added the name, 
perhaps quite certain in what whentheworkhadbecomefamous. 
sense this translation was the We must not, however, lose sight 
work of William of Moerbeke. of the fact that a great similarity 
More hands than one may have of method is noticeable through- 
been employed upon it : some out the translation ; this makes in 
parts of it (e. g. the last chapter favour of its being the work of a 
of the Second Book) show much single author, 
more ignorance of Greek than " Oncken, Die Staatslehre des 
others. We cannot feel sure that Aristoteles, p. 70. 
William of Moerbeke translated ' Speaking of William of Moer- 
the whole ; indeed, his functions beke, Roger Bacon says — ' Wil- 
may have been confined to super- lielmus iste Flemingus, ut notum 
vising the work of others and est omnibus Parisiis literatis, nul- 
editing the book. The MSS. lam novit scientiam in lingua 
which mention his name are not graeca, de qua praesumit, at ideo 


unintelligibility, which is mostly due to its extreme literal- 
ness, though not unfrequently it is the result of the trans- 
lator's imperfect knowledge of Greek ^. As no known MS. 
of the Politics except the Vatican Fragments is older 
than the fourteenth century, this translation is based on a 
Greek text earlier than any complete text we possess. 
Not much earlier, however, it would seem, if Susemihl 
is right, for he says (Politica, ed. 1872, p. xii) — ' Rudolphus 
Schoellius ex compendiorum natura libri M^ archetypum 
saeculo xiii° aut xiv° antiquius non fuisse coUegit, unde vel 
ipsum ilium codicem quem vertendo expressit Guilelmus 
saeculum xii"™ exiens aut xiii ""° iniens aetata non superasse 
ex magno vitiorum numero mirum in modum Guilelmo 
et Ambrosiano communium concludendum esse videtur.' 
Still the importance of the Latin translation is great, and 
here again Susemihl has done excellent service, for he 
has collated several manuscripts of it for his critical edition 
of the Politics (Sus.^ p. xxxiv). The value of this trans- 
lation as an authority for the text of the Politics only 
gradually came to be perceived. The Aldine edition (1498) 
was based on a manuscript of the second family, and it was 

omnia transfer! falsa et corrumpit 3. 1303 b 3, while airoida is vicinia 
sapientiam Latinorum' (quoted by in i. 2. 1252 b 17, 21 and 6 (4). 4. 
Jourdain, Recherches critiques sur 1290 b i^, hut familiaritas in 2. 
Page et Torigine des traductions 10. 1271 b 29. In 2. 5. 1264 a 
latines d'Aristote, p. 67), and 35, ras Trap' iviois vXarelas re koI 
Sepulveda remarks in the preface irevea-Teias Kal dov\eias is rendered 
to his translation of the Politics : a quibusdam obsequia et humilia- 
' vix enim eos in numero interpre- tiones et servitutes, and blunders 
turn habendos puto, qui verbum equally portentous swarm in the 
verbo inepta quadam fidelitate translation of the last chapter of 
reddunt.' Yet it is impossible hot the Second Book. In i. 6. 1255 a 
to respect the feeling which led 6 the translation has promulgatio 
William of Moerbeke to adopt for op-oKoyia : and in 14 violen- 
this mode of translating Aristotle. tiampatiiox ^la^^aOai, with ruin- 
He followed the example of most ous results to the sense of the 
of the translators of the Bible in passage. In i. 11. 1259 a 15, U- 
antiquity (Blass, Handbuch der fua-dovvra is rendered hy pretium 
klassischen Alterthums-Wissen- taxans. The translator's render- 
schaft I. 223). ing of ?; by quam in 2. 3. 1261 b 35 
^ Thus jrpo0ouXous is rendered seems to show an entire misappre- 
by/ri2«»«zJJOj,6(4). 14. 1298 b 29: hension of the meaning of the 
airoLKOi by domestici, 2. 10. 1271 b Greek. 'Ek rav kv ttoitX in 2. 5. 
27, and dn-oiKouf by expulsos, 7 (5). 1263 a 18 is ex his quae inpotibus. 

d 3 


not till 1550, when the third Basle edition of Aristotle 
appeared, that any use was made of the Latin translation 
in correcting the text (see Sus.^ p. xxxii: Sus.^ p. xvii). 
Two years later, Victorius published his first edition of the 
Politics, and in 1576 a second edition with a commentary 
(Sus.^ p. xviii). He seems to have used the Latin trans- 
lation for the emendation of the text in both his editions 
(Schneider, Aristot. Pol. Praefat. p. xx), and he speaks of it 
thus in his preface to the second :^' quoscunque calamo 
exaratos codices indagare potui, cunctos deteriores men- 
dosioresque inveni quam fuerit exemplar, quo ilia usa est' 
(see also his commentary on 4 (7). 13. 1331 b 13 sqq. 
Distribui autem, and on a. 5. 1264 a 17 sqq. Si namque 
eodem pacta). Schneider bears equally strong testimony 
to its value for critical purposes in the preface to his 
edition of the Politics, published in 1809 (p. xxv). Suse- 
mihl, with manuscripts of the first family before him, 
takes a somewhat more measured view on the subject. 
He sees^ that it is in some cases impossible^ and in 
others difficult to say what the translator found in his 
text. The translator's rendering is not always equally 
literal ^. He sometimes, as Susemihl points out, omits or 
adds small words, and where he finds that the meaning of 

' Sus.', p. xxxiii. with a verb in the third person 
^ E.g. where questions arise as singular. His Latin reproduces 
to the insertion or omission of the this false concord. Literalness 
article, or as to the spelling of could certainly be carried no fur- 
Greek words (if the Greek word ther. But in other passages the 
is not reproduced). Occasionally version is not equally exact : thus 
indeed, the article is expressed by for instance in 1256 b g, T-eX«<u- 
the translator, as for instance in Biitrw is rendered secundurn per- 
theimportantpassage 1. 13. 1260a fectionem. (or perfectam — sc. 
8, quare natura quae plura prin- generationem) :ini259ai3,o\tyou 
cipantia et subiecta. /jua-daa-aiietiov modico pro pretio 
^ This will be evident from the data: in 1259a 22, tovtov iroiovvTai 
followingexamples. In 1.6. 1255 a tov Ttoftov hoc modo faciunt divi- 
8, ypd^oj/raiTrapwdfifflKis rendered, Has (see also 1255b 35, 1268b 5). 
literally enough, scribunt intquo- An exact ' ad verbum ' rendering 
rum, : in i. 8. 1256 b 10, ouveKi-iKTei is, in fact, impracticable in Latin, 
is coepariunt-. in i. 9. 1257 a 32, and one or two of these passages 
TOO cla-dyfo-Bai is per addua. In 3. seem to show that the translator 
15. 1286 a 9-10, again, the trans- does not always make his version 
lator finds in his Greek a mascu- as literal as he might, 
line plural nominative conjoined 


a sentence will thus be made clearer, he does not scruple to 
add a Latin word or two, for which no equivalent existed 
in his Greek text (Sus.^ pp. xxxiii-xxxiv). That Greek text, 
again, Susemihl allows to have been here and there de- 
formed by chance corruptions, by arbitrary changes, and 
by the intrusion of glosses (Sus.^ p. xxxi). Notwithstanding 
all this, however, Susemihl claimed, in his edition of 1873 
at all events, that the Latin translation is 'instar optimi 
codicis, qui quamvis non eandem auctoritatem quam E in 
Physicis, Meteorologicis, Psychologicis, et A° in Poeticis et 
Rhetoricis, tamen eandem quam K*" in Ethicis et fortasse 
paulo maiorem habeat' (p. xxxii). Dittenberger in his 
valuable review of Susemihl's edition of 1873 (published in 
the Gott. gelehrt. Anz. for Oct. 38, 1874, p. 1349 sqq.) ex- 
pressed a doubt (p. 1363), whether Susemihl had in that 
edition 'kept himself entirely free, from the tendency, which 
he had noticed in Victorius and Schneider, to over-value the 
Vetus Interpres,' and though in his two subsequent editions 
of 1879 and 1883, and especially in the latter, where he 
abandons (p. xii. n.) the comparison with K*", Susemihl shows 
less confidence in the unsupported testimony of the Vetus 
Interpres, he perhaps still rates it somewhat too high. It 
is not, to begin with, absolutely clear that we have a right 
(with Susemihl) to take this translation as a reproduction of 
a single Greek manuscript. Obviously it renders with great 
literalness the Greek text which it adopts, but we must 
bear in mind that a translator, even if he does his work as 
literally as the author of this ancient translation, is not 
quite as mechanical a being as a copyist. He may not be 
invariably faithful to one manuscript \ and if he is, he may 
now and then prefer to render some gloss or conjectural 
reading which he finds in its margin, rather than the 
reading which stands in its text^- He may adopt con- 

^ Susemihl himself points out to have used) ' hie iUic adscriptae 

(Sus.^, p. xxxv), relying on a mar- erant variae lectiones, aut praeter 

ginal annotation in one MS. of r hie illic etiam alium codicem vel 

the Vet. Int. on 3. 17. 1288 a 15, plures alios (Guilelmus) inspexe- 

that 'aut in r' (the manuscript rat.' 

which the Vet. Int. is supposed ^ Roeraer in the preface to his 


jectural emendations of his own or of others. We must, I 
think, allow for these possibilities in the case of this Latin 
translation of the Politics, and not rate its testimony quite 
so high as we should rate that of a Greek manuscript of 
the same date ^ We must also remember that William of 
Moerbeke, its probable author, was not a Greek by birth, 
and that he may have been as little infallible in decipher- 
ing Greek manuscripts as he certainly was in interpreting 
Greek words. 

Nevertheless the readings offered by the thirteenth- 
century translator commonly deserve attention, and Bek- 
ker, who has here and there (for the most part in the 
wake of earlier editors), with manifest advantage to 
the text, adopted a reading based on his unsupported 
authority^, might well have done something more than he 
did in his critical edition of the Politics (1831) to call 
attention to them. He also omitted, as we have already 
seen, to collate the manuscripts M' and P^, though he 
must have learnt their importance from the imperfect notes 
of their readings given in Gottling's edition (1834) on the 
authority of Haase. This omission has now been fully 
repaired by Susemihl, who has been in his turn, perhaps, 
in his first two editions at all events, a little inclined to 
overrate the value of the authorities which he was the first 
fully to turn to account. In his third and last edition, 
however, besides being generally more conservative in his 

edition of Aristotle's Rhetoric single manuscript. 

(Teubner, 1885, p. xiii) says of ^ E.g. in 2. i. 1260b 41 he ac- 

William of Moerbeke's Latin cepts eis o i-^r on the authority of 

Translation of this treatise — ' va- the Vet. Int. in place of iVoTi/r, the 

rietates et glossas, quas pro cor- reading of aU known MSS. : in 2. 

rectionibus habuisse videtur' (cp. 7. 1266 b 2 he accepts 8' fjhy) on 

Sus.^Praef. p. vi), 'ubique cupide the same authority: in 3. 12. 

arripientem videmus hominem 1283 a 7 he gets iirepe'p^Ei in place 

omni sano iudicio destitutum.' of inrfpexfivfrom the same source : 

^_I have followed Susemihl in in 4 (7). 17. 1336 a 6 he is probably 

designating the Greek text which right in reading eiVdyciv (Vet. Int. 

the Vetus Interpres appears to 2«rfa«>'e) : in 6 (4). 4. 1292 a 22 he 

render by the symbol r, but I adds Trap' before Umipms, which 

must not be understood to imply seems quite indispensable, but 

by this that I feel sure that it in- which only Vet. Int. gives (apud). 
variably represents the text of a 


dealings with the text, Susemihl is, as we shall see, more 
cautious in his acceptance of the readings of the first family 
of manuscripts, and also in his acceptance of the unsup- 
ported testimony of the Vetus Interpres. He says himself 
of his third edition (praef. p. xii), that it is ' Bekkerianis 
multo similior quam duae priores.' 

Besides, however, being the first to give a full record of 
the readings of the first family of manuscripts, Susemihl 
has done much to add to our knowledge of the second 
family also. This is considerably more numerous than the 
first ; it includes, according to Susemihl, nearly a score of 
manuscripts. The most important of them are P^, the I*" 
of Bekker (MS. Coislin i6i in the Biblioth^que Nationale 
at Paris), a manuscript of the fourteenth century from 
one of the monasteries on Mount Athos, of which a full 
account will be found in the preface to Susemihl's edition 
of 187a (pp. xvi-xx); and P^ (MS. 3oa6 of the Bibhotheque 
Nationale at Paris), the earliest complete MS. of the 
Politics known to scholars, for it belongs to the beginning 
of the fourteenth century (see pp. xx-xxi of the same preface). 
These two manuscripts have been collated throughout by 
Susemihl. Of the less good variety of this family^, only 
P* (MS. 3025 of the Paris Biblioth^que Nationale) appears 
to have been collated from beginning to end, but Bekker 
used some of the manuscripts falling under this head for 
particular books, and Susemihl has had them collated for 
the passages indicated by him in his critical edition (1873), 
pp. xxviii-xxix, and in his explanatory edition (1879), 
pp. xvi-xvii^. O^ belongs to this variety. 

^ See on the MSS. composing chief symbols which I have adop- 

it Sus.^ p. xxi sq. Their text has ted from Susemihl. n stands for 

often suffered from the intrusion the consent of the Aldine edition 

of glosses (see critical note on and all extant MSB., so far as 

1253 a 12) and supplementary ad- these sources have been consulted 

ditions (see critical note on 1255 b for Susemihl's editions : n' for the 

12). They also frequently omit consent of the extant MSS. of the 

words, especially the article. Yet first family (in the first two books 

here and there they have alone M^ P^ only) and the text followed 

preserved the true reading (e.g. in by the Vetus Interpres: n^ for 

1320 a 16, ^117 Toi -ye). the consent of the Aldine edition 

^ I add an explanation of the and the MSS. of the second 


If we except the Vatican Fragments ^, the manuscripts of 
the Politics are of a late date, later than the text translated 
by the Vetus Interpres, which was itself apparently not 
very early. They are evidently full of the faults which are 
commonly found in manuscripts. The scribes did their 
work mechanically for the most part — often without a 
thought of the meaning of what they were writing — ^though 
here and there we seem to detect efforts to emend the 
text, especially in the case of puzzling words or passages. 
The manuscripts often incorporate glosses with the text ; 
they often omit whole clauses, especially clauses interven- 
ing between repetitions of the same word ; still oftener they 
omit one or more words ; they are often led astray by 
homoeoteleuton ; their errors are particularly frequent in 
relation to certain words ; they repeat words from the pre- 
ceding line ; they are apt to place contiguous words in the 
same case ; sometimes they seem to admit two alternative 
readings together into the text — sometimes we notice that 
clauses are transposed. To say that they have these 
defects is, however, only to say that they share the com- 
mon lot of manuscripts. Their lateness has probably 
added to their imperfections. We note, for instance, that 
many of the variations which we observe in them are 
variations in the termination of words ^, and these may often 
have arisen from the misreading or miswriting of contrac- 
tions, which were used with increasing frequency after the 
eleventh century. How easily they might thus arise will 
be seen from Gardthausen's work on Greek Palaeography 

family, so far as these sources ^ See, for instance, the various 
have been examined for Suse- readings in 1271 a 37 (out^s tf, 
mihl's editions : n' for the con- aurSi/ P^, niroC pr. P', airois n'), 
sent of the Aldine edition and the 1280 a 24 {iXevBepirj M=, iXevdepioi 
MSS. of the less good variety of n^, eXeiSepoi P' — the true reading 
the second family, subject to the being doubtless eXcuflepi'a), 1282 a 
same hmitation. I need hardly 27, 1284 b 41, 1286 a 25, 1286 b 24, 
explain that the abbreviation ' pr.' 33, 1287 b 30, 1288 a 23, 1292 b 
prefixed to the name of a MS. 36, 1297 a i : and see Sus.', p. xii, 
refers to its original state and is note 21. Not many pages, how- 
intended to distinguish an original ever, of Susemihl's apparatus cri- 
reading from a correction. ticus are free from instances of 
' See the Preface. error in terminations. 


(p. 346), where we find the remark that the same contrac- 
tion may be used to represent 0eo'ri7roj, deorriTL, fleoV/jra, 
while another represents irdXis, iroXvs, iro'^e/xos, iroXe'/itos, 
TToXtrjjs, and even iroXtreta (though the last word is more 
usually represented by a different contraction), and that a 
single contraction may be employed to express ^dWovros, 
j3aA.Aoi/rt, ^aXXovra, ^aWovres, ^dXXovTas. 

Occasionally all the manuscripts, in addition to the text 
used by the Vetus Interpres, offer a reading almost or 
quite certainly wrong^, but they seem on the whole to 
preserve with considerable fidelity the idiosyncrasies of 
Aristotle's peculiar and highly characteristic style. In a 
large number of passages earlier critics have condemned 
readings which a closer and more sympathetic study of 
Aristotle's use of language has proved to be undoubtedly 
correct^. Often and often the manuscripts have retained 
little idiosyncrasies of style, which less mechanical copyists, 
or copyists more ready to insist on the ordinary rules of 
Greek writing, might well have smoothed away. Peculi- 
arities in the order of words ^, occasional omissions of a 
word or words*, constructiones ad senstim^, carelessnesses* 

' E.g. in 2. 12. 1274b 7, rn that M= P' place Touro after TTOjeiK) : 

(except perhaps pr. P') have 7 (S). 9. 1309 b 27, tAos fi' ourca? 

enicrKe\lnv (instead of eTtiaKrf^iv) : aare nrjSe piva TTOiTjuei (jiaiveirdai. : 

in 3. 3. 1276 b 9, rn have Xe- 7 (S). 10. 1311a 23, ras airas 

yoifxfv for Xcyofiev : in 3. 8. 1279b dpxas 8el vo/ii^eiv trepi re ras ttoXi- 

28, jrpocrayopevoi. or npotrayopevei, reias dvai t&v /icTa^oKSiv Koi Trepl 

one or other of which appears in ras p-ovapxins (except that r M' 

rn, must be wrong: in 3. 15. erroneously place t£i» p.eTa0o\S>if 

1286a 9-10, doK€i . . . ot vofioi r n : before airas) : 8 (6). 6. 1320b 33, 

in 3. 16. 1287 a 29, rn seem to be to p.ev eS a-apara biaKelpeva npos 

wrong, and the Vossian codex of iyUiav: 4 (7). i. 1323 b 4, nepi 8e 

Julian alone right. Cases in which Tfjv e^a KTrja-iv tS>v aya6S>v /lerpia- 

all the MSS. are wrong and r Cov<nv. 

alone is right also occur : see for * E.g. of ttoXij and its parts (see 

example the passages referred to explanatory note on 1266 b i) : of . 

above, p. xlviii, note 2. dpeT^v, 5 (8). 4. 1338 b 15 and i. 

^ Those who do not happen to 13. 1260 a 24: oiexovcnv, 6 (4). 9. 

be acquainted with the second of 1294 b 27 : oiirpos ttjv -^vxfiv, 5 (8). 

Vahlen's Aristotelische Aufsatze 5. 1340 b 17: of /leTcxeiK, 6 (4). 6. 

will thank me for referring to it in 1292 b 36. 

illustration of this remark. ^ _ ^ E.g. 7 (5). 10. 131 i_a 33, tTjs 

' E.g. I. 6. 1255 b 2, ^ 8e (j)i(Tis 8' v^pcms ovtrrjs noKvpepovs, eKaarov 

{iovKerai pev tovto ttouiv iroKXaKis, avrmv airiov ylverai T^r opyrfs, 

ov fiivToi Siparai (so m, except ^ E.g. 3. 13. 1283b 16, 8^X01/ 


or roughnesses^ of style, and even positively bad writing^ 
are faithfully reproduced*. 

We have seen, however, that the complete MSS. fall into 
two families, and here the question arises — what is the 
origin and the extent of the distinction between them? 
We know that in parts of the de Anima and of some other 
writings of Aristotle two texts exist, which have been 
thought by some to represent two separate issues or editions, 
both from the hand of Aristotle, while others have held 
one of the texts to be a r^chauffi due, not to Aristotle, but 
to some expositor who has rewritten the original with 
slight alterations in the language, not often affecting the 
meaning. Has the distinction between the two families of 
manuscripts in the case of the Politics originated in either 
of these ways .? The question is an important one, for if 
the distinction between them had this origin, it would 
obviously be altogether improper to blend the readings of 
the two families together and to form a composite text out 
of them, as all editors have hitherto sought to do. There 
is no doubt that the differences existing between the 
two families are in part of a similar nature to those 
which exist between the two texts of the second book 
of the de Anima. As in the de Anima, so in the Poli- 
tics, we note variations in the order of words, variations 
in the use of the article, variations in particles and the like. 
But these variations are far less frequent in the Politics 
than in the portions of the second book of the de Anima 
in which a second text exists. In one or two places of 
the de Anima, again, we trace some slight divergence of 

yap its ft Tis TraXii; els TrXovmaiTepos ' Some of their mistakes seem 

dTravrav iari, bifKov on k.t.X. : 8 to be due to their ultimate deriva- 

(6). 5. 1319 b 33, icrn S epyov toO tion from an archetype in which 

voiioderov Kal tSiv /SouXo/icVwy a-vv- words were neither separated nor 

laravai riva TOiairtjv TroKireiav oi to accentuated : thus we have fj 8ij 

Karaar^a-at /icyiaTov epyov ov8e p.6- instead of ^St; in 1252 b 28, dpicr- 

vov, dW oiras o-fflfijrai fiaWov. rapxelv instead of apia-T &pxei.v in 

' E.g. 2. 6. 1264b 39-40 (cp. 1273b 5, aXV o48' co-Ttj/ instead of 

de Gen. An. 2. 7. 746 b 7-9) : 1. 10. aXXou S' eWiv in 1254 a 15, Xdpijri 

1258 a 24. 81J instead of XapijTiSg in 1258 b 

'' E.g. 6 (4). 8. 1293b 26-7. 40. 


meaning ^ and this we hardly find in the Politics. And 
then again, we note that variations in the order of words 
occur even within the first family, the order followed by 
M^ P^ being often different from that followed by T, which 
is in these cases commonly the same as that of the second 
family. It seems, therefore, hardly necessary to have re- 
course to the supposition of a double text to account for 
variations of order^. The same thing may be said as to 
variations in the use of the article and others of the same 
kind. Besides, many of the differences between the read- 
ings of the two families are of a sort which is not equally 
conspicuous in the two texts of the de Anima. One 
family uses one form of a word, the other another: 
the first has d\|f07roirjrtKij, the second o^o-noiU-ri : the first 
commonly uses the form f^ovdpxns, the second jnoVapxos^ 
and so forth. The second family occasionally avoids hiatus 
where the first does not. Differences of this kind are 
probably due to grammarian revisers of the text ; and 
if this is so, it seems probable that the differences which 
might be ascribed to a duality of text have also originated 
in the same way. Many of the differences, again, between 
the text of II^ and 11^ appear to be due to a misreading of 
contractions, or to omissions on the part of one set of manu- 
scripts or the other (most often of 11^), or to other accidental 
causes. It does not seem likely that the contrast of the 
two families runs back (at all events in its present pro- 
portions) to anything like so early a date as do the two 

* E.g. in de An. 2. g. 42139, arise, and, if they arose in an 

where the received text has — atriov archetype, how widely they might 

6' OTi TTjv aicr8ri(nv TaiiTrjv ovK e-)^Ojiev be diffused. 

axpt^ij, aWa x^'-P'" To^^Si' C^av, ' ' The dependent compounds of 

and the second text — alnov 8 on the stem Spxca end in Attic not in 

OVK exo/Jiev aKpt^rj TavTrjv TrjV oLaBrj- -apxis, but throughout in -apxos 

iTiv, cSO\.a x^lpi-CTa 6(TiiaTai. avBpamos {yvfivatriapxos, Srjjjuipxos, irmapxos, 

tS>v ^wav. rpitjpapxos, etc.) : still in an Attic 

^ M^ here and there has an order inscription of B. c. 324 we find 

of its own (e. g. in 1267 b 40). It certain finance officials of the 

is easy to see from Susemihl's deme Athmone named p-epapxai' 

apparatus criticus on 1271a 25, (Meisterhans, Grammatik der at- 

36 (Sus.', pp. 127, 128), how easily tischen Inschriften, pp. 53-54). 
these changes of order might 


texts of portions of the de Anima. Both famiHes agree in 
the order in which they arrange the books. In both, the 
first four chapters of the Sixth Book are little better than 
a chaos. This last defect, it is true, may have existed in 
the work as Aristotle left it. All the manuscripts, and the 
vetus versio also, have the obvious blunder eTria-Kfyjnv in a. 
12. 1^74 b 7 : all read e/c be tov TeTaprov r&v TerdpToiv in 3. 6. 
12,66 a 1 8. The text of the Vatican Fragments is a mixed 
text, and may possibly belong to a time prior to the rise 
of a marked contrast between the two families. 

It would seem, then, that both families of manuscripts 
may safely be used in the construction of a text of the 
Politics. No editor, in fact, has attempted to base his 
text on one family only and dispensed altogether with the 
aid of the other. Bekker mainly relies on the second 
family, but he has adopted several readings from the Vetus 
Interpres: Susemihl bases his text in the main on the 
first family, and especially on T, but he frequently adopts 
readings from the second ^. Editors of the Politics seem 
to have no option but to make their text more or less a 
composite text. Ours must be based partly on the first 
family of manuscripts, partly on the better variety of the 
second : occasionally perhaps it may be necessary to take 
a reading from the less good variety of the second. The 
question whether in a given passage we are to follow the 
reading given by the first family or the second, which is 
often a difficult one, must be decided partly by the proba- 

^ E. g. in the following passages the second family not a few words 

of the First and Second Books : which he had previously elimi- 

1255 a S, 1259 b 2, 1260 a 39, nated in rehance on the authority 

1262 a 30, 1264 a I, 1264 b 3, of the first family, and generally 

1265 a 30, 35 (xpfja-Lv), 1265 b 4, showing an increased confidence 

21, 1266a 20, 23, 1267 b 40, 1270 in the second family, though he 

a 20, 21, 1271 a 27, 1273 a lo, still prefers the first. Instances 

1273 b 3. It may be added that of this will be found in the fol- 

Susemihl recognizes in his third lowing passages of the first two 

edition (praef. p. xvi), how prone books, as they stand in Suse- 

the MSS. of the first family are mihl's third edition — 1253 a 25, 

to omit words, and how little 1257 b 24, 1260 b 17, 1261 a 22, 

they are to be depended on in 1263 b i, 6, 1264 a 16, 1268 a 26, 

cases of omission; hence we find 1270 a 25, 34, 1273 a 9, b 2, 27, 

him in this edition accepting from 1274 b 8. 


bilities of the particular case, partly in reference to the 
known tendencies of either family. 

The manuscripts of the second family, for instance, as 
has been said, avoid hiatus more frequently than those of 
the first ^ : here in all probability the less polished version 
is the more genuine. In matters of spelling, again, the 
first family has perhaps occasionally preserved peculiarities 
which the second has smoothed away (e. g. the form o-u//- 
(j}vrjvai in 1363 b 13, which is all the more likely to be cor- 
rect because it is found in K*" in Eth. Nic. 7. 5. 1147 a aa)^. 
When the first family unanimously places words in one 
order which the second places in another, the order given 
by the first family is sometimes to my mind more unstudied 
and more Aristotelian than that given by the second ^. But 
in graver matters at any rate the advantage seems to me 
to rest with the second family *. In some cases falling under 
this head, no doubt, the readings of the first family may 
well deserve our preference. Thus in 2. 11. 1373 ^ 4^' ^^ 
give us ravrriv oi)( olov re ^e^alcDS dptoroKparetcrflai Tr]V iroXt- 
rei'ai;, and 11^ the softened and probably less genuine reading 
TavTTjv ovv olov T elvai fie^aCoos apicTTOKpaTiKrjV Tiokireiav : and 
in 3. I. 1360 b 38 Tis n' seems preferable on similar grounds 
to ^, which is the reading of the manuscripts of the second 
family. So again in 4 (7). i3. 1331 b 13 n^ have preserved 

^ E. g. in 1254 b 14: 125s a II, spelling we get no assistance from 

b 5, 21 : 1256 a 33, b 18 : 1258 a 31 : the Vetus Interpres, and are de- 

1259 b 7 : 1261 b 17, 32 : 1263 a pendent on M= P^, so far as the 

28 : 1264 a 37, 38, etc. In these first family is concerned, 

passages, however, the elisions by ' E. g. in 5 (8)^ 2. 1337 b 20 tf 

which hiatus is avoided are of have 6 df amo ravro itparTav ttoX- 

a trivial and obvious kind : serious Xokis 81' aWovs drjTiKov xai SouXikov 

cases of hiatus are commonly left h> So^eie irpaTTeiv (where noWaKiv 

untouched in both families alike. is to be taken with &v fid|«e — 

^ It is not, however, always the compare the similar displacement 

case that the spelling of n^ is to of n-oWdxis in i. 6. 1255 b 3), while 

be preferred; For instance, the n'' place jroWa/tis after St' aWovs 

form (piSina (U^) seems preferable (and also Sv after So^euv), thus 

to (jiiKina (tf)— see critical note arranging the words in a more 

on 1271 a 27. It is hardly likely regular and logical, but probably 

that in matters of spelling com- less genuine, order, 

plete reliance can safely be placed " The Vatican Fragments agree 

on eitherfamily. It should be noted far more often with the second 

that in questions as to hiatus and family than with the first. See 

commonly also in questions of the Preface. 


the true reading vevefxija-dai (W almost without exception 
have fxeixiixijcrdai), and in 4 (7). 17. 1336 b 2 aireKavveiv 11^ 
seems to be undoubtedly wrong. But on the whole it ap- 
pears to me that 11^ less often transmute a puzzling reading 
into an easier one than n^. Thus, for example, in 

I. 2. 1252 b 15, ofioKairovs, the reading of most MSS. of the 
second family, is better than oiMKanucnis, tf P* L^. 

I. 4. 1253b 27, Twv olKovofUK&v, the reading of almost all the 
MSS. of the second family, is better than ra olxovofUKa, the 
reading of the first. 

1. 9. 1257b 24, n^ seem to be wrong in omitting oJror. 
I.ii.i258b27, tf have corrected Tplrov into Tcraprov wrongly, 

though not unnaturally. 

2. 2. 1261 b 7, ovT£ tf is probably more genuine than ui n\ 

2. 7. 1267 a 40, n' omit the second Sv, though the repetition of 
&v is probably right. 

2. 8. 1268b 12, n" retain the singular but quite Aristotelian 
(Bon. Ind. 454 a 20 sq.) displacement of pev, of which indeed 
there are many traces in the MSS. of the Latin Translation. 

21, n* add Tjbr) probably rightly. 

1269 a 18, Vet. Int. has gut mutaverit, and may perhaps have 
found d added in his text before Kiwijo-ar, where M^ P^ add ns : 
n^ are probably right in reading simply Kivfjo-as. 

2. 9. 1270 a 34, tf omit an awkward but idiomatic /itv. 

3. 12. 1282 b 15, Sc tf is more probably Aristotelian than Sy n*. 
3. 14. 1285 b 12, P^ and (on second thoughts) P' give mavdraa-ts : 

M^ P^ and possibly r (Vet. Int. elevatio) wrongly iiravaarams. 

6 (4). 5. 1292 b 5, the difiicult word ela-ln (' takes office ') becomes 
(h nt] in r Ms pr. P'. 

6 (4). 6. 1293 a 3, n'' rightly omit koL before evTropias. 

6 (4). 12. 1296 b 33, an idiomatic 8e is omitted by B}, but pre- 
served by n''. 

6 (4). 16. 1300 b 30, Trawl n^ seems to me to be right, not ira- 

pOVTl tf. 

8 (6). 8. 1322 b 14, el(r<j>opdv 11' is undoubtedly correct, though 
r Ms P' substitute the commoner word i(}>opelav. 

4 (7). I. 1323 b 9, the idiomatic use oi airav is probably correct, 
but r Ms P' omit the word. 

4 (7). 12. 1331 b 5, rriv n" is probably right, though its omission 
by r Ms pr. P^ makes the passage easier. This omission, 
however, may well be accidental, as Tqv is followed by tZv. 


S (8)- 5- 1339 a 29, T€ n-aio-Ji/ n'', where the place of re, though 
not that which we should expect, is justified by many parallel 
instances (see Bon. Ind. 749 b 44 sqq.), whereas P^ reads ye 
and Ms omits re, and possibly r also, but of this we cannot be 
certain, for the Vet. Int. seldom renders tc 

5 (8). 6. 1 34 1 a 13, KOI, which n^ add, is probably right, though 
not easy to interpret. 

5 (8). 6. 1341 b I, tf wrongly substitute "a/i^ot for a-a/i^vKcu. 

The manuscripts of the first family seem also, I think, to 
admit glosses into the text more frequently than the better 
ones of the second (see, for instance, SusemihI's apparatus 
criticus on i. 8. 1256 b a6: 2. 6. 1265 a 21, 22 : 2. 7. 1266 a 
37: 2. 10. 1271 b 28 : 3. 4. 1277 a 23: 3. 10. 1281 a 28, 
where o-wovSaTa, which is probably a gloss, takes in 11^ the 
place of SiKoia). Clearly, again, as Dittenberger has 
remarked^, and Susemihl has now fully recognized (Sus.^ 
p. xvi), these manuscripts are apt to omit words, probably 
because their archetype was somewhat carelessly written ^. 
Take the following instances from the Third Book : — 

1275a II, tf om. Kox. yap Tavra Tomois inapxei: 28, T M^ pr. P^ 

om. KaiToi — apxrjs: 1 276 a 4, Ms P', and possibly r, om. Trjs: 
b 3, Ms P\ and possibly r, om. &v: 36, r M^ pr. P' om. aXU: 

1277 a 20, n' om. dper^ after ^ airrj : 24, r M^ pr. P^ om. ia-ms: 

1278 b 2, om. « tSiv flpriiifvcav : 20, om. ovK eXaTTov; 1279 a 2, 
n' om. eva, though Ms P^ move dvat to its place : 34, M^ P^, 
and possibly r, om. tS>v in ttjv Se tS>v oKLyav. b 15, tf bm. n: 
1280 b I, Ms P\ and possibly r, om. tov : 5, r M^ pr. P' om. 
TroXmKTjs: 1282a 7, n} om. Koi: 17, om. ^ before ^cKtIovs: 
40, Ms P\ and probably r, om. to before tovtiov : 1283 a 10, 
tf om. KOI, and in the next line in vaa-av dvia-orriT T Ms pr. 
P^ omit the second of the two syllables av, making awo-oVi/r' 
into iVoTTjT or laoTrjra: 17, Ms P^, and possibly r, om, t : 32, 

^ Gbtt.gel. Anz., Oct. 28, 1874, extensive scale than those of n^ 

p. 1359. If we examine the dis- (see, for example, 1307 b 32-34, 

crepancies between n' and IS? in 1334 a 37-38, 1336 b 18, 1337 b 

the first two books of the Politics, 16-19, 34-3S)) hut they fortunately 

we shall find that in a large pro- occur less frequently, and they 

portion of cases they arise from give rise to no critical doubts, 

the omission of words in n\ They are often obviously due to 

^ Omissions also occur in n'*, homoeoteleuton. 
and some of them are on a more 


Ms P^ and possibly r, om. to: b 2, tf om. tc 1284 b 11, 
om. Ti (perhaps rightly): 1285 a 6, M^ P\ and possibly r, 
om. tow: 1286 b 31, tf om. xal before /cuto: 1287 a 16, om. 

Tolvw: 2g, r om. eViTTjSef jraiSeuo-as, M^ P^ om. jraiSeio-ar : 

b 38, r Ms pr. P' om. koI oXXo ^atriXiKov : 1288 a 6, tf om. 
^Sj;: 16, om. nva: 29, om. roikov (as they omit outos in 
1257 b 24 and oStoi in 1273 a 9). 

In his third edition, Susemihl adopts the reading of the 
first family in only four of the passages which I have just 
cited. A similar array of passages might be adduced from 
the Sixth Book, and a somewhat shorter one from the First 
and Second. I am far from saying that in every one of 
these passages the sin of omission can be positively brought 
home to n^ — on the contrary, in more than one of them it 
is not clear whether 11^ omit or n^ add — but I am inclined 
to think, as Susemihl now thinks (Sus.^ p. xvi), that IT^ 
add a good deal less often than 11^ omit. At all events, it 
is evident that omissions in 11^ must be carefully scrutinized 
before we can safely accept them. 

It has already been said that most of the discrepancies 
between n^ and 11^ seem to be due to errors of trans- 
cription or to have originated in some other easily intelli- 
gible way ; but there is a certain percentage of which this 
cannot be said. In the First and Second Books the follow- 
ing variations may be cited under this head : — 

A. I. 7. 1255 b 26, TovTcov n} is replaced by tUv roioirav in n^. 

B. 2. I. 1260 b 28, ris n\ ri nl 

C. 2. 8. 1267 b 26, Kojuis V Ms pr. P^, Koo-fWB TToXvreXeT tf. 

D. 2. 9. 1269 b 21, ToiovTos ia-Tiv b} (so accentuated in M^ P^), 

ipavepSs ioTi roioCros &v 11^. 

(Cp. 1269 b 26, where r M^ pr. P' om. (^awpSr.) 

E. 2. 10. 1 271 b 28, Kp?iTes V M? pr. P' (all other MSS. AuKrtot). 

F. 2. II. I2733' 4I) ravrqv ov}( oTov re jSejSatW apioTOKpaTeitrBai 
TTjV no\iTciav 11 : ravTrjv oix oiov t civai fie^alas apiaroKpaTUOfv 
TToKiTfiav n'. 

In E there can be little doubt that a gloss explanatory 
of AvKTLoi has taken the place of this word in T Ms pr. P^. 
Of B and F something has already been said. A, C, D 


remain, and these are less easy to classify or account for, 
but it is noticeable that in all these three passages ff 
abbreviate, just as elsewhere they omit. 

So far we have been considering cases in which 11^ and 
n^ are at issue ^, and these ara the most difficult and per- 
plexing with which we have to deal. It often happens, 
however, that the three texts of the first family — three, if 
we include the original of the vetus versio — do not agree. 
M' and P^, and also T and M^, often stand apart by them- 
selves, and r and P^ occasionally do so^. When M' P^ 
stand alone, we usually find that V agrees with the second 
family, and the same thing may be said of P^ when F M' 
stand alone. Against the union of V n^ not much weight 
commonly attaches, as it seems to me, to that of M° P^, 
and r M^ have also, I think, little weight when matched 
against P^ n^. 

The following passages from the Second Book will illus- 
trate this in reference to M^ P^, though some of the read- 
ings referred to are far better than others, and I would not 
pronounce positively against all : — 

1260 b 32, Ms P^ cm. T : 1261 a 6, M^ P' eV t!] nXaravos rroKireta : 
the other MSS. have eV t^ TroXtreia rrj (some tov) nXarmvos : 17, 
M^ P" ou for ovSe wrongly: 1261 b 25, Ms P^ cm. toIs in raw 
yvvai^l Koi Tois tckvok : 28, Ms P^ om. Ti's : 1262 a 35, Ms pr. 
P^ om. eivai: 1262 b 6, Ms pi om. ourtos wrongly : 7, Ms P' 
om. «: 1263 b 32, Ms pr. P^ earai wrongly: 1264a i, M* 
pr. P' iKoivi>vr)<re wrongly : 1264 b 20, Ms pr. P' flo-n-fp wrongly: 
39, Ms pi om. \6yois: 1265 a 18, Ms P' /i^ for /iij8ei/ wrongly: 
36, Ms P^ add /ieV after irpdas: 1265b 27, Ms P' place /leV 
not after ^ovKeTm like the rest, but after oKrj, not probably 
rightly: 1266b 28, Ms P' Ta|ei instead of Td^euv: 1268a 14, 

' It is possible that the con- been verified by the discovery of 

trast of the two families of MSS. the Vatican Fragments.] 

would be less strongly marked, if ^ We find r and P^ standing 

we possessed a larger number of together alone far less often than 

good MSS. of the Politics. We r and Ms, or M^ and P'. The 

might probably in that case pos- remarks in the text were written 

sess MSS. occupying an inter- before I became acquainted with 

mediate position between the two. SusemihI's third edition, in which 

■this hardly any of our MSS. can I find that they are to some extent 

be said to do. [My surmise has anticipated. 

VOL. II. e 


M^ pr. P' om. (cai ^eviKav • 37, M^ pi yefflpyeiw wrongly : 1268 b 
23, Ms pi ycvea-dai for yiveaBai : 1 269 a 18, M^ P^ add tis before 
Kiv^a-as (wrongly, I think) : 1269b 28, M^ P^ Trpmrios in place 
of jrpSiTos: 32, Ms pi Sim/t^ro wrongly for SixoKeko: 1270a i, 
Ms pr. pi oip. T^r oiKEi'as wrongly : 8, M^ P' yivofUvav wrongly 
for yevojievmv : 17, M^ P^ om. Xtav before oialav: TOP Ms, tS)v pi 
wrongly for toIi: 26, Ms pi om. ^ before koI wrongly: 1270 
b 2, Ms pi om. Tois TToXtrai wrongly : 8, Ms pi om. iffTiv : 26, 
Ms pi ^817 wrongly for eSei: 1271 a 16, Ms pi om. &v wrongly : 
1271 b 22, Ms pi re wrongly for Sc: 1272 b 31, Ms pi cm. 
exova-av (wrongly, as I think), and om. iv wrongly : 1273 b 25, 
Mspi KprjTris wrongly for Kprjniiijs : 37, Mspi om. yap wronglyi. 

Changes in the order of words peculiar to M^ P^ occur 
not unfrequently ; the following instances may be adduced 
from the Second Book : — 

1260 b 41, 1261 b 7, 1263 a 22, b 16, 17, 1264 a 9, 1265 b 15, 
1267 a 38, 1268a 39, 1271 a 36, b 7, 1272 b 24. 

It would be rash to alter the order of words on the au- 
thority of these two manuscripts unsupported by others. 

As to the readings peculiar to F M', not many of them, 
I think, possess merit Take the following list from the 
Second Book : — 

1261 a 21, r Ms om. koI before Swaros (wrongly, I think) : 33, 
r Ms read 8e for yap wrongly : i264ai9,rMs wadovres (F^b!' 

padovres) : b 9, T Ms emovSev Sij wrongly for rjirovBiv fiij : 1267 a 
2, r pr. Ms om. KOI wrongly : 1268 b 9, r Ms om. iral wrongly : 
1269 a 25, r Ms om. koi before Kimfrioi-. 1270 a 12, r Ms om. 
ioiKiv wrongly : b 8, r Ms om. airi] wrongly : 1271318, r Ms 
om. bia : b 7, r Ms om. ph : 1272 b i, r Ms have 8m<pep6vTa>v 
wrongly for SiacpBepovvrav : 1273 a 40, r Ms have 7roXiT«5i» 
wrongly for noXtrSiv : b 4, r Ms have &v wrongly for Ak: 1274 
a 8, r Ms om. Ta~-UepiK\rjs (homoeoteleuton) : 28, r Ms om. 
pavTiKTiv: b 20, r Ms om. yap wrongly^. 

1 MS pi perhaps diverge raSier Books seem to me to be of even 

more frequently from the other less value than in the Second. 
texts in the Second Book than in ^ The record of these two MSS. 

the First and Third, but the read- is no better in the First, Third, 

ings pecuUar to these two MSS. and Sixth Books, 
in the First, Third, and Sixth 


Readings resting on the authority of only one of the 
manuscripts of the Politics possess, as a rule, but little 
weight. ' Such readings,' remarks Dittenberger {Gott. gel. 
Anz., Oct. 38, 1874, p. 136a), 'should only be adopted after 
convincing proof, (i) that the reading unanimously given 
by the other MSS. and probably inherited from the arche- 
type is on internal grounds untenable, and (a) that the 
emendation offered by the single MS. in question is the 
easiest, simplest, and most satisfactory that can be offered.' 
M' is a carelessly written manuscript, and very little im- 
portance can be attached to its unsupported testimony. 
We have already seen that not a few tempting readings 
peculiar to P^ are probably conjectural emendations of its 
learned transcriber, and we must beware of attaching too 
much importance to its unsupported testimony^. The 
same thing may be said of P^, and also of P^. 

When, however, we ask what value is to be attached to 
the unsupported testimony of the text followed by the 
Vetus Interpres, we are on more debatable ground. Suse- 
mihl still attaches much importance to it, though, as has 
been said, considerably less in his third edition than in his 
previous ones. But even he accepts only a moderate 
proportion of the many readings which rest on its un- 
supported testimony. Dittenberger unhesitatingly applies 
to r the rule which we have just cited from him. ' From 
this rulfe,' he says (Gott. gel. Anz. p. 1363), ' no exception 
should be made even in favour of the translation of William 
of Moerbeke. No doubt it is quite true that it represents 
the best of all the manuscripts of the Politics, but even 
the testimony of the best single manuscript, as it is not the 
sole representative of a family, has from a diplomatic point 
of view no weight whatever in opposition to the concur- 
rence of all other manuscripts of both families.' 

The question, however, arises, as we have seen, how far 
the translation faithfully reproduces the Greek text (or texts) 

• Its value may be studied in b 13 : 1293 a 30 : 1294 a 3, I a, 

the following passages from the b 8, 23, 24 : 1296 a 16, b 7, 10 : 

Sixth Book :— 1289 a 10, IS, b 1 : 1297 b 16 : 1298 a 7, 18 : 1299 a 

1290 a I : 1291 b 31 : 1292 a I, 30 ; 1300 a 3, S, b 13, 18. 

e a 


used by the translator \ Susemihl recognizes even in his. 
first edition that in some matters it is not rigidly faithful to 
its original. ' Denique, quamvis omnia ad verbum vertere 
soleat Guilelmus, cavendum tamen est, ne, ubicunque paulo 
liberiore ratione utatur, semper aliud quid in eius exemplo 
scriptum fuisse credamus atque in nostris hodie legitur. 
Nam non solum idem vocabulum Graecum non eodem 
semper reddit Latino, verum sunt etiam parvulae voces, 
quas contra codicis sui auctoritatem aut addiderit aut 
omiserit, velut copulam saepissime adiecit, ubi deest in 
exemplaribus Graecis ^, praepositionem cum plurium nomi- 
num casibus copulatam' ante unumquodque eorum repetere 
solet ^ re et ye particulas plerumque non vertit, in Stoirep et 
aliis vocabulis cum irep compositis modo hoc itep quideni 
voce exprimit, modo silentio transit. Quae cum ita sint, 
etiam verba quaedam in omnibus aut paene omnibus codi- 
cibus omissa, quae Guilelmi auctoritate fretus Aristoteli 
reddidi, velut a. 3. 12,62, a 12, fj, a. 5. 1363 a ^5 as, h 34 
e(7Tai, 2. 6. 1265 a 34 Crjv, 3. 3. 12763 25 Torrov, 4 (y). 17. 
"^337^ 7 f^vai (cf. a. 7. 1267 b 18 iy, 4 (7). 16. 1335 a 30 
Xpovta), in dubium posse vocari,utrum revera in exemplo suo 
invenerit an Latine tantum reddiderit sententia et sermonis 
Latini ratione permotus, eo libentius concedo, quo minus 
aliis locis tale quid factum esse potest negari, velut vix 
I. 9. 1257b 38 re'Aos post av^rjais legisse censendus est, 
quamquam vertit huius autem augmentatio finis ' (Sus.^, 
pp. xxxiii-xxxiv). 

This list, however, is far from exhausting the laxities 

' I regret that Busse's excellent independently arrived at many 

dissertation ' de praesidiis Aris- similar results on this subject 

totelis Politica emendandi ' (Ber- may lend some additional weight 

lin, 1881) did not come to my to our common conclusions, 

knowledge till some months after ^ He adds est in the following 

my remarks on the Vetus Inter- passages of the first two books 

pres and my critical notes had ■ — 1253 a 16, 1255 b 7, 31, 1256 a 

been written. I find that he has 21, 1261 a 2, 1264 a 34, 1271 a 5, 

anticipated several of the criti- 1274b 9: fJJ« in 1260b 37, 1264a 

cisms which I have ventured to 9: eritm 1263 b 34, 1266 b 27. 

piake on the thirteenth-century ' See 1258a i, \i(yi\t 3, 1269a 

translation as an authority for the 10, 1271b 8. So too ut, 1253 b 

text of the Politics. Perhaps 16 (in most MSS,). 
however the fact that we have 



which the worthy translator permits himself. He omits 
liev without support from any extant manuscript (so far 
as they have been examined) in twelve passages of the 
first two books ^, koX in sixteen^, 5^ in eight ^, yap in three*, 
q.v in four". He fails to render ovre in 1253 b 3^) " in' 
^'^5i b 33. He often reads ye (1354a 9, ia66 b 34, 1369 b- 
9) or be (1368 b 41, 1371 b 15) for re, though sometimes re 
for ye (1354 b 34, 1373 b 7. ^^74 a 15) or for 8e (1358 a 26), 
and ye for 8^ (1353 b 8, 1368 b 16). He renders r) by et 
in 12^0, a. 13, 1253 b 34, 1356 a 37, 1358 b 19, and koL by 
aut, in 1363 a 8. He occasionally adds words — civitates. 
in 1366 b I, scilicet in 1274 a i, eorum in 1358 a 5. His 
voices, moods, and tenses often fail to reproduce the 
voices, moods, and tenses of the original. Thus we find 
him substituting the passive for the active*, the active 
for the passive'', the indicative for the subjunctive*, 
the subjunctive for the indicative', the present for the 
past^°, the past for the present". He sometimes, though 
not very often, omits words of some length, or even two 
or three words together ^^. This is probably the result of 
accident. He usually adheres to the order of the words 

^ 1252a 27, 1257a 7, 1258b II, 

1259 a 28, 1265 a 9, 1266b 3, 1270a 
4, b II, 37, 1273a 26, 1274a 26, 
b 15. The omissions noted in the 
text may be due in part to errors 
committed by copyists of the 
translation, but they appear in aJl 
Susemihl's MSS. of it. 

^ 1252 a 29, 1253 a 31, 1258 a 2 
(z adds et here), 12593 33, b 8, 29, 

1260 a 31, 1262 a 18, 1263 b 34, 
1264a 15, 1266b 28, 1267 b 24, 
1269 a 38, 1270 a 26, 1274 a 25, b 

' 1252 a 13, b 23, 1254 b 24, 
1256 b 33, 1262 a 38, 1266 a II, 
b 2, 1269 a 19. 

* 1264 a 36, 1268 b 13, 1274 b 

' 1254 b I, 1256 a 4, 12653 30, 
1269 b 26. I am far from saying that 
the Vet. Int. always makes these 
omissions without MS. authority, 
but their frequency makes it pro- 

bable that they are largely his. 

"E.g. in 1256b 41, 12593 3, 
1262b 25, 1264b 14, I26sb 7, 1266 
b 20, 1267 a 38, b 5, 1268 b 21, 
1271 b 5, 1274 a 7. Busse makes 
the same remark (p. 25). 

' E.g. in 1262a 5, 1265b ID, 
1266a II, 1269a 18, 1271 a 22. 

^ E.g. in 1270a 27. 

' E.g. in 1253a 22, I26sb 15, 
1288 b 36. 

^^ E. g. in 1265 a 27, 1266 a 37, b 
3,7,27, 1268 b 38, 1269b 16, 1271b 
4, 22,1272 b 32, 1273 b 17, 1274 a 


" E.g. in 1262b 6, 1273 b 39. 

'^ ndvTiov, 1254b 15, 1261 a 2 : 
TJj (l>itrei, 1253 a 19: ytvoitevaiv,, 
1257 b 17 : Kal Trjs Kpr/TiKrjs, 1269a 
29 : e^co KeX7-£v, 1269 b 26 : eKaa--- 
Tov, 1271a 29: Kafleo-TrjKfl', I271 a 
41 : avTov, I274 a 27. 


in the Greek, but not unfrequently he makes slight changes 
in it, which do not probably for the most part correspond to 
anything in the text before him^. Here and there (e.g. in 
1357 a 30-31) these changes are forced on him by the differ- 
ence between Latin and Greek. We must remember that, 
however useful this translation may be to us for textual 
purposes, its author never dreamed of its being thus used. 
He never designed it to serve as a substitute for a manu- 

In addition to the minute inaccuracies we have been 
noting, blunders in translation often occur, and also ap- 
parently blunders in the decipherment of the Greek text. 
Of the former class of blunders a few specimens have 
already been given; it would be easy to add to their 
number indefinitely. The last chapter of the Second Book 
offers some remarkable examples. It is hardly likely that so 
poor a Greek scholar can have been perfect as a decipherer 
of Greek writing; it is perhaps owing to this, that he 
renders avianos as avoa-ios in ia53 ^ 5j ''"'^ telvos as roBSe 
vlos in 1262 a 3, idikeiv as jxiWiiv or o^eikeiv in 1*67 a 34, 
apl(TTr\v as apeTTJs in 1369 a 3a, iTri/cetrat as ^uo/ceirai in 1271 b 
34, and y^pas as yrjpas in 1272 a 37^ unless indeed we sup- 
pose his Greek text to have been exceptionally defective in 
these passages. We can sometimes account for errors in 
the vetus versio by the supposition that the translator used 
a manuscript in which ambiguous contractions similar to 
those found in M^ occasionally occurred, for in one or two 
places where M= has a contraction of this kind we find the 
translator going astray : thus in 1335 a 27, where instead of 
irkriOvov M' has a contraction which might be taken to stand 
for ttXtj^oj, the rendering of the Vet. Int. is multum, and in 
1337 a 28 under similar circumstances Vet. Int. has ipsorum 
where we expect ipsum. Here and there, again, as Busse 
has pointed out (pp. 14-28), the translator would seem 
to have sought to mend defects in his Greek text by con- 
jectures of his own : one of the clearest cases of this is to 

^ His plan is, according to sensu cobaereant etiam collocati- 
Busse (p. 13), 'ea quae forma ac one arctius coniungere.' 


be found in 4 (7). 14. 1334 a a sqq., where the omission of 
some words in the translator's Greek text (and in M=) makes 
nonsense of the sentence, and he has sought to remedy this 
by rendering rdfjj ordinis, as if it were rafecos. So too in 
8 (6). 7. 1331 a 6, finding probably in his text the same 
meaningless fragment of jBavava-iKdv {vava-iKov) which appears 
in M°, the translator renders it nautica to make sense, and 
in I. 8. 1356 a 30 he has multis for the same reason, though 
the reading he found in his text was in all probability the 
blunder iroXXol. 

It is evident that, however good the manuscript or manu- 
scripts used by the Vetus Interpres may have been^, we 
have only an imperfect reproduction of them in his trans- 
lation. Before, therefore, we can accept a reading which 
rests on its unsupported authority, we must in the first 
place make sure that he has manuscript authority for it, 
and that it has not originated in some error or inaccuracy 
or conjecture of his own. It is only of a certain number 
of the readings peculiar to the Vetus Interpres that we 
can assert this with confidence. The following are instances 
of readings too remarkable to have originated with the 
translator : — 

2. I, 1260 b 41, els 6 Trjs in place of iVoViji n. 
a. 7. 1266 b 2, 3' ^817. 

3. 12, 1283 a 7, vwepix^i. 

4 (7). 17. 1336 a 6, ela-dyeiv, 

I. 2. 1253a 7, wcreivols for ireTTois. 

In the first four of these passages I am inclined to think 
that the translator's Greek text preserved the true reading. 
In the fifth he may probably have translated a marginal 

* They seem to have sufiered and in 1291 b 29, o/ioia, which is 

from the incorporation of glosses probably a gloss intended to ex- 

with the text (e.g. in 1254 b i, plain tcitovtois Xeyd/icva Kara Tijv 

(fyavKas appears to be a gloss, ijlox- avTfjv 8ia(jiopai>, has been added to 

6r]pSig the true reading: glosses these words). We must also credit 

have found their way into the the text followed by the Vet. Int. 

Greek text followed by the Vet. with the many erroneous readings 

Int. in 1259 b 14 and 1^87 a 10 ; common to it with M^ 


correction, for the correction TreretTOis appears in the margin 
of more than one extant manuscript. 

So far as to varieties of reading ; but manuscripts are 
liable to still- graver defects — to interpolation, chasms in 
the text, displacement of words, clauses, and paragraphs, 
and the like. In the text of Aristotle's treatise de Genera- 
tione Animalium, for instance, a chasm is thought to be 
traceable in a. i. 735 a 11 (after QvupovvToif , and whole 
paragraphs in more cases than one seem to be out of 
their true place 2. How has it fared with the Politics in 
respect of these matters ? 

As to interpolation, I have elsewhere pointed to more 
than one passage in which it may reasonably be suspected. 
Susemihl, as is well known, holds that chasms in the text of 
the Politics occur not unfrequently, and that in many cases 
the transposition of clauses and paragraphs is called for. 
There would be nothing surprising in this. We occasionally 
find sentences obviously displaced in manuscripts of the 
Politics^, and here and there we seem to trace a minute 
but indubitable chasm (there is a chasm of this kind in 
the better manuscripts in 1285 a 19). The question is one 
on which I would rather not express a definitive opinion, 
till I have completed my commentary, but so far as I can 
judge at present, I doubt whether Susemihl has made out 
his case. Problems of this kind, however, are best dis- 
cussed in notes on the particular passages in reference to 
which they arise. 

The question whether double versions occur is also an 
interesting one. This, again, is one for discussion in detail. 
I will only say that they need to be very clearly estab- 
lished, and that I am inclined to doubt whether they are 
really traceable in many of the cases in which they have 
been supposed to be so. The double inquiry into the cause 

' So think Aubert and Wim- 30 : z. 3. 737 a 34-737 b 7 (Au- 

mer : see their edition of the de bert and Wimmer, pp. 98, 152). 

Gen. An., p. 140. ' E. g. in 1264 b 3, 1287 b 18, 

^ De Gen. An. I. 19. 726 b 24- 1290 a 32. 


of the existence of a multiplicity of constitutions contained 
in the first four chapters of the Sixth Book is, however, 
certainly suspicious ^, and, as I have said elsewhere, these 
four chapters are in a condition the origin of which it is 
difficult to penetrate. 

But here we find ourselves in face of those broader pro- 
blems in relation to the state of the text of the Politics, as 
to which something has already been said. 

^ Attention has been called to this both by Susemihl and by Mr. 
J. C. Wilson. 


'EireiSfi iraaav irSKiv opmfiiv Koivmviav Tivh oSo'av Kal 1252 a 
TTaaav Koivmviav dyaOov tivos epeKev avi>e(7Tr]Kviav (toO yhp 
uvai 80KOVVTOS dya&vv \cipiv itavTo. TrpaTTOvat irdyres), Sr}~ 
Xov d)S ndcrai pkv dyaOov tivos <rTO)(d^ovTai, paXicrra Sk 
Kat ToD KvpicoraTov irdvTcoK rj nacTav KvpuordTij Kal Trda-as $ 
■ irepie)(ov(Ta r^y dWas' avrr} Si ecrnv 17 KaXovpivrj ttoXis 

2 Kal ij Koivwvia fj itoXitik'^. Saoi pev o5v otovrai ttoXitikov 
Kal ^aaiXiKov Kal o'lKovopiKov Kal SivnoTiKov elvai tou 
avTov, oil KaXtos Xiyovcriv ■irX'^Qii yhp Kal dXtyorrjTi vopi~ 
(ovai Sia^ipeiv, dXX' oiiK eiSu tovToav eKaarov, ohv &v plv 10 
oXiycov, SeaTroTTjv, dv Se TrXeiSumv, OLKOvopov, av S ert 
irXeiovav, itoXitikov tj ^aaiXiKov, as oiSev diatfiepovarav 
peydXr}v oiKiav fj piKpdv iroXiv, Kal iroXiTiKoy Sk Kal 
^aaiXiKov, orav pkv avTos e^ea-T^qKH, ^aaiXiKoi/, orav Sk 
Kard Toi)s Xoyovs Ttjs inKTT'ijpTjs Trjs T0i.a£T7]S Kara pepos 15 
apymv Kal dpyopevos, ttoXitikoV TCivra 5* ovk itTTiv dXtjOrj' 

3 S^Xov S" earai to Xeyopevov k-maKcmovai Kard t7]v ixpf]" 
yrjpevrjv piOoSov. manep yap kv toTs dXXois to aijude- 
Tov p^XP'- '^^^ davvOeToov dvdyKr) Siaipeiv {ravTaydp kXd- 
yivTa popia tov navTos), ovt<o Kal iroXiv e| mv (rvyKeirai 20 
aKOTTovvTes 6yfr6pe6a Kal Trepl' tovtcov pdXXov, t! ts Sia^i- 
povaiv dXXrjXoav, Kal ei Ti Te^J'tKoy kySixeTai Xa^fiv nepl 
eKacTTOv Tmv priQivTwv. 

El Srj tis k^ dpyfis rd irpdypara ^vopiua /SAl- 2 
^jreiev, axrirep kv toTs dXXois, Kal kv tovtois KdXXia-T dv 25 
VOL. II. 2_ i ^ ^ 

2 nOAITIKilN A'. 2. 

ovToa 6ea)prj(Teiey. dvdyKT] Sfi irpSiTov a-vvSva^eadai TOi>s avev 2 
dWijXwp /jLTj Svvafievovs etvai, ocov 6fj\v fiev Koi dppev rrjs 
yevicreoas eveKev (/cat tovto ovk €k 7rpoaipi<reais, dX\ manep 
Kal kv Tois dWois ^ooois Kal <pvT0is ^vaiKov to etpieaBai, 

30 olov avTo, ToiovTov KaraXiireiv erepov), dp-)(ov 5e (piaei Kal 
dpy^Sjxevov Sih, Tfju (reoTtjpiav ro fiev yap Swdjievov rfj 
SiavoM irpoopdv dpyov (pvaei Kal Seairo^ov <pva-ei, to Sk 
Svvd/ievov T& cdoftaTi Tavra noLtiv dpyofievov Kal <p6aei 
BovXov Sib Sea-iTOTri Kal 8ovXa> Taiiro <TVfi<f>epei. ^v<rei fikv 3 
1 252 b ovv 8id>pi(TTai to 6fjXv Kal Tb SovXov {oiiSkp yhp ■^ <pvaLS 
■TTOteT ToiovTov olov yaXKOTVTTOi TTfv AeX(f)iKriv pd)(aipap 
nevi^pSts, dXX' ey npbs €v o&t(o yhp dv dTTOTiXoiTo KdX~ 
Xi(TTa t5)v opydvmv eiiaarTov, ftfj voXXoTs epyois dXX ivl 
5 SovXevovy kv Se tois ^ap^dpois to 6fjXv Kal SovXoy t^v 4 
avT^v e^et Ta^iv. a'lTLov Se otl to ^Ha-ei dpyov Ovk iyov- 
aiv, dXXd yiverai i\ koivtavia avTcov SovXrjs Kal SovXov. Sio 
<f>aaiv 01 TTOirfTal " ^ap^dptov 8' "EXXr/vas dpy(iiv eiKos," 
ws TavTo (pvcrei fidp^apov Kal SovXov ov. eK fiev ovv tov- 5 

10 Tmv tS>v Svo KoipcoviSiv oiKia npaiTT], koI 6p&S>s 'HaioSos 
eiTTe TToirja-as " oikov fikv irpd>TL(TTa yvvaiKa re ^ovv r' dpo- 
Trjpa"' 6 yb.p /SoCy dvT' oUiTov rory nivrja-iv kcTTiv, ^ jjikv 
ovv els irda-av •^p.epav a-vvea-TtjKvia Koivatvia KaTd <fy6<nv 
o'lKos e(TTLv,ots XapSvSa? p,kv KaXe? ofioernrvovs, ETri/ievtSrjs 

15 8k 6 Kp^s ofioKdwovs' fj 8' eK nXeLSvoav oIki&v Koivcovia 
TTpooTr] )(^pr]crecos eveKev /itj e(pr]fjiipov k^/jli]. fidXiaTa 8e 6 
KaTO, (pvaiv ioiKev i] Kw/iri dtroiKta oiKias elvai- obi Ka- 
Xovat Tives o/ioydXaKTas iraiSds re Kal iratSmv iraiSas. 
Sib Kal TO vp&Tov e^aa-iXeifovTO at iroXeis, Kal vvv ert tA 

20 eQvri' eK ^aaiXevofievcov yhp avvffX6ov irdaa yap o'lKta 
^aariXeveTai i5ir6 tov wpea-^vTdTOv, &crTe Kal al diroiKiai Sid 
T^v avyyeveiav. Kal tovt' ea-Tlv 8 Xeyei''Ofirjpos, " &efita-Tevei 7 
Se ^KaiTTos iraiSwv rjS' dXoy^^cov"' OTTopdSes ydp' Kal oUrm 
TO dp^alov mKovv, Kal Tois 6eoi)s 8e Sid tovto irdvTes ^aal 

1252 a 26— 1253 a 23- 3 

^aaiXeijeirOai, on Kal avTol ol fiev en Kal vvp, ol Se to 25 
dpyaiov k^aaikeCovro^ wa-nep Se kal to, etSrf iavroTs d^o- 

8 /jLotovaif ol dpOpoonoi, ovtod Kal rotjs fiiovs rmv 6e&v. fj S' e/c 
nXeiovoiv Kcofimv KOLvcovia reXeios ttoXis ■/jStj, nda-ris e^oVffa 
irepas Ttjs airapKeias ws eiros elneiv, yivo/jLivt) ftkv oSv rod 
^r}v epiKeP, oSa-a SI tow eS (fjv. Sib waaa woXis ^itrei i&nv^ 30 
eCirep Kal al irpmrai Koivaviai' reXos yhp aSTtj kKetvtav, 

^ S\ (pva-is TeXos kxrnv olov yA/o eKaarrov ea-n Ttjs yevea-eas 
TeXeaOeia-rjS, ravTrjP ^ajikv t^v ^piaiv elvai iKdarov, Strrtep 

9 dp6pmirov iitirov oiKias. en to o5 epeKa Kal to TeXos jSeX- 
narop- if S' avTapKeia Kal reXos Kal ^eXTi&TOp. e/c Tovtcop 1253 a 
ovv (papepop on tS>p <pij&ei rf iroXis eari, Kal oVt dpBpamos 
(jyiaei ttoXitikov ^wop, Kal 6 dnoXis Siii ^ijaip Kal oi Sik 
TV)(i]p ^TOL ^avXos k<TTiP fj KpeiTTwp ^ dp&pmnos, &crirep 

Kal 6 v(f>' 'Op'^pov XoiSopr]6els " d^p'qTwp dOefJUCTTOS dpecTTios"' 5 

10 dfia ycLp ^vaei toiovtos Kal noXepov kmOvpijTiljs, are irep 
d^v^ a>p watrep kv Trerrots. Sion Se itoXitlkop 6 dpBpamos 
^mop irdaTjs peXiTTTjs Kal naPTos dyeXatov ^mov pdXXou 
S^Xop. oiSep yap, toy <papep, paTrjp fj ^va-iS'iroiel, Xoyov 

11 5e popov dpOpcoTTOs e^ei tSip (mcop- fj pep ovp ipcop^ rov 16 
. Xvirrjpov Kal rjSeos ka-n arjpelop, Sib Kal toTs dXXois inrdp- 

yei ^^ois" pey^pi- y^P tovtov •q ^va-is avToip eX'^XvBe tov 
e^eip aiaOrjaip XvTrrjpov Kal TjSeos Kal TavTa arfpaipeip 
dXXrjXois' 6 Se Xoyos kirl t& SrjXovp kaTi Tb avp^epop Kal 

12 TO pXa^epop, ware Kal Tb SiKaiop Kal to dSiKop' tovto yap 15 
TTpbs tA dXXa (ma Toty dpBpdmois iSiop, Tb povop dyaOov 
Kal KaKov Kal SiKaiov Kal dSiKov Kal t&p dXXcop aia-OrjaiP 
ey^eip' ■q SI tovtcop Koipmpia noLei oiKiap Kal iroXip. Kal 
vpSrepop Srj Tfj (piiaei noXis ^ oiKia Hal eKaaros fjpwp eaTiu, 

13 Tb yap oXop nporepop dpayKaiop etpai tov pepovs' dpaipov- 20 
pepov yhp tov oXov ovk earTai noiis ovSe y(eip, el pfj 6p<op{)p(os, 
mcrirep ei Tty Xeyei r-qp Xi6ipr)p' Sia(j>6ape'ia-a ykp effrai 
ToiaCrri, irdpTa Se . t5 epya> mpuTTai Kal Tjj Svpdpei, aa-Te 

B 2, 

4 nOAITIKSlN A'. 2-4. 

fjirjKeTL TOiaCra ouTa ov XeKriov t& avTk eivai, aXX ofid)- 

25 wiia, OTI jikv oSv 7} ttoXls Kal ^va-ec Kal irporepoi/ rj €Ka- 14 
(7709, SrjXov €1 yap /Jifj avrdpKtjs eKaa-Tos ycopicrOek, o/ioims 
ToTs dXXois /lepecriv e^ei Trpos to oXov 6 Se [ir] Svvdfie- 
j/o? Koivcoviiv, ^ fj,r]Sey Seo/ievos 8l aiirapKeiav, ovSeu /lepos 
noXecos, wcrre rj Qripiov r\ 6e6s. (pvarei [ikv ovv fj opfir) ei/ 15 

3° ndaip inl Trjtf TOiavrrjv Koivwviav' 6 Se irpmros avo'T'qa-as 
fieyiarav dyaQmv airios. Sinrep yap Kal reXecoOku ^iXri- 
(TTov tSiv ^mcov dvBpamos ecmv, oStco Kal \mpL<T6\v vojiov Kal 
SiKrjs )(eipi(7Toi/ TrdvTccv. yaXeircoTdTrj yhp dSiKia eypvaa 16 
oirXa' 6 Se dvBpconos oirXa e)(cov (pverai (ppovrjaei Kal 

35 dpexfj, oTs eTrl rdvavTia earn )(^pfj(rdai fidXierTa. Sio dvocrico- 
TaTov Kal dypmraTOv avev dperfjs, Kal Trpos d(f>poSi(ria 
Kal eSonS^v ytipiaTOv. rj Se SiKaiocrwrj ttoXltikov rj yap SiKrj 
■n-oXiTiKfjs Koiv<avias rd^is etrrti/' 17 Se Sikij tov SiKaiov Kpia-is. 
1253 b. 3 'Enel Se <f>avepov e^ Siv /lopicov rj iroXis ovveaTtiKev, 
dvayKolov Trp&Tov nepl oiKovofiias eirretv Tratra yap crvyKeirai 
iroXis e^ o'lklSiv. oiKovo/iias Se /ieprj, e^ &v irdXiv oiKia 
avvea-TrjKev oiKia Se reXeios eK So{iXa>v Kal eXevBepav. eirel 
5 S' ev ToZs eXayicTTOis irpwTOv eKaaTOv ^rjTrjTeoy, irp&Ta Se 
Kal kXd-^una fteprj o'lKias SeaTroTtjs Kal SovXos Kal ttovis 
Kal dXo)(os Kal Trarrip Kal reKva, irepl rpi&i/ &v tovtcov 
(TKeiTTeov eirj tl eKaerrov Kal irolov Set eivai. ravra 5' 2 
€0t2 Se<nroTi.Kr] Kal yap.iK'q (dvdivvfiov yhp rj yvvaiKoi Kal dv- 

10 Spos a^^ev^is) Kal rpiTov TeKvoTroirjTiKri- Kal yb,p aOrrj ovk 
d)v6p.aaTai iSicf> ovofiaTi. eaTcoaav S aSrai rpeis as eiwo- 
fiev. ea-Ti Se ti fiepos o SoKei tois fiev ehai oiKOvo/iia, 3 
rots Se /ieyL(7T0i> [lepos aiiTrjs' oirws 5' exet, QemprjTeov, 
Xiyco Se irepl Trjs KaXovfievrjs \pi]liaTLCTTiKrjs. irp&TOv Sh 

15 Trepl SeairoTov Kal SovXov ecrreofiei', iva rd re Trpos rffv 
dvayKaiav )^peiav iSwuev, kSlv et tl Trpos to eiSevai nepl 
avT&v Svvaip.e6a Xa^eiv ^eXTiov tS>v vvu vTroXanPavo/ie- 
va>v, ToTs jiev yap SoKei eTTia-Tirifir] re Tis eTvai ij Se(nroTeta, 4 

1253 a 24— 1254 a 13. 5 

Kal ^ avTrj oiKovo/iCa Kal SecrTTOTeia Kal ttoXitck^ koi /Sa- 
(TiXiK'q, KaOdnep ecTro/iev dp^ofievoi' roTs SI irapii, dtvcriv 20 
TO Siano^eiv. v6p<p yiip rov jikv SovXov eivai rov 8' eXev- 
Gepov, 0vffei 8' ov8ev 8ia<pep€iv. Sioirep ovSe Sikmov ^taiov 
yap. eTTCt ovv r] KTrjais p-epos Trjs otKtas earl Kal fj KTrjTiKri 4 
pepos Trjs oiKovopias (£vev ybip t5>v dvayKaiotv dSvvaTov 
Kal ^fju Kal eS ^fji>^, &(nrep Se tuTs wpia-pivais Ti-)(yais 2g 
dvayKolov av eirj indpyeiv Th oiKeia opyava, el peXXei 

2 dwoTeXetrO'^aeaOai to epyov, ovrco Kal tZv o'lKovopiKwv^ tS>v 
5" opydvmv Ta pep dyjrv^^a, T&. 8" epi^vya, oTov t<o kV" 
^epv^TTj 6 pev ota^ d^^vyov, 6 Be irpmpeds epi^vypv (0 
yap {)nripeTr]s kv opydvov eiSei Tals Tey^yais ea-Tiyj, ovtco Kal 30 
TO KTtjpa opyavov irpos C^rjv kaTi, Kal fj KTrjcris irXfjOos 
opydvaiv eari, Kal 6 8ovXos KTrjpd ti ep'>]rv)^ov , Kal wcnrep 

3 Spyavov irpo opydvmv nds 6 iiirripeTrjS' el yap rjSvvaTO 
eKaaTov twv opydvmv KeXevaQev fj TrpoaiaBavopevov diroTe- 
Xeiv TO aiiTOV epyov, &a-irep t^ AaiSdXov (ftatrlv ^ Toiii tov 35 
'H^aiffTov TptTToSas, ovs <f)r}cnv 6 7roir]T^s avTopaTovi 6eTov 
SveaOai dyZva, oUtoos at KepKi8es eKepKi^ov aiiTal Kal Th, 
TrXfJKTpa eKiOdpi^ev, ovSev &,v eSet oijTe tois dpyiTeKToaiv 

4 iTrrjper&v oijTe tois SearroTais SdjXav. ra pev odv Xeyopeva 1254 a 
6pyava TrQi7\TiKh. opyavd ea-Ti, to 8e KTrjpa irpaKTiKSv' diro 

pev yocp TTJs KepKi8os eTepov ti yiverai napai, ttjv )(^pfja-iv 
avTrjs, diro 8e Trjs eadfJTOS Kal rrjs KXivrjs fj XP^"''^^ Z'^" 
vov. eTL 5' enel Sta^epei rj iroirjais eiSei Kal -q irpd^is, 5 
Kal SeovTai dp^orepai opydvmu, dvdyKrj Kal Tama t^v 

6 aiiTfjv e-yeiv Siafopdv 6 Se ^los irpd^is, oil noirja-is kariv 
Slo Kal 6 SovXos iirrjpeTTjS Tmv irpbs ttjv irpd^Lv. to Se 
KTrjpa XeyeTai mairep Kal to popiov to re yitp popiov ov 
p6vov dXXov earl popiov, oKXd Kal oXcos dXXov opotats S\ 10 
Kal TO KTrjpa, Sib 6 pev SecnroTrjs tov SovXov SeaTTOTrjs p6- 
vov, eKeivov S' ovk eariv 6 Se SovXos oi p6vov Setrirorov SovXos 

6 eanv, dXXoi Kal oXeos eKeivov. tis pev odv fj ^vais Tov SovXov 

6 nOAITIKflN A'. 4-5. 

Kal Tis fj SvvafiLS, eK Tovrmv SfjXov 6 yap firj airoO 0y- 

1 5 o-ei tiA\* ^AXoy, dvBpmnos &v, oStos <pv(rei SovXos kaTiv, dXXov 
8' ecrTlv dvOpcanos, hs Slv KTrjfta § dudpanros a>v, Krfjfia Se 

5 Spyavov rrpaKTiKov Kal y^mpiaTov norepov S' kari tis (ftvaei 
TOLOVTOS ■if oil, Kal ir&repov ^eXTioy Kal SiKaiov rivt SovXeveiv 
^ ov, dXXa 7rd(ra SovXeta irapb, <j>va'iv ecrri, /leroi ravra 

20 (TKetTTiov. oil yaXiTTov Se Kal t& X&ym 6ecap^<rai Kal eK 
rap yivojievcav KaTafiaOetv. to yAp dp)(eiv Kal dpyea-Oai 2 
ov novav tSiv dvayKaicoK dXXa Kal tZv avfi(f)ep6vTeov kcrri, 
Kal evQtii eK yeveTtjs evia Siea-TtiKe Ta fiev kirl to dp^^eaOai 
TCI, S ewl TO dpyeiv. Kal e'lSi] ttoXX^ Kal dpyovTcov Kal 

2g dpy^pjievoiv ecTTiv, Kal del ^eXTimi' rj dpy(ri rj t&v ^eXTiovoav 
dpyojievwv, ofav dvOpamov ^ Orjplov to yap diroTeXovfievov 3 
diro tS)v ^eXTiovmv ^eXTiov epyov, ottov Sk to fiev dpy^ei 
TO S' 4/)x?Ta£, eoTt Ti TovTtov epyov. Sera yhp eK irXeiovcttv 
a-vvecrTr]Ke Kal yiveTai ev ti koivov, eiTe eK avveySav etVe eK 

3P Siuprj/jLevcov, kv diraaiv efi(f)aiveTai to dp)(ov Kal to dpyp- 
p-evov. Kal TOVT eK tj}? dirdarjs ^va-e<as evvndpyei Toti 4 
ifi'^v^ois' Kal yhp kv toTs fifi fieTe)(^ov<ri ^mrjs kari tis 
^PX^> """' dpfiovias. dXXii, Tama fiev lams e^a>TepiK<0Te- 
pas eoTTt (TKei^ems, to Se ^aov wpmTov avve<rTr]Kev ex '^V)(rj5 

35 Kal oS/jiaTos, &v to p-ev dp)(ov earl (pijaei to S' dp)(6- 
fievoy. 8eL Se (TKonetv kv toIs Karet (fy6(nv eyovai fiaXXov 5 
TO ipicrei, Ka). fiij kv tois Sie^Qapfievois. Sib Kal rov j8e\- 
Ttora SiaKeifievov Kal KaTh aStp,a Kal icarA ■\lrv)(fiv dv- 
Qpamov deeoprjTeov, kv & tovto SfjXov t«3*' y^p /iO)(^drjpoav ^ 
1254 b iio-)(6ripS>i kyovTmv So^eiev ^v dpyeLv -iroXXaKis to aSt/ia 
Trjs '^frvxvs Slot, to (pavXms Kal napb. (f>v(riv e^^^eiv. ecrTi 6 
8 ovv, Sairep Xeyofiev., irpoaTov kv ^mca Geatprjcrai Kal 8e- 
airoTiKriv dpyriv Kal iroXiTiKrjv ^ /iev ykp ^\ii Tov am- 
5 jiaTOS dp-^ei SeaiTOTiK^iv dp')(fiv, 6 Se yoiJs Trjs ope^eaas iro- 
XiTiK^v Kal ^atriXiK'qv kv oTs ^avepov eoTiv 8ti kutol d)v- 
aiv Kal <TV/i(pepov t5 dp-^^eaOai t& (rce/tari i»ro Trjs ■^v- 

1254.a 14— 1255 a i. 7 

)(rjs Kal T^ 7ra6r]TiK& fioptm {iwo tov vov koI rov /lopiov tov 
\6yov 6X9"'''°^' '■^ ^' H ""^0" ^ dvdiraXiv ^Xa^epov naaiv. 

7 trdKiv kv dvdpdonm Kal tois dWots ^&oii mcraijTcos' rA 10 
/leu yhp {jfiepa Tcov dyptatv ^eXria) t^v (pijcriv, to^tois Se 
iraoTL ^eXriou dpyetrOai iw' dvOparrov Tvy\dvu yhp aco- 
rrjpias ovtcos. en 8h rb dppev npos rb OijXv ^iorei rb pev 
KpeiTTOV rb SI •)(i'ipov, rb pev ap)^ov rb 81 dpyppivov. rbv 
airrbv Sk Tponov dvayKaiov etvai Kal iirl ndurmv dvOpS- ig 

8 Treov. o<roi p.\v oSi> ToaovTov SiecrTacriv oaov i/^vx^ crapaTos 
Kal dvdpamos Orjpiov (SiaKetvTai Sk tovtov Tbv rpSirov, ocrmv 
karlv epyov ij tov adtparos XP^^'-^> '^*' tovt' eor' an' airSiv 
^eXriaTovS, oSroi piv el<n <j)v<Tet SovXot, oTs /SeXrtoi' ea-riv 

9 dp^eaOai ToCrrfv T-qv dp-^fiv, etnep Kal tois elprj pivots, eari 20 
yA/> (fiiaei BovXos 6 dvvdpevos dXXov eivai (Sib Kal dXXov 
k(Trtv\ Kal 6 KOivoavStv X6yov roaovTov ovov altrOdveaBai dXXa 
pfj e)(eiv TBI yh,p dXXa {ma ov Xoyov alcrOavopeva, dXXh 
TraQripatnv {nrrjperec. Kal 17 xpeia 8e irapaXXdTTei piKpov 

fl yhp irpbs rdvayKaia r£ awpari ^ofjOeta yivsTai trap 25 
dp^olv, wapd Te tS>v SoiXmv Kal napct rS)v ■^peptov {mcoy. 

10 ^ovXeTai pkv ovv ■q ^vais Kal to. adipara 8ia^ipovTa 
iroieiy roc rwv kXevdipmv Kal rwv 8ovXwv, tA pkv Icrxypk 
irpbs riiv dvayKaiav XPV'^'^^i ''^ ^' opOii, Kal axpr^ara irpbs 
T&s roiafjras kpyaaias, dXXci, XRW'^I^'^ irpbs iroXiriKov 30 
j8tW (oSroy 8\ Kal yiperat Sit}pr}pevos eis re rfjv iraXepiK^u 
Xp^io-v Kal rijv eiprp>LKrjv^, avp^aivei Sk iroXXdKis Kal roii- 
vavriov, rods pev ra adtpara exeiv kXev6epa>v roi)s 8e rks 

■ i/fuxas* kirel rovro ye (pavepop, coy el roaovrov yevoivro 8id- 
<f)opoi TO a-mpa p6vov oaov at rmv 6emv eiKoves, rois viro- 35 
Xeiiropevovs irdvres ^aiev &v d^iovs eivai rodrois SovXei/eiy. 

11 €t S' kiri rov adtparos tovt dXijOes, iroXv Sixatorepov kirl 
" rrj.s '^X^^ rovro SteapiaQai' dXX' ovx opotms paSiov tSeiv 

TO re ri^s ^X^^ KdXXos Kal rb rov ardtparos. ori pev 
Toivvv elal ^ij<rei rives ot pev kXeiuBepoi ol 8e 8ovXot, ipa- 1255 a 

8 nOAITIEnN A'. 6-7. 

vepov, ots Kal ov/i^epei to SovXeveiv Kal SiKaiov kariV 

6 oTi Se Kal ol rdvavTia <pd(rKOVT€S rpoirov riva Xiyovaiv 

6p6ms, ov ^^aXeirov iSeTv Sl)(&s yap Xiyerai to SovXeveiv : 
5 Kal 6 SovXos' ea-ri yap tis kuI KaTo, vop.ov SovXos Kai 
SovXevwv 6 yap vofios opoXoyia tis ea-Tiv, if p to. KaTU 
noXefiov KpaTov/jieva tS>u KpaTovvTwv eivai (paariv. tovto Sf/ 2 
TO SiKatov TToXXol tS)v ev tois vopois warmp pf^Topa ypa- 
^ovTai Trapavofiwv, ws Seivbf el tov ptdaraaOai Svvafievov 

10 Kal KaTh Swap.iv KpeiTTOvos ea-Tai SovXov Kal dpySpevov 
TO PiaaQiv' Kal toIs pev ovtod SoKeT tois Se eKeweos, Kai 
Twv fTo^wv, aiTiov Se TaiuTrjs ttjs dp^ier^riTrjaecos, Kai o 3 
noiet Toiis Xoy ovs .enaXXdTTeiv, otl Tpovov Tivh apeTt] Tvy- 
■)(dvov(ra yopiqyias Kal ^id^eadai SvvaTai pdXiaTa, Kai 

15 ea-Tiv del to KpaTovv ev {nrepo)(rj dyaOov Tivos, Sa-Te SoKeTv 
pri dvev dpeTrjs etvai Tfjv ^iav, dXXb, irepi tov SiKaiov pO" 
vov etvai Tfjp dptpia^rjTrjaiv Sih yot,p tovto toTs pev e'Svoia 4 
■SoKei TO SiKaiov etvai, toTs 5' avTo tovto SiKaiov, to tov 
KpeiTTOva dpy^eiv, enel SiaaTdvToov ye xoopis tovtcov t&v X6- 

20 ycoj/ oSTe ia-)(ypov oiSev eyovviv o^Te iriOavov aTepoi Xoyot, ms 
oil Sfi TO PeXriov kut dpeTriv apy(eiv Kal Secnro^eiv. oXcas 5 
5' dvTe)(6pevoi Tives, &s oiovTai, SiKaiov tivos (o yap vopos 
SiKaiov Ti) TTjv KaTb. iroXepov SovXeiav TiOeaai SiKaiav, 
apa Se oS <pa<nv' ttjv re yap dpyriv evSeyeTai pfj Si- 

25 Kaiav eivai twv iroXepmv, Kal tov dvd^iov SovXeieiv oiiSa- 
pS>s &v (pair] tis SovXov eivav el Se pr), avp^^a-eTai roiis 
eiyevea-TaTovs eivai SoKovvras SovXovs elvai Kal e/r SovXwv, 
eb,v ovp^fj TrpaOfjvai Xrj^OevTas. Sioirep aiiTods ov ^ovXovTai 6 
Xeyeiv SovXovs, dXXh. Toiis ^ap^dpovs. KaiToi orav tovto Xe- 

30 ywaiv, ovSev aXXo ^r]Tova-iv ^ to (pva-ei SovXov, oirep e§ 
dp)(rjs einopev avdyKt] yap eivai Tivas (pdvai tovs pev 
■rravTaypv SovXovs Toiis Se ovSapov. tov avTov Se TpSTrov Kal ^ 
nepl evyeveias' aiiToijs pev yhp oil povov Trap' aiToTs eiiye- 
vets dXXh iravTaxov yopi^ova-iv, Toi>s Se fiap^dpovs oikoi p6- 

1255 a 2— 1255 b 27. 9 

vov, coy 8v TL TO fikv dTrXwy eiJyei'e? eXevdepov, to 8' oi/^ 35 
ajrASy, waTrep Kal 17 OeoSiKTOv 'EXivrj tprjcrlv 

Bciav 8' dn'' aij,(f>oiv enyovov pi^a/iaTav 
Tis &v jTpoafiireiv d^tanTeiev \dTpiv' 

8 oTav Se tovto Xiyaxriv, oiiSevl d\X' 7} dpeTfj Kal KaKia Sto- 
pi^ovcrt TO SovXou Kal eXevdepov Kal Tois eiyevus Kal Toi>s 4° 
Svayeveis. d^toVai yap, wairep €| dvBpmrov StvOpcoirou Kal 1255 b 
CK Brjpicov yiveaOai Orjpiov, oUtco Kal e£ dya6S>v dyaOov ■^ 

Se <pva-is ^oijXeTai (ikv tovto iroieiv voXXdKif, oii fievtoi 

9 SvvaTat. otl jikv ovv e^et tivol Xoyov fj d/i^KrPTjTrjj-is, • 
Kal ovK elalv 01 filu <pij(rei SovXol 01 Se eXevOepoi, S^Xov 5 

Kal OTt iv TKTi SiwpiaTai to toiovtov, mv avfi^epet t& fiev tS 
SovXeveiv tS Se to Sea-iro^eiv Kal SiKaiou, Kal. SeT to fiev 
^pyeaOaL to S dpyeiv, rjv we^ijKatnv dpy^iv dpyeiv, ScrTe 
10 Kal Seairo^eiv. to Se KaK&s d(rvfi<p6pa)s ea-Tlu d/xtpoiv' tS 
yap aiiTo avfi<f)epei tw [lepei Kal tZ oXm Kal <rS/iaTi Kai 10 
'^v)(fj, 6 Se SovXos ftepos ti tov SeairoTov, otov ifii^vyov ti 
Tov oS/iaTos Keyaapiarfievov Se p-epos. 810 Kal aviuftepov 
ea-Ti TL Kal (piXia SovXm Kal Seairorrj wpoy aXXijXoi/y Tory 
<l>vaei Toi-cav rj^uojievois' toTs Se ftfj tovtov tov Tp&irov, 
dXXa KaTOL vofiop Kal PiaaOeLcrt, ToivavTiov. 15 

^avepov Se Kal €K tovtccv otl 06 TavTov ea-Ti SeanoTeta 7 
Kal TroXiTiKTJ, ovSe iracraL aXXTjXaty o^ dpyai, &<nrep Tives 
^aa-iv fi jjiev y^p eXevQepwv (pvffeL 77 Se SovXaiv eaTiu, Kal 
■fj fiev OLKovofiiK^ pLOvapyia {jiovapyelTaL yhp was oTkos), 

2r] Se TroXiTiKrj eXevOepwv Kal 'ia-mv dp)(^. 6 fiev oSv Se<nr6- 20 
TJjy 01) XeyeTai kuto. eTna-T^/irjv, dXXii. rp ToioaSe elvai, 
S/iOLoas Se Kal 6 SovXos Kal 6 eXevdepos' eTriaTrjfir] 5' &u 
ettj Kal SeoTTOTiKfi Kal SovXlk^, SovXiKfj fiev o'lav irep 6 kv 
SvpaKoijaais knaiSevev eKei yap Xafi^dvav tis jiKfOov 

3 eSiSaa-Ke to; ey/c«5icXta SiaKovrj/iaTa Toi/s iraiSas. eirj S' 25 
av Kal eiTL irXeiou tS>v TOLoirmv jiddrjaLs, otov o'^ottoukti 
Kal T&XXa T€t, Toiavfa yefrj Trjs SiaKovtas' eari yh,p erepa 

lo nOAITIEflN A'. 7-8. 

irepoiv tcc fikv evTifiorepa tpya toi S' dvayKaiSrepa, Kal 
Kwrh, Tijv trapoi.p.iav 8ov\os irpo SoijXov, SeaTTOTrjs irpb Se- 

30 criroTOV. at (iku ovv Toiavrai irdcrai SovXiKoi eTria-TrJuai ei<n, 4 
SecrwoTLK^ 8' eTriarrjfir] iarlu fj )(pr]<TTiKfi SovXoov' 6 yhp Se- 
ffTTOTTis oix kv tS KT&crOai Toi>s SovXov?, dW' kv t^ -^prjaOai 
SoijXois. eari S' aSrrj ff kinaT'^p.ri ovSkv /leya e^ovtra ovSe 
aepvov A ybtp tov SovXov kmaravQai 8ei noieTv, eKeivof Set 

35 ravTa miaTaaQai ktriTdmiv, 8lo oa-ois k^ovaia fifi aiiroiis 5 
KaKoiraSeTv, kiriTpoiros Xafi^dvei raijTrju rriv riji^v, avrol 
8e TToXirevovTai rj <j)iXo(ro(pov(nv. fj 8e Kj-qriKfi irjipa dji- 
^0Tep<BV Toirav, oTov ^ 8tKaia, iroXep.iKrj ris ov<ra ^ 6r]piv- 
TtKij. nepl jikv ovv SovXov Kal SeoTrSrov tovtov SicapiaOo) 


1256 a. 8 "OXtBs 8\ irepl irda-fjs KTija-ecos Kal xprjpaTiaTiKfjs Seoa- 
p^atopev Karh tov i^rjyrjfievov rponov, kfreCirfp Kal 6 8ov- 
Xos T^s KTijereffly fiepos ti ^v. irpwrov fiev oSv diroprfaiUv 
&v Tty irorepov fj )(pr]/j.aTiaTiKii fj airfi rfj olkovojuk^ karlv 
5 ^ fikpos Ti ^ intipeTiKrj, Kal el iirrjpeTiKri, irorepov ms rj 
KipKiSovouKfj T§ ixpavTiK^ ^ ois Tf xoXicoupyt/c^ T§ dv~ 
SpiavTOTTouf ov yefep maavroas inrjpeTovaiv, aXX' fj pkv op. 
yava irapkyei, f) 8k ttjv {!XjjV Xeyo) 8e 6XTfv rb iiTTOKeC- 2 
jtevov, k^ o5 Ti diroTeXeirai epy^v, oTov i^dvTj) fiev epia, 

10 avSpiavTOTToim Sk xoXfc^. 6ti /ikv ovv ovx ^ airff oIko- 
vo/iLKTi rfi \prinaTi<TTiK^, SfjXov rijs fiev yctp to Tropiaa- 
crOai, T^s ^6 TO )(p^aaer6af tis yap earai ^ xprjaonevT} 
Tots KaT^ T^v oiKiav iraph t^v oIkovoiuktjv ; rr^Tepov Sk 
fiipos aitr^s kaTi ti fj eTepov u8os, ex**^ 8iap.<f>ur^'^Tri(rtv. 

15 €t ydp kaTi tov xpr/fiaTurTiKov Geeopijaai ir66ev -j^prtfLaTa /cat 3 
KTrja-LS effTai, ij 8e KTJJeris iroXXh TreputXtfi^e fikprj Kal 6 
wXouToy, ©trre irp&Tov 17 yeapym^ vonpov pApos ti t^s- X/t"?- 
paTKrTiKfjs fj eTepov ti ykvos, Kal Ka&oXov fj irepl Tijv Tpo- 
^^v ktrifikXiLa Kal KTrja-ii ; dXXot ft^v etSrj ye ttoXXk t/jo- 4 

20 <f>ijs, 810 Kal jffwt iroXXol Kal t&v («>a)v Kal t&v dv&pwrmv 

1255 b 28—1256 b 12. ii 

^tfftv ov yStp oTov re ^rjv dveu rpo^^s, cBore at' Sia^opal 
rrj? rpotp^s Toi>s ^lovs ireiroi^Kacri Sid^ipovra^ tcov (wmv. 

5 T&v 7€ ykp Orjpupv ra p.kv dyeXata tSl Se aTrapaSiKci ea-rw, 
QTraripms avp-^ipH npas ttjv rpofffv a^xoiS, Siii to rh, pikv 
^ceio^dya ra Sk Kapiro(pdya tA SI ira(i<f)dya airwv thai, mare 25 
TTpos tSis ^a,cfTd>vai kc^l Trjv a'ipea-iv rfjv tovtchv 1^ ^iirii Toi>s 
jStbvy avT&v Simpiffev, enret 5' ov toiJto eACceorm ■^Si kut^ <p:6-r 
ctiv oKK^ erepa eripois, Kai air&f rav ^(po^dycov Kal twv 

6 Kmpttotftdyaiv ot ^loi wpos dWtjXa Siecrraariv ifioicos Se 
Kal Twv dv$pmira)v iro^if yhp Sia<f)epQV(n» oi roirwv ^toi. 30 
ol pev ovv dpyoTaroi vopdSes elcrtv' rj yhp dirb rav fjpe- 
pcov Tpo<f>^ ^wmv dvev irovov yiyerai o'xoXdCovatjf, dvayKaiov 
Se ovTos perafiaXXeiv Toif KT'^vecn Siii tos? vopiis Kal 
aiiTQi dvayKa^ovTai <jvvaKoXov6eTv, manep yeeopyiav ^&crav 

7 yempyovvTes' ol S' dnb B'qpas Cmat, Kal Orjpas erepoL ire- 35 
pa?, otov ol plkv diro Xri<rTeia?, ol 5' d^' dXielas, oa-oi Xi- 
pvas Kal eXij. Kal irorapoiis ^ fidXaTTav Toiajurrjv irpoaoc- 
Kovaiv, ol S' dir' opvidmv fj Onipmv dypmv to Se irXelaTov 
yevos Twv dvQpdmav dnh. rijs yfjs ^fj Kal t&v fipepmv Kap- 

8 irmf. ol fieu q^v ^lot roaovroi ay^eSou euriv, oaoi ye avro- 40 
^vrov e)(W<ri ttjv kpr/airtav Kal prf Si' dXXayijs Kal kU" 
vrfXeias nopi^ovrai Tfju Tpo^'qy, vopctSiKhs yempyiKos Xrj- -^256 b 
orrpiicb? eiXievriKhs OTipevriKos- ol Se /cat p,iyvvvTe^ tK roi- 

Tmv riSecas ^Skti, irpocraeairXTjpovvTes tw evSeevraTov ^lov, rj 
Tvyxdifei eXXeiweov' rrpas to a^rdpKijs etvac, oiov ol pkv 
vopaSiKow apa Kal XijarpiKov, ol Sk yempyiKov nal Btfpev- 5 

9 TiKov opoim? Se Kal trepl Toi>s SXXovs, o>s dv i\ Xpeia trvv' 
avayKd(ri, to&tov tov rpovov Sidyov^iv. 17 pev o5v Toia^Tt) 
KTTJa-i? iiw' avTrjs (jtatverai t^s (p^vems SiSopevt] ndaiv, 
mcTjrep Kark Trfv irpmTijv yeveo'iv eu&^s, oUtco Kal jeXeuor- 

10 6eTa-w. Kal ykp Kark t^v e^ dpx^s yeveinv ri pev ovveK' 10 
TiKTei T$v ifmv TOiravrrjv Tpa^r^v obs lieavffv ehai peypis 
o5 dv Sivrytai avTo aiiT^ TTopi^Hv to yevvqQev, oTov oaa 

12 nOAITIESlN A'. 8-9. 

<TK(i>\-r]KoroKu ^ aoTOKer Saa Se ^moroKet, toTs yevvaiftivotf 
e^ei Tpo(f)^v kv airois l^^xpt- rivos, t^v tov KaXovfievov yd- 

15 XaKTos (f>v<nv. aia-Te dpioiois SfjXov on Kal yevofiivois oirj- \\ 
riov TO, re <j)VTci rSiv ^mmv €veKev eivat Kal rh, dWa (Za 
rZv dvdpa>ir(ov ydpiv, rh, ykv ijfiepa Kal Siii. r^y ■)^pf\<nv 
Kal Sia rfjv Tpo^rjv, rZv 8e dypiav, el /i^ ndi/ra, dXXa 
rd ye irXeiarTa rfjs Tpo^rjs Kal dXXrjs ^orjOetas eveKev, iva 

20 Kal ea-6^i Kal dXXa opyava yivr]Tai. e^ aiiTwv. el ovv f) 12 
^vcris fiijSev firjre dreXes iroieT fiijTe ftdrrju, dvayKoXov 
Twv dvBpwnctiv eveKev avra Trdvra TreTroirjKevai t^v (fyvaiv. 
Sio Kal ij TToXefiLKfj ^vaei KTrjTiKrj ircos earai, rj yb.p 6ij- 
pevTiKri fiepos aiiTrjs, § Set )(pfjcr6ai irpos re rh, Qripta Kal 

25 tZv dvdpmrcov oaoi ire^vKores dpyea-Qai iifj BeXovaiv, &>s 
(pvcreL SiKaiov tovtov Svra tov voXe/iov. ev fiev ovv eiSos 13 
KTTjriKrjs Kara ^vaiv rrji olKovofiiKTJs fiepos eariv 8 Set 
rJToi {nrdpyeiv fj nopi^eiv aiirfiv ottcos iiirdpy^rj, S>v eort Grjr 
a-avpia/jLos )(pT]p.dT(i>v rrpos C^fjv dvayKauov Kal ^(prja-tfKov 

30 els KOLVccviav iroXeoa rj oUtas. Kal eoiKev y dXtjOivos 14 
ttXovtos eK T0VT(ov eivai. fj yb,p ttjs TOiavTtjs KTjja-ems 
avrdpKeia irpos dyaBfjv ^cofjv ovk direipos eaTiv, mcnrep X6- 
X<ov (f)r[(Tl iroirjo-as " ttXovtov 5* ovSev rep/ia ire<paa-ftevov dv- 
Spdai KeiTat.' Keirai yap Sairep Kal rais dXXais reyyaii- 15 

35 oiiSev yap opyavov direipov ovSejiids eerri Teyyr}s oSre irXi^Bei 
oiSre /leyeOei, 6 Se irXovros opydvcov irXfj66s eariv oIkovo- 

fllKOOV Kal WoXlTlK&V. OTl fiev ToivVV e<TTL Tty KTrjTlKfl 

Kara <f>v(nv rois olKovofiois Kal Tots ttoXitikoTs, Kal St ^v 
alrtav, SrjXov 
9 "Ea-Tt de yej/oy dXXo KrrjTiKrjs, ^v jidXicrra KaXova-i, Kal 
SiKatov a{iTo KoXeTv, ^rjfiana-TiK'qv, Si ^v ovSev SoKeT 
1257 a irepas ehai itXovtov Kal Krijo-ecflS* ^v ws [iiav koI rfjv 
aiiTTjv rfj Xeyfieian ttoXXoI vo/ii^ovai Sid r^v yeirviaa-iv 
eoTi 5' o^Te fj aiirfi rfj elprjjievri oiSre voppm eKeivrji. etrri fi' 
f) /lev <f)vaei ^ S ov ^iaei aiir&v, dXXd Si e/iireipias 

1256 b 13— 1257 a 37- ^3 

2 Tivos Kal Te)(^i>r]S yiuerai fiaWov. Xd^cofiev Sk irepl aiirfjs 5 
TJj// ap^fji/ evTevdev. iKoicrTov yelp KT^/iaros diTTfj f] y^prjfft^ 
k(TTiv, dii^orepai Sk Ka6' avrb fikv dW' ou^ ofioicos Ka6' 
aiiTo, aXX 17 fikv oiKeia tj 5* ovk oiKeia tov wpdyjiaTOi, 
ofov iiTToSrJuaTOS J] re vnoSea-is Kal 17 fieTa^XriTiKTJ. d/j,- 

3 ^orepat yhp 6iro87](iaTos XRW^'^^' '^"■^ Y^P ° dWarro- 10 
/levos tS Seofiivo) inroSrj/iaTos dvrl vofiicr/iaTos ^ rpoipfjs 
Xpfjrac t5 imoS'qiiaTL 17 inoSrjfia, aXA' ov ttji/ oUdav 
)(pfj<nv ov yhp dWayijs eveKev yiyovev. tou avrov Se 

4 rpoTTOv 'i-)(jei Kal nepl rmv dWmv KTrifidrmv. eaTi yap ij 
/ieTaP\r]TiKfi irdvTmv, dp^a/jtevr] to fiev irpSarov e/c tov 15 
Kara (fyiiaiv, tS to, (lev vXetco Tk, S' kXarTco tS>v iKavmv 
^)(eiv Toi)s dvBpwTTOVS. ^ Kal SfjXov oti ovk ^o-ti (pvo'ei ttjs 
XprjliaTKrTLKTJs fj KairrjXiKrj' oaov yap 'iKavov avTois, dvay- 

5 Kalov rjy iroLeTcrOai ttji/ dXXayqv. kv jikv ovv TJj irpdrrj 
Koivcovia, (tovto 8 i(rTlv otKia) ^ayfpiv oti oiSiv eaTif 'ipyov 20 
ai/Tris, dXX' ijSr] nXeioi/os ttjs KOivoavias oiSa-qs. ot fikv yap 
tS>v avTmv eKoivwovv ndvTmv, ot Se Ke)(<opi(j-fievoi iroXXwv 
irdXiv Kal eTepwv Siv KaTO, Tas Se'^creis dvayKalov iroiei- 
aQai rAy /leTaSoa-eis, Kaddrrep eTi iroXXii, iroiei Kal tZv 

6 ^ap^apiKwv iOvmv, KaTk ttiv dXXayqv. airrii y&p tA 25 
yjyqaLita Trpos avTh KaTaXXaTTOVTai, kirl rrXioy S" ovSkv, 
otov oXvov irpos viTov SiSouTes Kal Xafi^dvovTH, Kal twv 
aXXav Twv tolovtccv SKacxTov. fj jikv oSv TOiavTr] fieTafiXij- 
TtKJj oUre irapa ^vaiv oire xprjuaTiffTiKris kaTlv eiSoi ovSev, 

7 els dvaTrXrjpaxnv yap Trjs KaToi ^vaiv aiiTapKetas rjV e/c 30 
jievToi TavTrjs eyever eKeivrj KaTo, Xoyov. ^eviKwrepas yap 
yivojxet/rjs Trjs ^orjOeias tS eia-dyea6ai mu evSeeis Kal eK- 
ve/nreiv a>v hrXeova^ov, «! dvdyKrjs rj tov vofiicrfiaTOS kiro- 

8 picrOrj xp^cis. ov y&p ev^dcTTaKTOv eKaaTov twv KaToi. ^vaiv 
dvayKai(ov 810 irpos Tas dXXayas toiovtov ti crvveQevTO 35 
Trphs (T^ds aiiToiis SiSovai Kal Xafi^dveCv, 8 tZv ^PV'^P^^ 
avTo hv eix^ ttiv xpeiav evueTayetpiaTov irpos to (r\v, otov 

14 nOAITIKIlN A'. 9-10. 

ariSt]pos Kal Spyvpos k&v it ti toiovtov erfpov, to fiev irpw- 
Tov anXm opiaOev fieyiOei Kal (fTa6/iS, rb Se teXeiiTaioy 

40 Kat )(apaKTrjpa ein^aWoPTCov, w airokuarj ttjs ji^Tpri-^ 
aecos avTO'Cs' 6 yap yupaKriip eriOt] tov iroaov a-rjfieTov, tto- 9 
1257 h pio-6ivTos ovv ^St] vo/jL^a-fiaTos e/c ttjs duayKaias dWayijs 
Odrepop eTSos ttjs -^p-rjiiaTurTiKris iyivsTO, ro KaTrr]\Lk6y, to 
fikv oSv irpSfTov ^TrXSy l(r<09 yiuSfievoi/, eira 81 i/ineiptas ^8rj 
Te)(viKa>Tepou, iroOev Kal irms niTa^aWojjievov irXeta-Tov 
5 iToi'/ja-ei KfpSos. Sih SoKei 17 xprniaTiariKfi /idXia-fa irepl rb 10 
v6/ii<Tfia eivai, Kal ipyov avrrjs tb Svuaa-dai 6€copfj(rai tto- 
6iv eaTai TrXrjOos )(pr]/idTCDV ttoitjtik^ yctp eivai rod ttXovtov 
Kal yfirijidTav. Kal ykp tbv nXovTof noXXdKis Tideacri yo^ 
litcTjiaTos trXfjOos, Sioi. rb Trepl tovt eivai t^v y^prijiaTicrfiKriv 

10 Kal T^v KOfTTijXlKrjv. dri 8e ■^dXiv Xrjpos eivai SoKeT rb 11 
p6(jiiap.a Kal v6fi6i iravrdiraa-i, <f)'6<Tti 5" oiiSiv, on fiera- 
Oe/xipcov re rwv yjp<onhmv oiSevbs d^iov ovre y^prfcrifi.ov npos 
ovSev rStv dvayKaioup kari, Kal po/jtid-fiaros irXovrmp iroXXd- 
Kis aTToprjaei Trjs dpayKaias tpo^fjs' Kaitoi aronop roiovrop 

15 eipai TtXovTOP o5 einrop&p Xi/im diroXeiTal, Ka6direp Kal top 
MiSap eKetPOP pvQoXoyovai Sia rfjp dirXrjaTiap rrjs e^X^* 
7fdpT(0P avTm yiypo/iipcep t&p TrapaTide/iepcop •^pvawp. Sib 12 
(tirovaip 'irepop ti top vXodTop Kal Trjp )(prifJ,aTi(rTiKrjp, opOSts 
^rjTovpres. eatc yhp irlpa rj )(pT]naTt<fTiK^ Kal 6 ttXovtos 6 

20 KaTa <fyij<np, Kal aUrf] p.lp oiKopo/iiK'^, ^ Se KairrjXiK'^, 
iroiTjTiKfi xpt]/idTci>p oi irdpTCos, dXX' ^ 8Lh ^prjfidTcap fie- 
Ta^oXijs. Kal SoKeT irepl rb p6fiiap.a aCrti etpaf rb yctp 
vSjiKT/ia <tTOi)(^eiop xal nepas r^s dXXay^s kerrip. Kal dim- 13 
pos 8^1 oiros b itXovtos b ditb ravrrji Ttjs '){pr}p.aTi<mKfjs' 

sg^ffirep yhp fj laTpiKfj rov {lyiaipeip els dyreipop k(rti Kal 
iKda-Ti] T&p rexi'Sv rov riXovs els dnupop {§ti jJidXitrra yhp 
fKfiPO ^oiXopTai TToi.up'^, t&p 8i irpbs to riXos oi>k els diret^ 
pop (irepas yhp rb TeXos ifdaais), ovtoo Kal ravTtjs Ttjs 
XprjfiananKfjs oiiK ea-Ti tov feXovs nepas, reXos 81 6 toiovtos 

1257a,38— 1258 a 21. 15 

14 itAoCtos Kal yfirjudrmu. Krfja-is' rfjs fi* oiKovofiiKfjii "^ XP^'i° 
ftanerriKfji, ea-Ti irepay ov y&p rovro rijs oIkovo/uktjs epyov, 
Stb rfj p.\v <f>aiviTai dvayKoiov eivai navrhs wXoijTov irepaSt 
iirl Se tS>v yivojikvatv 6pSt{jKv) crv/iPaTvov ToivavTiov iravres 
yitp fis direipov aH^ovaiv 01 ^pr]p.aTi^6n€voi rd vofuafia, 

1 5 ahiou Se rh tr^veyyvs avrmv ivaWdTTU ykp f/ )(prj<ris 33 
Tov aiiTov ova-a exarepa rrjs xpijuaTUJTiKrjs, rrjs yap avrrjs 
earJ XP'J'''^**'? kt^o-is, dW' ov kaT&. Tairov, dX\^ rijs /leu 
erepov reXos, rrjs S' tj aH^riffis. wore SoKii Tial toDt ehai 

. TTif o'tKOvofiiKfjs ipyov, Kol SiuTeXovaiv ^ ffw^eiv olSfxevoi 

16 Self ■q av^eiv t^v tov vofiiafjiaTOS ovatav ets direipov, aitiov 40 
Se Taturr/s t^s StaOevems rh anovSa^eiv wepl rh ^fjv, dXXSi 

fjtff rh ev ^fjv els dweipov ovv eKewrjS T^s kwiOvfiias oi!<rr]s, 1258 a 
Kal Teav iroitiTiKav diretpdnv kinQvitovaiv. ocroi Se Kal tov eS 
^r\v eirt^aXXovTai, Th irpos rir dnoXavaeis rcty a-a>p.aTiK&.s 
^riToStriv, war enel Kal tovt ev Tjj KTrjaei <paiveTai iindp- 
Xetr, iratra fj SiaTpt^f) Trepl tov ■)^prifiaTiap6v eaTi, Kal to 5 

17 erepov eiSos ttjs )(p'r]fiaTLaTiKfjs Siii tovt eX'^XvOev. ev iinep- 
^oXfj yiup oiarjs Tr\s dnoXavarems, Ti^v ttjs diroXavaTiKrjs 
iirep^oXrjs noirjTi.Kfiv ^ijTofJsriV Kdv fi^ Siii Tr)s •^prfp.ari.iTTL- 
KTJs SvvcavTat wopi^eiv, Si dXXijs aiTias tovto neipavrai, 
eKdarrji yfiwftevoi tcov Svvdpteatv oil Kark ^<nv dvSpias 10 

: yap ov ^^fiaTa iroieiv e<rTlv dXXa Qdp<ros, ovSi a-TparriyiK^s 

18 Kal laTptKrjf, dXXii, ttjs fiev viKr^v t^s S iyieiav oi 8% 
irdaas iroiovai, ^pruiaTiaTiKaSy as tovto TeXos 6v, npos Se 
TO TeXos diravTa Seov diravTav. irepl /lev ovv ttjs re /ifi 
dvayKaias \priiiaTi(TTiKris, Kal ris, Kal Si airiav Tiva li/ 15 
Xpeia etTfiev avrrjs, eXprjrax' Kal irepl rfjs dv&yKaias, oVt 
iripa pev avrrjs o'lKovopiKrj Se Kark ^io'tv- tj irepl rijv 
rpo<f>'qv, oiJj( mtmep avrrj direipos, oKXk e\ovaa opov' 
SfjXov Se Kal rb diropo^/ievov e| ap^ffs, rrSrepov tov 10 
o'lKovQfiiKov Kal TToXiriKov earlv ^ XP'') !'■''■''' '■^''''■i^h V °^> dXXk zo 
Set TOVTO filv {)irdp\eiv' &<nrep yap koX dvSpmwovs ov noiei 

1 6 nOAITIKHN A\ 10-11. 

.f] iroXiTiKJ], dXXii. Xa^ovaa irapa Trjs <pvaea)S yjpfjTai 
aiiTois, ovTco Kal rpocprii/ rrfv tpvaiv Set irapaSovvat yfjv rj 
BaXaTTav fj SXKo Tf iK 8k tovtwv d>s Set ravra SiaOei- 

3 5 vai irpocrriKit. tov oIkovojiov. ov yap rfjs ixpavTiKrjs epia 2 
noirjaai, dXXii )(pi](raa6at airoTs, Kal yvwvai Se to tto'iov 
y^priarov Kal kirirriSiiov t} ^avXov Kal dvejnTrjSnov. Kal y&p 
aTroprjcretei/ dv tis Sia tC ■q jikv y^p-qjiaTUTTiKri fiopiov ttjs 
otKovofiias, fj S" iarpiKr] ov fiopiov' KaiToi Sec vyiaiveiv Toi>9 

30 KaTOL Trji/ oiKiav, &<nrip ^fjv rj dXXo ti twu dvayKaicov. 

kiTU Se eo'Ti fikv coy tov oIkovo/iov xal tov apypvTOS Kal irepl 3 

' iyieias ISeiv, ea-Ti Se my oil, dXXii, tov laTpoV, ovroa Kal irepl 

tS>v \prjp,dT<ov 'i<TTi p.ev wy tov oIkovo/iov, eaTi Se ms oH, dXXii 

TTJs iTrrjpeTLKrjs' (idXiaTa Si, Kaddnep eiprjTai Trporepov, SeT 

35 (pvaei TovTO virdpyeiv (pvaecos yap evTiv epyov Tpo^fjv t^ 
yeyyrjdevTi irapeyeiv iravTl ydp, k^ oS yiverai, Tpo^ri to 
Xeiiropevov ko'Tiv. Sib KaTh (fwa-iv kaTlv ^ XprjpaTiaTiK^ 4 
nd<ny diro twi' Kapjrwv Kal tS>v ^(pcov. SiirXrjs 5" oUaTjs 
aiTTJs, &(Tirep eiTro/iev, Kal ttjs pev KanrjXiK^s ttjs ^ oIko~ 

40 vopiKTJs, Kal TavTTjs p\v dvayKatas Kal eTraLvovpevris, Ttjs 
1258 b Se peTa^XrjTiKrjs yjreyopevrjs SiKaicos [ov yicp KaTci, ^ijo-iv 
aXX' dir dXXrjXcov kaTivj, evXoymTaTa pia-eiTai ^ o^oXo- 
aTaTiKf] Slot. TO dn avTov tov vopiapaTos elvai t^v KTrjo'iv 
Kal ovK k(f Snep knopiaOr]- peTa^oXijs yA/> kyeveTO ■)(apiv, 5 
g 5e To/coy avTo woiei wXeov. o6ev Kal Tovvopa tovt tXKri<f>ev 
opoia yiip to, TiKTSpeva toIs yevvwcriv avrd kcniv, 6 Sh 
t6kos yiveTai vSpurpa vopiapaTOS' &(TTe Kal fidXiaTa irapii 
^■vaiv bZros tZv y^prjpaTiap&v kaTiv. 

11 Errel Se ra npoi t^v yvZcriv SimptKajiev iKav&s, tIl 

JO irphs TT/v )(pija-iv SeT SieXOeiv, ndvTa Sk ri ToiavTa t^c 
piev Oecopiav kXevOepov e^et, ttiv 5' epireipiav dvayKaiav. 
eari Sk )(pT]paTia-TiKrjs peprj y^prfaipa to irepl Ta KTrjpaTa 
epireipov elvai, iroia XvaiTeXeaTaTa Kal irov Kal irms, oTov 
imrav KTrjais iroia tis ^ ^omv ^ irpo^aTav, dpoias Sk koI 

1258 a 22— 1259 a 7. 17 

2 T&v Xoiir&v ^mmv (Set yhp efineipov etvai Trpbs dWrjXd 15 
re TOVTCov riva Xva-LreXicrraTa, Koi iroia kv irotois tottois" 
SXXa yhp iv aWais evOrjvet ^mpais), efra irept yewpyias, 
Kal ToCTrjs ij8r} ^friXrjs re Kal ire(pVTevfiivi^s, /cat /ieXir- 
Tovpyias, Kal tSj' dXXcov ^mcav tSiv irXoiTStv fj TTTrjvmv, d(f) 

3 oa-<oy eari rvyydvuv ^orjdeias. t^s p-ev ovv oiK€ioTdTr]S XP't' ^° 
/laTiariKfjs ravra popia Kal TrpcoTa, rijs 8e /jLeTa^XijTiKrjs 
fiiyLCTTOf jikv ep,iropia (xaJ ravrijs p^epr) rpia, vavKXrjpia 
^oprr/yia 7rapd(rTa<ns' 8ia<pepeL Se tovtcov erepa irepcov rm 
Ta fiey dtr^aXearfpa eivai, ret Se nXeioa iropi^eiv Trjv em- 

4 KapTTiav), SeuTipov Se roKiapos, Tpirov Se purQapvta' rai- 25 
rrfs S" fj pev Tmv ^avavacav Tey(yS>v, 17 Se rStv dre-^^ycov 
Kal rS crdpaTi pSvm yjfqaipLmv Tpirov Se etSos XPW*" 
TiariKrjs pera^ii Tovrrjs Kal rrjs Trpmrrjs (eX*' Y^P '^"'^ '''V^ 
Karh ipvaiv ti pepos Kal rrjs pera^XTjTiKrjs), ocra aTTo yrjs 
Kal Tmv diro yfjs yivopevay dKdpiroov pev y^^prjaipcov Se, 30 

5 ofov iXoTopia re Kal ndaa peTaXXevTiKrj. uOtt] Se iroXXd 
rjSt] irepieiXrj^e yevrj' iroXXa yap eiSt] t&v e/c yfjs peToX- 
Xevopevcov eaTiv. irepl eKdcFTOv S\ tovtcov KaQoXov pev eip-qrai 
Kal vvv, TO Se KaTb, pepos aKpi^oXoyetcrOai y^p'^aipov pev 

6 Trpbs Tas epyacrias, (popriKov Se to evSiarpi^eiv. elcrl Se 35 
TeyvLKwraTai pev tS>v epyaarimv owov kXdyicrTov T^\r]s, 
^avavaoraTai 3' ev aTs tol acopara Xco^rnvrai pdXia-Ta, 
SovXiKcoTaTai Se ottov tov a-coparos nXeTarai ^pijcreis, dyevve- 

7 araTai Se ottov eXdyj-CTov vpoffSei dpeTrjs. eTrel 5' eaTlv eviois 
yeypappeva Trepl tovtodv, oTov XaprjTiST] tS Uapico Kal 40 
'ATToXXoSSpo) tS Arjpvico Trepl yeapyias Kal -^iXijs Kal 1259 a 
■ne^vrevpevris, opoieos Se /cat dXXois Trepl dXXcov, TavTa 

pev eK TovTwv OeapeiTco arm eTTipeXes' en Se Kal to, Xe- 
yopeva (nropdSrjv, Sl S>v eiriTeTv^c^Kaaiv evioc y^prjpaTi^o- 

8 pevoi, Set ovXXeyeiv Trdvra yap axfieXipa tuvt earl tois 5 
Tipmtri Trjv )(pr]paTi(rTiKrjv, ofov Kal to QdXecD tov MiXrjcrtov 
TovTO ydp e<TTi Karavorjpd ri y^pripariarLKov, dXX eKeivc^ 


1 8 nOAITIKHN A'. 11-13. 

fikv Sia T-qv aoipiav TrpoadirTovcri, rvyy^dvei Se KaQoXov Ti 
ov. oviiSi^ovTotv yiip aiirS Siii t^v neviav d>s dvoixpeXovs 9 

lo TTJ9 <piXo(ro(j)ias oSar/s, KaTayorjaavrd (paaiv avrou kXaiStv 
(pophv kcTOjJievqv eK ttjs dcrTpoXoyias, in yeifimvoi ovTOg 
evTTop^cravTa ^r/fidrcov oXiyoav dppa^Stvas SiaSovvai tS>v 
eXaiovpyeuov tZv t kv MtXjjro) Koi Xiao irdvT<cv, oXiyov fii~ 
aOaxTdfievov dr ovSevos ent^dXXovTOS' eireiS^ 8' 6 Kaipbs ^Ke, 

IS TToXXmy ^■qTov/iiyav afia Koi e^ai^vrjs, eK/iicrOovvTa ov rpcmov 
■q^oCXiro, noXXb, yjirniara avXXe^avTa kiriSii^ai otl paSiov 
kcTTi nXovTuv roTs (ptXoaS^ois, dv ^ovXcovrai, dXX ov tovt'' 
karl nepl 8 <nrovSd^ov(nv, &aXfjs jikv ovv Xiyerai tovtov 10 
rov Tpoirov kiriSei^iv noiri<Tacr6ai ttjs aoipias' ecrri 5', &crjrep 

20 eiTTO/iev, KadoXov to tolovtov \pr}p.aTicrTiK6v, kdv ris SvvrjxaL 
liovoTTwXiav avT& KaracrKevd^eiv. Sib Kal t&v iroXewv iviai 
TOVTOV TTOiovvTai Tov irSpov, OTav diTopSxri XprifidTCOV /lovo- 
TTcoXiav ydp twv wvicav iroiovcriv. kv SiKeXia Si tis reOivTos 1 1 
Trap' avT& vojiia-jiaTOi (rvveirplaTO ndvTa tov aiSripov e/c 

35 tSiv a-iSrjpetmv, /ieTo, Se Tavra d>s d(j)iK0VT0 e/c t&v kfiwo- 
ptmv ol e/jLTTOpoi, knmXei jjlovos, ov iroXXriv iroirjcras imep^o- 
X-qv Trjs Tifirjs' dXX' ofimi knl toTs irevT'qKovTa TaXdvTOis 
kTriXa^ev iKUTOv. tovtov fikv ovv 6 Alovvctlos alvOofievos Ta 12 
fiev )(prjp.aTa kKeXevcrev kKKO/jita-acrOat, [ifi /ikvTOi ye eTL 

30 jxeveiv kv ^vpuKova-ais, cos nopovs eipia-KovTa to?s aiiTOv 
TTpdy/iaa-iv da-vfi<f)6povs' to fievToi opa/ia QdXem Kal tovto 
TavTov ecTTLV dfKfiOTepoi yap iavTois kTe)(yaarav yeveadai 
fiovoTTcoXiav. )(fiqa-Lfiov Se yvmpt^eiv Tavra Kal toTs ttoXi- 13 
TiKois' iroXXais ydp noXecn Se? )(prifiaTi(rfiov Kal tolo^jtodv 

35 Tvopwv, mcrnep otKia, fidXXov Se. SioTrep Tives Kal ttoXi- 
TevovTai Twv noXiTevofievcov Tavra jiovov, 

12 'Enel Se Tpia p,epr] rfjs oiKovofiiKrjs ^v, ev fiev Se- 
arroTiK^, irepl ^s eiprjTai irpSrepov, ev Se TrarpiKq, TpiTov Sk 
ya/jiLKT]' Kal yap yvvaiKos dp)(eiv Kal TeKvcov, a)S kXev6e- 

40 pa>v jikv dfKpotv, ov TOV avrhv Se Tporrov ttjs dp)^fjs, dXXd 

1259 a 8— 1259 b 33- i9 

yvvaiKos (lev itoXitik&s, tskvwv Sk /SacrtAt/cSy to re yap 1259 b 
Sppeu ^vaei rod 6i]\eos ■qye/ioviKmrepov, ei firj irov avvi- 
(TTTjKe iraph (piia-iv, Kal to irpecr^vT^pov koX TeXeiov tov veco- 

2 Tepov Kai aTeXovs. kv jikv oSv Tais ttoXitikoIs dp)(ais tois 
TrXeicTTais /ierajSaXXet to &p\ov Kal to dp^opuvov (e^ ta-ov 5 
yhp eTvai ^ovXerai Trjv (pvaiy Kal 8ia(pepeiv jiriSkv), ofjuos 
Si, orav to jikv dp')^ to Se ap-)(rjTai, ^rjTei Sia<popav etvai 
Kal <r)(rjfia(n Kal X6yo,is Kal Ti/iais, manep Kal "Apacris 

3 eiire tov nepl tov noSaviTTTrjpos Xoyov to 5' dpp^v del vpos 
TO dfjXv TOVTOv iyei TOV Tpoirov. f) 8e tZv TeKvoov dp)(rj lo 
fiacriXiK'q' to yhp yevvrjaav Kal KaT&. ^iXiav apypv Kal 
KaTh, irpea^eiav kariv, oirep kaTl Pa<riXiKTJs eTSos dpyrji. Sib 
KaXcas "OfjLTipos TOV Aia irpovrjyopevcrev elnav " iraTrip dv- 
Spmv re Qemv re," tov ^acriXea tovt<ov andvTcov. (fyvaei yap 
TOV jSatrtXea Siatftipeiv p.ev dei, tw yevei S' elvai tov aiirov 15 
&irep TrinovOe to irpeaPvTepov irpos to vemrepov Kal d yev- 
vrja-as irpos to tckvov. 

^avephv tolvvv oti TrXeicov tj o'lrovSfj Tijs oiKovofiias 13 
Trepl Tovs dvBpwTTOvs ^ irepl ttjv twv d'^v^wv KTrjaiv, Kal 
nepl Tfjv dperffv tovtcov rj irepl ttjv Trjs KT'qcrews, ov KaXov/iev 20 

2 ttXovtov, Kal tSiv kXevdipmv fidXXov rj SoiXmv. irpcoTOv pev 
ovv Trepl SovXcov dnoprja-eiev dv tis, irorrepov ka-Tiv dpeTrj tis 
SovXov napd Tas opyaviKas Kal SiaKoviKois dXXt] Ti/iiayripa 
To{iT(ov, oTov cr(0(f)po<7vvrj Kal dvSpia Kal SiKaiotruvr) Kal t&v 
dXXcov tZv ToiovTcov e^ecov, r\ oi/K ea-Tiv oiSe/iia irapbL Tiis 25 

3 ampaTiKas inrripeaias, ej(et yap diropiav dp,<poTepoos' e'lre 
ydp eoTi, Ti 8ioi<rov<n twv kXevdepmv ; eiTe prj ecrTLv, ovtcov 
dvOpdmmv Kal Xoyov kolvcovovvtcdv aTOirov. a-)(eSov Se 
TavTov kcTTL TO ^TjTovpevov Kal nepl yvvaiKos Kal naiSos, 
n&repa Kal to'utcov ela-lv dperai, Kal Set Trjv yvvalKa etvai 30 
(Toxppova Kal dvSpetav Kal SiKaiav, Kal nais ko'Tl Kal dKo- 

4 XaaTos Kal (raxfypcov, ^ ov; Kal KaOoXov Sfj tovt earlv knicTKe- 
nreov nepl dp)^opevov (fyuaei Kal dpyovTOS, noTepov rj avT^ 

C 3 

20 nOAITIESlN A'. 13. 

dperrj T] irepa. ei fikv yhp Set dfi^orepovs iiere-^^eiv koXo- 

35 KctyaOias, SiSi ri tov fiev dp^^eiv SioL &v tov Se dp^^ea-Oat, 
KaduTra^ ; ovSe yap rm jidWov Kal rjTTov dlov re Sia^e- 
peiv TO (uv yhp dpy^eaOai Kal dpyeiv eiSei Siaipipei, rb 
Se /laXXov Kal tjttov ovSev el Se tov jikv Set tov Se jiri, 5 
OavjiacTTov, e'lTe yhp 6 dp)(a)v fir] ea-Tai aS^pwv Kal Si- 

40 Kaios, irm dp^ei kuXcos ; eW 6 dpyoiievos, irats apyfii]- 
1260 a o-erat Ka\m ; aKoXaaTOS yhp av Kal SeiXbs ovSev irofqa-ei 
tS>v TrpoarjKovTcov. (pavepov TOivvv oTi dvdyKrj [lev fieTeyeiv 
dfKpOTepovs dpeTtjs, TavTTjs S eJvai Sia^opds, mcnrep Kal 
Twv ^ijaei dp)(0fieva)v. Kal tovto evOiis {/(prjyijTai irepl t^v 6 
5 '^v)(rjv kv TavTT) yap ecTTi ^vcrei to fiev dpyov to S' 
dp-ypjievov, a>v eTepav (ftayiev eivat dpeTrjv, oTov tov Xoyov 
e)(ovTos Kal tov dXoyov. SrfXov Toivvv otl tov aiiTov Tponov 
e)^€i Kal eirl toiv dXXwv, &(TTe (pijcrei Th irXeioa dpypvTa 
Kal dp-)(piieva- dXXov yhp Tponov to kXevQepov tov SovXov 7 

ro apx^' '^'"^ '^° dppev tov OriXeos Kal dvrjp naiSos' Kal iracriv 
kwTrdp-)(eL jiev Th fiopia Trjs '^v)(rjs, dXX' evmrdp^fei Sia- 
^epovTCDS' 6 jiev yhp SoCXos oXoas ovk e^ei to ^ovXevTiKov, 
TO Se OfjXv e'xet fiev, aXX' aKvpov, 6 Se irais e-)(ei /lev, 
dXK areXey. dfioims toivvv dvayKaiov eyeiv Kal irepl ray 8 

15 TjOiKhs dpeThs iiroXTjirTeov, Seiv jiev jieTeyeiv ndvTas, dXX' 
oil TOV avTov Tpcmov, dXX 6(rov eKaaTm irpos to aiiTov 
epyov. Slo tov plev dpyovTa TeXeav eyeiv Set ttjv ■qOiKrjv 
dpeTrjv (to yhp epyov ecTTlv dirXSis tov dpyiTeKTOvos, 6 Se 
Xoyoy dp^iTeKTMv) , t&v 8' dXXaiv eKacTTov, ocrov eTn^dXXei 

20 avTOis. &<TT€ (fiavepbv oti evTlv rjOtKr] dpeTr) t&v eiprj/ievoav 9 
irdvTcov, Kal ov^ rj avrfj aco^poavvri yvvaiKos Kal dvSpos, 
ovS dvSpia Kal SiKaioavvrj , Kaddnep aero ^coKpaTris, dXX' 
■f] fiev dp-)(iKri dvSpia, f] S' irrripeTiKri. ofioicas S' e)(^ei Kal 
irepl Ths dXXas. SijXov Se tovto Kal KaTh fiepos /JtdXXov 10 

25 eiria-Konovcriv KaOoXov yhp 01 XeyovTes e^airaTwa-iv eavTovs, 
oTi TO eS eyeiv t^v 'yp'v)(tiv dpeT'^, to opOoirpayeTv, rj ti 

1259 b 34— 1260 b i8. 2[ 

T&u ToiovTODv TToXij yhp Sfieivoy Xeyovcriv ol e^apiB/iovvres 

11 T^s dperds, Sairep Topyias, Tmv oSrais opi^ofieycov. Sih Sec, 
Sa-Trep 6 iroLijTfjs €ipT]Ke irepl yvvaiKos, ovtco vo/ii^eiv eX*'" 
nepl irdvTcav, " yvvaiKi Kovjiov fi aiyfj (pipei" dW' dvSpl 30 
oiiKeTi TovTo. knel 5' 6 rrais dreX'qs, SfjXov otl tovtov fiev Kal 

ri dperij oiK aiiTov irpos avTov kaTiv, dWa wpos rb riXos 

12 KOLTov riyaufievov. Ofioicos Se Kal SovXov irpos SecnroTrjv. eOe- 
/lev Se npos TdvayKoia )(pTJ(nfiov etvai tov SovXov, &<TTe S^- 
Xov oTi Kal dpeTTJs Seirai jiiKpas, Kal Toa-avTijs onms firJTe 35 
Si dKoXaatav fifire Sia SeiXiav eXXeii^ri rcav 'epycav. diro- 
prjaeie S dv Tis, to vvv elprjfiivov el dXrjOes, dpa Kal Tois 
TeyyiTas Serjaei ey^eiv dpex'qv TroXXaKis yap Si dKoXaviav 

13 eXXeinovai rcov epycav. ^ Sia<f>epei tovto irXeTa-rov ; 6 fiev yap 
SovXos Koivcovos C'^fjs, 6 Se iroppatTepov, Kal to<jovtov eiri- 40 
PdXXei dperijs o<tov irep Kal SovXeias' 6 yhp ^dvavcros Tex- 
viTTjS dfpmpiaiJievriv Tivb, ey^ei SovXeiav Kal 6 [lev SovXos 1260 b 
Tcov tfivaei, aKVTOTOfios S' ovSeis, ovSe t&v dXXtov reyyirSav. ' 

1 4 <pavepov Toivvv oti rfjs ToiavTrjs dperrjs aiTiov elvai Set rS 
SovXco TOV SecrnoTTjv, aXX' oii t^jv SiSaaKaXiKfjv ey^ovTa t&v 
epycov Se<nroTiKrjv. Sio Xeyovaiv ov KaXms ol Xoyov Toiis Sov- 5 
Xovs dwovTepovvTes Kal ^dcTKOvTes eiriTa^ei y^pfja-6ai jiovov 
vavOeTtjTeov yap fidXXov toiis SoiXovs ^ Toi>s iraiSas. 

15 'AXXdi irepl jiev tovtcov SimpiaSco tov Tponov tovtov irepi 
3" dvSpbs Kal yvvaiKos Kal TeKvcov Kal naTpos, t^s re irepl 
eKacTTOv aiiTcov dpeTrjs Kal ttjs TTpbs (T<pas aiiTotis 6/j.iXias, 10 
Ti TO KaXas Kal jiri KaXas ecTTi, Kal ttZs Set to fiev eS Sico- 
Keiv Tb Se KaKws ^eiyeiv, ev toTs irepl Tds iroXiTeias dvay- 
KaTov eireXBeiv eirel ydp olKia fiev irdaa /lepos woXecoy, 
Tavra S' oIkms, Tfjv Se tov (lepovs vpbs t^v tov oXov SeT ^Xi- 
ireiv dpeT^v, dvayKoiov npos t^v iroXiTeiav ^XenovTas irai- 15 
Seveiv Kal Toijs rraiSas Kal Tds yvvaiKas, eiirep ti Sia^epei.irpbs 
Tb T^v TToXiv eivai anovSaiav Kal tovs iralSas eivai airovSaiovs 

16 Kal Tds yvvaiKas a-novSaias. dvayKaiov Se Siatpepeiv al fiev 

2 2 nOAITIEIlN A'. 13— B'. 1-2. 

yap ywaiKes ij/iKm /lipos tS>v eXevOepcov, eK Se rmv vaiScov oi 
2o Koivmvol yivovTai Trjs iroXireias. aia^T eirel nepl fiev toUtwu 
SiSpiarai, irepl 81 tcov Xonrwv kv aXXois XeKriov, dcpevres a)S 
reXos exovTas roi/s vvv Xoyovs, dXXrjv apxhv iroijja-dfievoi. 
Xiym/iei', Kal irpSiTov eina-Ke'^Sfie6a irepl tZv dirocprjvafiivcov 
TTfpi Trjs TToXireias rfjs dpia-rris. 



'Enel Se 7rpoaipov/j.e6a Becopfja-ai irepl ttjs Koivcovias rfjs 
iroXcTiKTJ?, Tis KpaTLCTTT] iraoSiv toTs Swa/ievois ^fjv otl fidXi- 
ara kut ev)(r]v, SeT Kal T^y dXXas ein(7Kei\raa6ai iroXi- 
30 reias, a?s re XP^J'Tat rives rS>v noXewv rav evvofieia-dai 
Xeyojievcov, Kdv ei rives erepai f rvy)(dvma-iv\ iinb rivmv eiprj- 
p-ivai Kal 8oKova-ai KaXms ex^"'' "'" '''° '"' opBms e)(ov 6<^6fj 
Kal ro XPV^'^H'Ov, en Se rb ^rjreiv ri Trap avrois erepov fifj 
SoKfj Trdvrctis elvai cro<pi^€<rdai ^ovXofievmv, dXXoi Sih to fifi 
35 KaXws e'xf"' ravras ras vvv vTrapyo^(Tas, Sia rovro ravrijv 
SoKmfiev eiri^aXeaBai r^v fieOoSov, dpxrjv Se irpmrov itoitj- 2 
reov rjnep TretpVKev dp^^ toCttis ttjs a-Keylrems. dvdyKt] 
yap rjroi wavras iravrav Koivooveiv rois iroXiras, ^ n-qSevos, 
^ rivZv jiev rivmv Se firj. to jiev oSv iirjSevos KotvcoveTv <j>a- 
40 vepov &s dSijvaroV r} yap iroXireia Koivatvia ris' eari, Kal 
TrpStrov dvdyKT] rod roirov Koivcavevv' 6 /lev yh,p tojtos eis 6 rijs 
1261 a fiids TToXecos, 01 Se woXTrai Koivcovol rijs fiias irSXems" 
dXXa TTorepov oa-mv kvSey(erai Koivoovfjaai, wavreov ^eXriov 3 
KoivcoveTv r^v jieXXovarav oiK'^trfirdaL noXiv KaXcoy, ^ rivmv 
jiev rivmv Se oi jSeXriov ; evSeyerai yhp Kal reKvmv Kal yv- 
5 vaiKmv Kal Kr^qjidrmv KOivcovelv roiis noXiras dXX'qXois, &(t- 
irep kv rf] iroXireia rfj JlXdrmvos- kKei yap 6 ^ooKpdrrjs 
^rjal SeTv Koivh ra reKva Kal riis yvvaiKas elvai Kal r^s 
KT'^creis. rovro Sfj irorepov as vvv oiirm ^eXriov e^eiv, fj Karh, 
2 Tov kv rfj noXireia yeypafifievov vofiov ; '4)(ei Sfj Svcrx^peias 

1260 b 19— 1261b 3. 23 

dWas re iroXXay to irdvTwv eii/ai t&s yvvaiKas Koivds, 10 
Kal Si 7jv alriav <f)7j<rl SeTv 3/evo/io6eT^a-6ai rhv Tponov tovtov 
6 ScoKpdTTjs, oil ^aiverai avfi^alvov €k rmu \6ycov eVt Sk 
npos TO TeXos 6 ^■qa-i Trj iroXei 8eTv {nrdp-)(eiv, cos jxkv eipr]- 

2 Tat vvu, dSvfaTov, wqjs Se 8ei SieXeiu, ovSev SiwpiaTai. Xlyo) 

S\ TO fiiav eivat Triv irokiv a>s dpuTTOv tv on jidXivTa iravav ig 
Xafi^dvei yhp TaiHrriv vnoQeaiv 6 SwKpdTTjS. KaiTOi <pave- 
pov eaTiv CBS irpo'iovaa Kal yivo/iivr] fiia /idXXov oiiSe noXis 
iaTur irXrjdos ydp Ti ttjv (pvcTiv kaTW 17 ttoXh, yivo/iivrj re 
fiia fidXXov oiKia fiev eK noXews, dvBpmros 5' k^ oiKias 
ea-Tar /idXXov ydp [itav tt]v oiKiav ttjs iroXecos (pairifieif dv, 20 
Kal Tov eva Trjs oiKias- &<tt el Kal SvvaTos Tis etrj tovto 

3 Spdv, oi iToiriTiov dvaip'fiaei ydp T^r noXiv. ov jiovov 8' eK 
TrXeiovmv dvBpdyirav kcrTlv rj ttoXis, dXXd Kal e^ eiSei Sia- 
(f>ep6vT(ov' oi) ydp ytveTai noXis e^ ofioiav. erepov ydp avfi- 
fiayta Kal iroXis' to p-ev ydp rS ttoctS -^prja-ipov, kSlv ^25 
TO aiiTo TW eiSei (^orj6eias ydp X*/'"' '7 cvppaxia ne(pu- 
Kev), wanep av el aTaOp-hs irXelov f eXKvo-gf' SioicreL Se Tm 
Toio^Tco Kal iroXis eSvovs, orav prf KaTd Kmpas 3>(n Keywpi- 
crpevoi TO irXrjOos, dXX' olov 'ApKdSes' e| wv Se Set ef 

4 yeveaOai, etSei Sia^epei. Si&rrep to la-ov to avTiirevovBos 30 
<Td>(eL Tds iroXeis, warrep kv tois ■^6iko'is eiprjTai irpoTepov 
knel Kal kv tois kXevdipois Kal fcrois dvdyKrj tovt elvai- dpa 
ydp ovx oiou T€ iravTas dp^eiv, dXX' ^ KaT kviavTov rj 

5 Kara Tiva dXXrjv Ta^iv ^ )(fi6yov. Kal av'p^atvei Sij tov 
Tpoirov TOVTOV &(TTe ndvTas dpj^eiv, mcnrep dv el peTefiaXXov 35 
01 ffKVTeis Kal ot TeKTOves Kal pi] ol aiiTol del aKVTOTopoi 

6 Kal TeKTOves ■qaav. knel Se /SeXrtoj/ oi/rcBS e^^eiv Kal Ta wept 
TTjv Koivcoviav TTjv TToXiTiKijv, SrjXov CBS Tois aiiTotis del /SeX- 
Tiov dpyeiv, el SvvaTov kv ofs Se p^ SvvaTov Sid to t^jv 
(pHa-iv iirovs eivai irdvTas, dpa Se Kal SiKaiov, eiT dyadbv 1261 b 
eiTe (pavXov to dp^eiv, irdvTas avTov peTeyeiv, ^ tovto Se 
pipeiTai TO kv pepei tovs la-ovs eiKeiv to 5* cbs opoiovs eivai k^ 

24 nOAITIKSlN B'. 2-4. 

dpxfjs t" 01 fikv yhp apyovtnv ot S' dp-)^ovTai Karh /lepos, 7 
5 S(Tirep Stv dWoi yevo/iefoi. /cat rov avTov S^ rpoirov dpyovrmv 
erepot iripas dpy^ovaiv d.p)(as. ^avepov roivvv e/c toUtcov as 
oiSre Tre^u/ce niav ovtcds etvai Tr}v irSXiv Scrirep Xeyov<ri rives, 
Kal TO Xex^^v o)s p-iyicrTov dyaOov kv rais iroXea-iv oti ras 
iroXeis dvaiper Kairoi to ye eKaaTov dyaQov crw^ei eKaaTov. 

10 eaTi 8e Kal Kar' dXXov rpoirov <pavepov oti to Xiav evovv ^rj- 8 
TeTv Tr]v TToXiv ovK ecrriv dfieivov. otKia jiev yap avTapKecrre- 
pov evos, itoXls B' OLKias' Kal ^ovXeTai y' ^Sr] t6t' etvai irS- 
Xis, orav avrapKr] av/jL^aiurj rfiv KOLvcaviav eivai tov TrXijdovs. 
emep ovv aiperSrepoi/ to avrapKeaTepov, Kal to ^ttov ev tov 

ig jiaXXov alpeToiTepov. 

3 AXXa firiv ov5' ei tovto dpicTTov eari, to fitav oti [id- . 
XicTT etvai T-qv Koivmviav, oiiSe tovto diroSeiKvvaOat (f>aipeTai 
KaTic TOV Xoyov, khv iravTes d/ia Xiyetxri to e/iov Kal to /ifj 
kfiSv TOVTO yb,p o'ieTai 6 ^coKpaTrjs a-qp.e'iov etvai tov Trjv 

20 iroXiv TeXims eivai p-iav. to yhp 'irdvTes SittSv. el fiev ovv 2 
Ss eKacTTos, rdy^ Siv e'lrj paXXov t ^ovXeTai ttouTv 6 Xca- 
KpdTijs, eKaa-Tos yap vlov eavrov (p'qcrei tov avrov Kal yv- 
vaiKa S^ Tfjv avTTJv, Kal irepl ttjs aixrias Kal irepl iKaarov 
8r) tS)v o'vp.^aivSvTcov axravTws' vvv 5' ow^ ovtod (pijaovaiv 01 

25 KoivaTs xpmpevoi Tais yvvai^l Kal Tois TeKvois, aXXcb irdv- 
Tes p.ev, ov^ ms eKaaTos S' avT&v. ofioims Se Kal Trjv ovatav 3 
ndvTes /lev, ow^ ^s eKaarros 8' avrmv. oti jiev toivvv irapa- 
Xoyia-p.6s tis kcrTi rh Xeyeiv irdvTas, (j>avep6v to yhp irdv- 
Tes Kal dfi^&repa Kal irepiTrdi. Kal dpTia 8ih to 8ittov koi 

30 ev ToTs Xoyois kpiaTiKois iroiei avXXoyia-fiovs- 8ih karl to irdv-, 
Tas TO aiiTo Xeyeiv q}81 jiev koXov, dXX' ov BvvaTov, q)81 5' > 
oi8ev 6/J.ovor]TiK6v' irpos Se tovtois hepav ?x^' ^Xd^rjv ro 4 
Xeyo/ievov. rJKia-Ta yhp emp.eXeias Tvyydvei to wXeiarmv 
K0iv6v' T&v yhp iSicov fidXia-Ta ^povri^ovcriv, twv Se KoivSav 

35 fjTTov, ^ offov kKda-TCo kni^dXXer irpos yhp toTs dXXois my 
erepov ^povri^ovTos oXiyoopovai /idXXov, &<nrep ev rat? o'lKe- 

1261 b 4— 1262 a 30. 25 

riKuTs SiaKoviais ol noXXol Qepdirovres kvtore \apov {iTrrjpe- 

5 Tovari t&v kXaTTOvatv. yivovTai S' e/ca<rTO) ■)^p<Loi tS>v ttoXltcov 
vtoi, Koi oStoi ovx ffls iKdarov, dXXa tov tv^ovtos o royatv 
6fioi(os eaTiv vlos- acrre iravres o/xaicos oXiywpricrovcnv. ert 1262 a 
cvToos eKacrros e/ibs Xeyei tov ev irpdrTOVTa tS>v iroXnoav fj 
KCLKcos, oTToa-Tos Tvyy(dvii tov dpi6fj,6v, o?ov €/ ^ tov Seivos, 
TovTov TOV TpoTTOv Xeycoi/ Ka6' eKaarov t&v yiXioav, ^ 6a-<ov 

f) TToXis ea-TL, Kal tovto SiaTd^wv dStjXov yap S avvejSri yeve- 5 

6 (rOai TSKvov Kal <rco6fivai yev6/j.evov. kuCtoi noTepov ovtod 
KpecTTov TO kfiov Xkyeiv ^KuaTov to avTO jjikv irpoaayopevov- 
Tas Sia-)(^iXia)v Kal fivpioov, ^ fidXXov d>s vvv ev Tais rroXea-L 

7 TO efibv Xiyovaiv ', 6 p,ev yhp vlov aiiTOv 6 5' dSeXipov aiiTov 
Trpoo'ayopeiiei tov ovtov, 6 S' dve^fnov, rj KaT dXXrjv Tivii, 10 
avyyeveiav, ^ npos aifiaTos, ^ far' oiKeioTriTa Kal KtjSeiav 
niiTov irp&Tov fj tZv aiiTov, npbs Se toiutois erepov (ppdTopa 
^vXeTr}v' KpeiTTOv yhp iSiov dveylnbv etvat fj tov Tponov tov- 

8 TOV viov. oil jiriv dXX' ovSe Sia^vyetv SvvaTbv Tb fii] Tivas 
iiroXafi^dveiv iavTav d8eX<f)0vs re Kal waTSas Kal iraTfpas 15 
Kal /irjTepas' KaTci yap Tas d/ioi&rrjTas at yivovTai Tofy 
TSKvois irpbs Tois yevv^iravTas, dvayKaiov Xap.^dveiv Trepl 

S dXXijXmv Tics nia-Teis. oirep ^aal Kal avfifiaiveiv Tives tZv 
Tas T^s yfjs irepi68ovs irpayfiaTevojievrnv eivai ydp tlcl 
Tcav avoD Ai^vwv Koivas Tas yvvaiKas, toc fievToi yevSfieva 20 
TeKva SiaipeiaOai KaTh Ths bfioioTtiTas. eial Si Tives Kal 
yvvaiKes Kal twv dXXcov ^axov, oiov hnroi Kal ^oes, at 
(r(f)68pa TrecpvKaaiv ofioia dnoSiSovai Th, TeKva tois yovev- 
a-tv, aairep fj ev ^apaaXm KXrjOeTa-a AiKaia iiriros. eTt Se 4 
Kal Tas ToiavTas Svcryepeias ov paSiov eiXa^rjOrjvac tois 25 
Taiurrjv KUTaaKevd^ovcri t^v Koivmviav, oTov aiKias Kal (f)6vovs 
uKova-iovs, Toi>s Se eKovatovs, Kal /jid\as Kal XoiSopias' &v 
ovSev 0(Ti6v eaTi yiveaOai irpbs rraTepas Kal fir]Tepas Kal Tods 
firj jToppoi TTJs avyyeveias ovTas, mvirep npbs Toi>s diroBeV 
dXXa Kal irXeTov avfi^aiveiv dvayKaiov dyvooUvTcov ^ yvay- 30 

26 nOAITIKHN B'. 4-5. 

pi^ovrmp, Kal yevo/iivaiv tS>v fiev yvrnpi^ovTcav kv8ey(eTai rhs 
po/xi^ofiivas yiveadai Xvcreis, Tcav Se firjSefjicav. cctowov Se 2 
Kal TO Koivoiis TTOirjcravTa Toi>i viois to avvetvai fiovov d(pe- 
XiTv tSiv kpdivTmv, to S' kpdv firf KCoXva-ai, ftrjSe Tas XP'H- 

35 aeis Tas dXXas, oLS naTpl wpos vlov eivai irdpTcav eaTiu 
dnpen^aTaTov Kal dSeX<p& Trpos dSeX^ov, cTret Kal to kpdv 
jiovov. aTOTTOv Se Kal to ttjv avvavcriav d<peXe'iv Si' dXXrjv 3 
luv aiTiav fiTjSefiiav, as Xtav Si ia-)(ypS.s Ttjs riSovfjs ywo- 
fitvqs' OTi S' 6 /lev iraTrjp rj vlos, oi S' dSeX(pol dXXrjXmv, 

40 fiTjSkv oUaBai SiatftipeLv, eoiKe Se fiaXXov tois yecopyois 4 
elvai y^prjaifiov to Koii/cts etvai Tks ywa?Kas Kal Toils iraT- 
1262 D ^gjy ^ ^qJj ^{iXa^ip- ^ttov yap 'iffTai (f}iXia Koivmv ovTcav 
Ta)v TeKVcav Kal Tcav yvvaiKmv, Set Se toiovtovs etvai Tods dp- 
yojievovs npos to 7rei6ap)(^ew Kal jj,^ pecoTepi^eiv. oXots Se 5 
crvn^aiveiv dvdyKrj TOvvavTiov Sia tov tolovtov vofiov mv 
6 TTpoa-rJKei Toiis opOms Keijievovs v6/iovs aiTiovs yivecOai,- Kal 
Sl' Tjv ahiav 6 ^eoKpaTrjs oUrms oi'eTai Seiv TaTTeiv to, irepl 
tSl TeKva Kal tAs ywaiKas' <f)iXiav re yap ol6fie6a fieyia-Tov 6 
eTvai tSiv dyaOmv Tais noXeaiv (o{jt<o yap dv ^Kiara aTaaid- 
Coiev), Kal TO [itav etvai ttju woXiv eiraivei fidXia-O' 6 So>- 

10 KpdTTjs' S Kal SoKei KdKeivos elvai (prjcri ttjs <f>iXias epyov, 
KaQdirep ev tols epariKols Xoyois icTfiev Xeyovra tov 'Api- 
aTO(f)dvrjv as roov epwvToav Si&, to a^oSpa <f)iXeiv eTTiOv/iotuv- 
Tcov crvfi^vfjvai Kal yevea-Bai e/c Svo ovtcov djKftoTepovs eva. 
ivTavOa p.ev oSv dvdyKT] dfi<f>oTepovs e<j)6dp6ai ifj tov eva' ev 7 

15 Se Trj TrSXei Trjv tpiXiav dvayKalov iiSaprj yivea-Oai Sia Trjv 
Koivatviav ttjv ToiavTtjv, Kal iJKKTTa Xeyeiv tov ejihv ^ vtov 
TraTepa ^ naTepa vtov, aairep yap /iiKpov yXvKd els ttoXi) 8 
ijScop jiiyfiev dvaia-BrjTov voiei Tfjv Kpdcriv, oSto) av/i^aivei 
Kal rfjv oiKeioTTjTa tt/v npos dXX'^Xovs t^v dno tcov ovo/id- 

20 Tccv TOijTmv, 8ia<ppovTi(eiv ^Kiara dvayKoiov hv ev ttj iroXi- 
Teia Trj ToiaiiTr], fj iraTepa &s vi&v ij vihv m naTpos, fj my 
dSeX<f>oi)s dXX'^Xoov. Svo ydp eaTiv & /idXiara iroiei KijSeaOai 9 

1262a 31— 1263 a 14. 27 

Toijs av6pa>TTOvs koX ^iKeiv, to re iSiov Kal to dyaTTtiTov &v 
ovSeTepoi/ olov re iirdpxeiv Tois oUtco voXiTivofiivois. dWii, 
Hfjv Kal irepl tov /leTatpipeiv rA yLvojieva TeKva, t^i, fiev eK 25 
tS>v yempymv Kal Te^viTmv els Toi>s <pvXaKas, to. d' iK tov- 
Tmv els eKeivovs, TToWrjv eyei Tapa-)(T]v, riva ecTTUi Tponov 
Kal yiv&aKeiv dvayKaiov Tois SiSoutus Kal fieTa^epovTas 
10 Tiat Tivas SiSoaaiv. €ti Sk Kal to, irdXai XeyfievTa fiaXXov 
enl TOVTmv dvayKaiov avfi^aiveiv, olov aUias epayras ^ovovs' 30 
oi yoLp eTL irpocrayopevovtriv d8eX(poi)s Kal TeKva Kal irarepas 
Kal firfTepas Tois <()vXaKas o'i re els Toi)s dXXovs iroXiTas So~ 
OevTes Kal ndXiv ol iraph tois (f>ijXa^i toijs dXXovs iro- 
XiTas, &(TTe evXa^ei<r6ai tSiv Toioircav ti irpaTTeiv Sid Tfjv 
avyyeveiav. irepl p-ev oSv Trjs wepl to, reKva Kal Tds 35 
yvvaiKas KOivmvias Siwpia6(o tov Tpoirov tovtov 

^yop,evov Se tovtcov kcrTlv emaKeylraaOai Trepl Trjs KTrj- 5 
(rems, Tiva Tpowov SeT KaTaa-Kevd^etrOai toTs fieXXovcri woXi- 
reveaQai ttjv dptaTtjv iroXiTeiav, noTepov Koiv^v ^ p,fi koiv^v 

2 eivac ttjv KTrjaiv. tovto S dv tis Kal ^copls (r/cei//'at70 dwh 40 
T&v Trepl Td Teitva Kal Tds yvvaiKas vevoiioOeTrifievtov, Xeya) 

Se Td irepl t^v KTrjcriv iroTepov Kdv § eKeiva \<opis, Kaff 1263 a 
hv vvv Tpfmov eyei irdvi, Tds re KT-rjcreis Koivds etvai jSeX- 
Tiov Kal Tds \pricreis, olov Td fiev yrjireSa X^pts, Toiis Sk 
KapriTotis els TO Koivov (pepovTas dvaXtaKeiv (oirep evta iroiec 
T&v e6vmv), ^ TovvavTiov ttjv fiev yfjv Koivfiv elvai Kal yemp- 5 
yelv Koivfj, Tois Se Kapirovs SiaipeTcrOai rrpos Tds ISias XPV~ 
(reis (XeyovTai Si Tives Kal tovtov tov Tpotrov Koivavelv t5>v 

3 ^ap^dpmv^, ^ Kal Td yrjireSa Kal Toi/s Kapirotis KOLVois. ere- 
pdiv /lev ovv ovTWv t&v yempyoiivTcov dXXos dv etrj rp&TTOs Kal 
^aa)v, aiT&v 8' aiiToTs Siairovo^vTwv Td irepl Tds KT'qaeis 10 
irXecovs dv irapexpi SvaKoXias' Kal ydp ev TaTs diroXavaea-i 
Kal ev TOIS epyois firi yivo/ievoDv lacov dvayKaiov eyKXrj- 
fiara yivetrBai irpbs tovs diroXadovTas fikv [^ Xa/i^dvovTas'^ 
iroXXd^ oXiya Se irovovvTas, tois eXaTTCo /lev Xafi^dvovat, 

28 nOAITIKnN B'. 5. 

15 nXeico 8e -rrovovaiv. oXms Se ro crv^^v Kal Koivtovitu rwv dv- 4 
BpamiKmv wdvTwv yaXiirov, koX ndkiara rZv toiovtcou. 
SrjXovai S" at tS>v arvvanoSrj/icov Koivcaviaf ayjeSov yap 01 
nXeicTTOL Sia^epo/jiivoi ek rmv kv noa-l Kal e*c fiiKpmv npoa- 
Kpovovres dXXrjXois. en Se tZv OeparrovTcoy tovtois fidXicrra 

20 wpoa-Kpovofiev, ots vXeTcrTa 7Tpoa-)(pd)fj,e6a vpos ras SiaKovias 
ras eyKVKXiovs. to juv o5v Koivas eivai ray KTrjcreis Ta'&ras 5 
re Kal dXXas roiaijTas e^ej Sva-)^€peias, ov 8e vvv rponov 
e'xet Kal iTriKoa-firjOev rjdeen Kal rd^ei voficov 6p6S>v, oil fii- 
Kpov dv SieuiyKar e^et ydp to k^ dfKpOTepmv dyaQbv 

35 Xiym Se to k^ d/jKpoTepwv to (k tov Koivds elvai rds KTrj- 
aeis Kal to kK tov ISias. Set yb,p nms fiey elvai KOivds, oXcos 
S' ISias' al ftev yap kirijieXeiai SiTjprj/iivai Td eyKXrJiiaTa 6 
irpos dXXrjXovs ov noi-qaova-iv, jidXXov Se k-mSdxj-ovcnv &s Trpbs 
iSiov eKacTTov TrpoaeSpevovTos' Si dperfiv S ecrrai npos to XPV' 

30 aOat KaTd t^v wapoificav KOivd ros ^iXav. ecrTi Se Kal vvv 
tov TpoTTov TovTov kv kvMis iroXecTiv ovTcos inroyeypa/ifievov 
ws ovK hv dSvvaTov, Kal fidXiaTa kv Tals koXSis OLKOv/ievais 
Ta fiev ea-TL Td Se yevoiT dv iSiav ydp eKaarTOS T^v KTrjcriv 7 
eycov Td jiev )(p7](n/ia iroieT tois <piXois, toTs Se ^prJTai 

35 KOLvois, olov Kal kv AaKeSatjiovi To'ii re SovXois yjicovrai 
Tots dXX'rjXcov cos eineTv iSiois, eTi S' hnrois Kal KVtriv, Kdv 
SerjOSia-iv kfpoSimv kv toTs dypois KaTd Tfjv yaipav. (pavepbv 8 
TOLvvv oTi ^eXTiov eivai jiev iSias Tds KTrjaeis, t§ Se XPV~ 
tret TTOielv Koivds' oircos Se yiva>vTai towvtoi, tov vofioOeTov 

40 tovt' epyov ISlov kariv. eTi Se Kal npos ■^Sovfiv dfivOTjTOv oaov 
Sia^epei to vofii^eiv iSiov tl' fii] ydp ov /jidTTjv Tfjv Trpos 
1263 b a{)Tov aiiTos e^ei (piXiav eKaaTos, dXX' eaTi tovto (pvaiKov. 
TO Se ^iXavTov elvai yfreyeTai SiKatws' ovk e<TTi Sk tovto to 9 
<f)iXeiv eavTov, dXXd to /xaXXov ^ Set fiXeiv, KaOdwep 
Kal TOV ^iXoxprjuaTov, knel <f)iXova-L ye irdvTes ms elireiv 
5 eKaaTOv t&v ToioijT(ov. dXXd fi^v Kal to xapiaairBaL Kal 
fioridfja-ai ^iXoiS rj ^evois 1} eTaipois ijSiaTOv S ytveTai ttjs 

1263 a 15—1263 b 39- 29 

10 KTr]<recos iSias o^vrjs. Tavrd re Sfi ov av/i^aiyei rots \iav %v 
iroLovai Tr]v iroXiv, Kal irpos tovtols dvaipovaiv epya SvoTv 
dpiTOiv (pavepms, crocicjipoa-vvris (jlIv to irepl ras yvvaLKas 
(epyov yap Ka\ov dWorpias oila-ris drrixea-Oai Silt a-axppo- 10 
<x^vr]v), eXevOepLOTTjTos Se to nepl rAy KT'^aeis' oSts yhp 'iarTaL 
^avephs eXevOipios Sv, o^e irpd^ei irpa^iv kXivQepiov oiiSe- 
fiiav kv TTJ yhp )(^p-q(7ei. twv KTTjfidTcov to Trjs eXevdepioTrj- 
Tos ipyov eaTtf. 

11 EvTrpoacoiros fikv ovv 1^ tolwutt] voiioOsvia Kal (piXdu- 15 
BpeoTTOs &v eivai So^euv 6 yot,p dxpoa/ievos da-fievos dnoBe- 
%eTai, vo/ii^mv e<re<r6ai (f)iKiav Tiva BavfiaffT^u Trdcn irpos 
dnavTas, dXXms re Kal oTav KaTfjyopfj tis twv vvv iirap- 
yovTwv kv Tais noXiTeiais KaKwu toy yivonivmv 8ia to /ifj 
Koivi]v eivai ttjv ovcriav, Xeym Se SiKas re irpos dXX-qXovs 20 
Trept avjjL^oXaiatv Kal i^aiSofiapTvpiSiv Kpi<reis Kal wXovaiasv 

12 KoXaKeias' mv ovSkv yiveTai Sid r^v dKoiv(ovr]a-iav dXXd 
Sid Tfjv p.oy6r]piav, kirel Kal Toi/s Koivd KeKtr]fikvovs Kal koi- 
vcovovvTas TToXXm Siacpepo/iivovs jidXXov op&iiev ^ Toi>s )((opls 
rds ovcrias eyovTas' dXXd dempov/iev oXtyovs tovs eK t&i/ koi- 25 
vatvicav Siatpepofievovs irpos ttoXXovs avfi^dXXovTes tovs KeKTrj- 

1 3 fievovs ISia Tds KTrjaeis. iTi Se SiKaiov p,^ p.6vov Xeyeiv 
oa-eou iTTepri<rovTai KaK&v Koifmv^o'avTes, dXXd Kal oawv 
uyaOav ^aiveTai 5* etvai irdp-irav dSiji/aTos 6 fiios. aiTiov 
Se rS SooKpdTei Trjs irapaKpovaews XPV vopt^eiv t7]v iiirode- 30 

14 (Tiv ovK ovcrav 6p6r]v. SeT pev ydp elvai iroos p.iav Kal t^v 
oiKiav Kal TTji/ itoXlv, aAX' oil ndvTas. ea-Ti pev ydp toy ovk 
ea-Tui Trpoiovtya irSXis, etrTi S &s ea-Tai pev, kyyds 5* oSa-a 
Tov pfj TToXis eTvai yetpwv ttSXis, acnrep k&u ei tis ttjv 
avp(pa)viav Trovqcreiev opo^covtav ^ tov ^vOphv ^daiv piav. 35 

15 <£XX^ Sei nXrjdos 6v, warirep eipijTai irpoTepov, Sid ttjv irai- 
Seiav Koivfjv Kal piav troieiv Kal tov ye piXXovTa iraiSeiav 
eicrdyeiv, Kal vopi^ovTa Sid TaijTijs eaeaOai Tfjv iroXiv a-rrov- 
Saiav, &Tonov tois toiovtois o'levQai SiopQovv, dXXd pfj Tois 

30 nOAITIKflN B'. 5. 

40 eOeat Kot Trj <f)i\o<ro(f)ia koX tois vofiois, aemep rh Trepl 
7^y KTrjaeis kv AaKeSaifiovi koI KpiJTT) toTs ava-criTwis 6 
1264 a vofiodirris eKOWonTev. 8eT Se /irjSe tovto avro dyvoetv, on XPV ^^ 
7rpoa-e)(€iv t5 ttoXXS xP°^^ '^*' '''"'^ ttoXXoTs ereaiv, kv ofy 
ovK &v 'iXaOev ei ravra KaXm eT)(ev iravra yh.p ay^^Sov 
fSptirai fiev, aXXi toi, fikv ov avvfJKTai, tois S" ov xpmvrai 
5 yipaxTKOi'Tes. jidXia-Ta 5" Siv ykvoiro <pavep6y, ei tis toTs 'kp- 1 7 
yois 1801 Trjv TOiavTT]!/ iroXiTiiav KaTaa-Keva^oftevrjv' ov yoLp 
Sw-qaerai jiri fiepi^av aina Kol ywpi^cav iroirja-ai T-qv no- 
Xiv, TO. pkv els avaaiTia, rh Se els ^parptas kol (fivXds. 
mare ovSev dXXo avp^'qcreTai vevofio6eTi]p,evov ttX^v prf yecop- 

10 yeiv Toi)s (pvXaKas' oirep Kal vvv AaKeSai/Movioi iroieiv kiri- 
)(eipova-iv. oil pfiv dXX' oiSe 6 rp&iros rrjs oXtjs iroXireias tis 18 
etrrat tois KOivwvovaiv , oSt eiprjKev 6 ScoKpdTrjs oxiTe paBiov 
elneip. KaiToi ayeSbv to ye nXrjOos Trjs noXecos To t&v dX- 
Xcov itoXitSiv yiveTai TrXrjOos, nepl Stv ovSev Simpia-Tai, Trore- 

15 pov Kal Tois yewpyols koivols eu/ai Set tcis KTrja-eis ^ /cat 
KaO' eKaaTov ISias, eTi Se Kal yvvaiKas Kal TraiSas ISiovs 
fj Koivovs. el p,ev yhp tov aiiTov Tponov kolvo, trdvTa ndv- 19 
Tcov, TL Sioicrovcriv odroi eKeivaiv t&v <f>vXdK<ov ; fj ti irXelov 
ToTs iiTTOfievova-i t^v dpyrjv avT&v ; fj ti fiaOovTes inropevovai 

20 T^iv dpyrfv, eh,v firj ti <ro(j)i^mvTaL tolovtov oiov KpiJTes ; 
eKeivoi. yhp TdXXa Tairr^ toTs SovXois etpevTes povov dwei- 
prfKaai to. yvpvdcna Kal Tfjv t&v onXwv KTrja-iv. el 51, Ka- 20 
6direp kv Tais dXXais noXecri, Kal nap' eKeivois eaTai t^ 
ToiavTa, TIS 6 Tpoiros ea-Tai ttjs Koivcavias ; ev pia yh.p vro- 

25 Xet Svo iroXeis dvayKuTov etvai, Kal Ta&ras iwevavTias 
dXXrjXaLS' Troiel yhp Totis pev <pvXaKas oTov ippovpovs, tovs Se 
yecapyovs Kal Toiis TeyviTas Kal tovs dXXovs iroXiTas. ey/cXiJ- 21 
para Se Kal SUai, Kal o<Ta dXXa TaTs noXecriv inrdpyeiv 
<pT)tTl KaKd, irdvff iwdp^ei Kal Toi/Tois. KaiTot Xeyei 6 5'w- 

30 KpdTrjs a>s oil iroXXSiv Se-qaovTai vopipcov Sia Tfjv iraiSeiav 
oiov ddTVvopiK&v Kal dyopavopiK&v Kal t&v dXXwv t&v 

1263 b 40— 1264 b 24. 31 

22 ToiovTCDV, dnoSiSois fiovov Tfjy iraiSeiav roh <pv\a§iv. ert 8e 
Kvpiovs TTOiei T&v KTr]fidT<ov Toi/s yempyods cmoipophv (pepov- 
Tas' dXXit, noXij /iSXXov eUos eiuai )(^a\e7rovs kol ^povrj- 
fidrcov TrXijpeiy fj ras wap' eviois eiXayreias re /cat Treveareias 35 

23 Kal SovXeias. dXXoi. yb.p (it dyayKoia ravff 6/tOKBS efre 
fi'^, vvv ye oiiSkv Smpiarai, Kal nepl t&i> k-)^o[iiv(ov, ris f] 
Toiurmv re iroXiTeia Kal TratSeia Kal vofioL rives, eari S' oUre 
evpelv paSiov, oUre to Siat^ipov fUKpov, to ttolovs Tivas elvai 

24 rovTovs irpos to aw^ea-Oai t^v tS>v ^vXaKcou KOLvmviav. aXXh 4° 
liriv ei ye ray fiev yvvaiKas TTOirjo'ei KOivas t^ls 8e KTiJo-ety 1264 b' 
ISias, ris oiKovonrja-ei &<nrep Tii. eirl tS)v dypwv ol dvSpes 
avTwv, KoLv el Koival at KTTJaeis Kal al tS>v yecopymv yv- 
vaiKes ; aTOTTOv Se Kal to eK t&v Orjpimv iroieicrQai Tfjy ira- 
pa^oX-qv, OTL 8eT t^ avrii kniTriSeveiv ras yvvaiKas toTs 5 

25 dvSpd<nv, ois oiKovofiias ovSev fieTetTTiv. eTTia-cpaXes Se Kal 
Toils dp)(ovTas d)s KaOiarria-iv 6 ^coKpdTTjs' del yap iroiei Toijs 
aiiTovs dpy^ovTas, tovto Se a-rda-ecos aiTiov yiveTai Kal irapb. 
Tois fiTjSev d^tcojia KeKTrjiievoLS, ^irov6ev Sfj irapd ye 6v- 

26 fioeiSecri Kal iroXefMiKois dvSpdaiv. on S' dvayKalov avrS 10 
TToietv Totis avrohs dpyovras, (ftavepov' ov yitp ore fxev dXXois 
ore Se dXXois fie/itKrai rats ■^v)(aTs 6 rrapa roD 6eov XP^' 
aros, dXX' del tois avroTs. ^rjcrl Se roTs/iev evdis yiuo/ie- 
vois filial xpvaoy^ roTs 5' dpyvpov, yaXi^o^ Se Kal criSrjpoi' 

27 rots rexytrais jieXXova-iv eaea-Qai Kal yempyoTs. en Se Kal 15 
TTju eiSaLjioviav d^aipo^jxevos rZv (fxvXdKotv, SXrjv ^t](tI Seiv 
evSaifiova TroieTv rriv rroXiv rov i/ofio6err]v. dSvvarov Se 
evSaijiovelv oXrjv, //.fj rmv wXeiarmv rj /ifj irdvrwv fiepcov ^ 
Tivwv expvraiv TTjy evSaijioviav. ov yap rS>v airwv ro evSai- 
jiovelv &vrrep ro dpnov tovto fiev yhp evSk){erai r& oX(p 20 
inrdp\eiv, rmv Se \iepS>v p.r\SeTep<o, to Se evSai/ioveiv dSv- 

28 varov. dXXa fi^v el 01 ^vXaKes fi'q evSac/ioves, rives ere- 
poi ; ov yiip St] o'i ye Te)(virai Kal rb nXfjOos rb rmv ^avav- 
amv. rj jiev ovv iroXireia nepl ^s 6 SmKpdrrjs eipr]Kev, 


nOAITIKSlN B'. 5-6. 

25 ravras re r^y dnopias e^et fat rovrfflj' ouk eXaTTOUS 

6 Sx^Sov Se irapairXrjo-iws Koi irepl Totis vojiovs e^et toiis 
vcrTepof ypa(f)ei'Tas' Sio Kal irepl rrjs evravOa noXiTeias em- 
aKi-^aa-dai jiiKpci, ^iXriov. Kal yap kv rfj noXireia irepi 
dXiycov rrdinrav SiwpiKev 6 ^(oKpdrrjs, irepi re yvvaiKav 

30 Kal TeKvmv Koivcovias, irS>s e^eLv Set, Kal irepl Krrja-ecas, Kai 
TTJs iroXiTeias rfjv rd^iv' Siaipeirai y&p els Svo p-ep-q to 2 
itXtjOos tSiv olkovvt(ov, to pev eh Tods yempyovs, to Se eis to 
irpoTToXepovv pepos, TpiTov S' e/c tovtoov to ^ovXevopevov Kal 
Kvpiov Ttjs iroXecos" irepl 8e t&v yeoapymv Kal tS>v Tej(yiTmv, 3 

35 TTOTepov ovSepids ^ peTeypva-i Tivos dp)(rjs, Kal irorepov oirXa 
8ei KeKTrjcdai Kal tovtovs Kal avpiroXepeiv fj prj, irepl tov- 
T<ov ■ oiiSev SimpiKey 6 X<OKpdTr]S, dXXii, Tas pev yvvaiKas 
oceTai Selv avpiroXepeiv Kal iraiSeias perey^eiv ttjs aiTrjs 
ToTs (pvXa^Lv, Til 5' dXXa toTs e^mBev Xoyoty ireirXripcoKe 

40 Tov Xoyov Kal irepl ttjs iratSeias, irotav Tivh SeT yiveaOai 
1265 a TStv fftvXdKcov. tS)v Se vopmv to pev irXeiaTov pepos vopoi 4 
Tvyydvovcnv ovTes, oXiya Se irepl Trjs iroXiTeias eiprjKev, Kal 
TavTTjv ^ovXopevos KoivoTepav iroie'iv Tais iroXetn, KaToi. pi- 
Kpov irepidyei irdXiv els Tfjv erepav iroXiTetav' e^at yhp 5 
5 Trjs tS>v yvvaiKmv Koii/aypias Kal ttjs KTi]<rea}s, tA dXXa 
TaiiTo, diToSiSma-iv dpipoTepais Tais iroXiTeiaiS' Kal yhp 
iraiSeiav t^v aiiT'qv^ Kal to tSiv epycov t&v dvayKaiwv dne- 
yppevovs Cv", 'f'"' irepl avva-iTimv &a-avTct>s- irX^v ev Tavrrj 
^Tja-l SeTv elvai ava-viTia Kal yvvaiK&v, Kal ttji/ pev x'^''®'' 

10 rail' oirXa KeKTtipevatv, TavTtjv Se irevTaKia-yiXitov. to pkv 6 
odv irepiTTov exovcri irdvTes ol tov ScoKpdTovs Xoyoi Kal to 
Kop'^ov Kal TO KaivoTopov Kal to ^riTiiTiKov, KaXms Se 
TtdvTa fo-coy yjxXeirov^ eirel koX to vvv elpr]pevov irX^Bos SeT 
pr) XavBdveiv 6ti x*"/'*? SerjireL Tols too-ovtois Ba^vXmvias 

ig^ Tivos aXXris direpdvTOV to irXfj6os, e^ ^S dpyol irevTaKicr- 
XiXioi Opi'^ovTai, Kal irepl tovtovs yvvaiKatv Kal Qepairov- 

1264 b 25— 1265 b 8. 33 

TTOtv erepos oxXoy iroXXanXda-ios. SeT fiev oSu iiroTidea-Oai 
KUT ev)c^v, /irjSev fiivTOi dSvvaTov. Xeyerai S' ms SeT rhy 
vofioOerijv Trpbs Svo ^Xeirovra TiOivai Toijs v6/j.ovs, wpof re 
T^y ^tapav Kal Tois dvOpmrovi. en Se KaXms e^ei npoa-det- 20 
vai Kal npos Toiis yecTvt&vTas tottovs, d 8eT Tr)v itoXlv ^fjy 
Ptov TToXiTiKov oil yhp fiSvov dvayKaT6v kariv avTrjv toiovtols 
\p7\a6a1 irpos TW noXe/iov orrXois A ^rja-i/ia Karii, rfiv 

8 o'lKuav )(a>pav kariv, aXXb. Kal irpbs toijs e^ca ratrovs. ei Se 
Tis fifj ToiovTov dnoSeyerai. ^lov, /iTJre rbv iSiov jirjTe tov 25 
Koivw TTJs TToXems, ofims oiiSev ^ttov SeT ipo^epotis eivai toTs 
iToXefiiois, firi jiovov eXBovaiv eh rfjv y^oopav dXXii Kal 
direXOovaiv. Kal to irXfjQos Se rrjs KT^qaems 6pSv SeT, fiiJTroTe 
^eXrioy irepcos Sioptaai tS cra^m fidXXov, TocrauTrjv yap 
etvai ^Tjai SeTv ware ^rjy aaxppoi/cos, &<nrep dv ef rtj elnev 30 

9 &(rTe ^fjv eS (rovro yap eari KaQoXov jiaXXov en S' ea-rt arm- 
<f>p6vms jiev TaXaiirapms Se ^rjv). dXXa ^eXTiwv opos rb 
a-axppovcas Kal eXevOepims (x^'P^? 7^P eKarepov to fiev t^ ; 
Tpv^av dKoXovOrjaei, Tb Se Tm eTTiirovcos), eirel [lovat y 
eicrlv e^eis alpeTal irepl t^v ttjs oiaias xprjcriv aSrai, owe 35 
ovata irpdaos ^ dvSpeims xpfjaOai oiiK 'ia-Tiv, <T<o(f)p6va>i Se Kal 
iXevOepicos evTiv, maTe Kal riy xprfaeis dvayKoTov irepl avTriv 

10 etvaL Tavras. aTonov Se Kal Tb ray KTrja-eis ia-d^ovra rb 
irepl TO irXfj6os tcov TroXiTwv fifj KaraaKevd^eiv, dXX' d^ei- 
vai TTjv TeKvoiroitav dopiarov coy iKavms &v 6naXur6rj<rop,ev7)v 40 
eh Tb avTO vXijOos Sia ray dTeKvias oamvovv yevv(op.ev<ov, 

11 oTt SoKeT TovTo Kal vvv avfiPaiveiv irepl Tdg noXeis. SeT Se 1265 b 
TovT ov)( 6/ioicos aKptjScSy ex^"' ""^P' '"^^ TroXeis Tore Kal vvv 

vvv ftev yap ovSels dnopei Sia Tb /lepi^eaOai Tas ovaias eh 
iiroaovovv TrXrjOos, TOTe Se dSiaipeTcov oixrSiv dvdyKi] Tois na- 
pd^vyas firfSev exeii', kdv re eXdrTovs men Tb irXrjOos edv re 5 

12 irXeiovs. /idXXov Se SeTv {inoXd^oi tis &v mpiadai Trjs ovaias 
TTjv TeKvoTTOiiav, &(TTe dpiOfiov Tivbs p-r} irXeiova yevvdv tovto 
Se TiOevai Tb irXrjOos diro^XeirovTa irpbs Tas TV)(as, Sty 


34 nOAITIKnN B', 6-7. 

avfi^aivrj reXevrSv rivhs T&v yivvr}6f.vT<ov, Koi irpos rfju 

10 T<£j' SXKaiv dreKviav. rb S' dcpeiaSui, KaBdnep kv rais 13 
irXeicTTacs noXea-i, Trevias dvayKoiov aiTiov yiveaBai rois tto- 
Xirais, ^ 8k nevia ardcrcv i/iiroieL Kal KaKovpylav. ^eiSwv 
fjLev ovv 6 KopLvOios, &v vofiodeTrjs t&v dp^aioTarccv, roi)s 
oiKovs taovs mrjOt] Sell/ Siafieveiv Kal rb irXfjOos rSiv ttoXlt&v, 

15 KoX d rb npcoTov Toi>s /cXjypoi^y dviaravs et-^^ov iravres Karh jii- 
yeOos' iv 8e toTs vopois tovtois ToivavTiov kcrTiv, aXKb, irepl 14 
/iey TOVTcav irZs olofieOa ^eXriov Slv ex^"'' ^^'f^'"' vo'repov 
eXXeXeiirrai SI rois vopois tovtois Kal rh, irepl tovs dp^oy- 
ras, oiras ea-ovrai Siatpepovres tS>v dp'^ofiivoov' <f>r]a-l yhp 

20 Seiv, &a-!rep e| irepov rb (tti]/i6viov epiov ytverai ttjs KpoKtjs, 
oCtco Kal Toi)s dpy^ovras ^X*"' Seivvpbs rois dpypiikvovs. evret 15 
Se rfju nafrav ovaiav k<f)irj(n yivicrOai fiei^ova iie.\pi irevra- 
TrXaa-ias, Sidi, rt tovt ovk dv eirj kwl Trjs yijs ji^xpi rivos ', 
Kal TTjy Twv oiKowiScov Se Siaipeaiv SeT trKOTTeii/, /iij iror oii 

25 (Tv/x^epei TTpbs oUovofiiav Sio yhp oiKomSa iKdarat eveifie 
SieXwy xmpis, ^(aXinbv Sk oiKias Svo oiKeiv. 17 Sk a-6vTa^is 16 
oXf] ^ovXerai p.kv etyai //ijre Stj/xoKpaTia firjre oXiyapyia, 
jikarj Sk tovtcov, fjy KaXovcri TroXiTeiav ex yap twv ottXi- 
revovTcoy kcrriv. ei fiky oSv d)S KOiyotdrrjy TavTTjy KaraaKevd- 

30 ^ei rats TToXecPt rmy d\k<oy iroXiTeidy, KaXms eiprjKey io-cay, 
el S ws dpia-rriv /lerd rijy Trpdrtjv woXiTeiay, oii KaX&s' Td)(a 
y&p Trjy Twy AaKwy<av ay res kiraiyia-eie jidXXov, ^ Kdv 
dXXrjy TivSi dpurTOKpaTiKtoTepay. eviot /iky oSy Xkyovaiv ms Set 17 
rtiy dpiarrjy iroXiTfiay k^ airaaS>y uyai t&v woXiTei&y fiefii- 

35 yiiiyrjv, Sib Kal ttjv t&v AaKeSainovimy kvaiyovcny eivai 
yhp avTrjy 01 fikv k^ 6Xiyap\ias Kal /lovapy^ias Kal Srjfio- 
KpaTtas ipaaiv, Xiyovres ttjv fikv ^aa-iXeiav fiovapy^iav, t^v 
Sk T&y yepoyTwy dp-^^v oXiyap^^iav, SrjjjLOKpaTHirBaL Sk 
Karh TTiy t&v k^oponv dp)(^v Sia 70 ex tov Srijiov ehai Toi>s 

40 k<p6povs' ol Sk TTjy jiky kipopeiav eiyai TVpavviSa, SrjfiOKpa- 
T€L(r6ai Sk KUTd re tA arva-crtna Kal Toy aXXoy ^lov tov 

1265 b 9— 1266 a 33- 35 

18 Ka6' fiiiipav kv Sk rocs v6[iois eiprjraL tovtois ws Siov <tvy- 1266 a 
KeT(r6ai rfjv dpiaTT]v iroXiTeiav eK drjuoKparias Kal rupavvi- 

8os, &y ^ TO napdnav ovk av Tty Qtit] iroKiTeias fj ^eipia-ras 
iraa&v. ^ikriov odv Xeyovaiv oi nXdovs fiiyvwres' fj yAp e/c 
nXeiovcov ovyKeifievrj TToXireia /SeXrwai'. eireira ovS' e)(ova-a 5 
xpaiveTai iiovap-)(iKhv ovSip, aXX' oXiyap^tf A Kal SrjfioKpa- 
TLKd- fidXXov 8 kyKXiviiv Po^Xerat irpos t^v 6Xiyap\iav. 

19 8r\Xov Sk eK rrjs T&v dpypvTcov KaTaa-rda-ftos' to jikv yhp 
k^ aipeTmv KXr]pmToi>s Koivov dfi^oiv, to Sk toTs fikv einropo)- 
Tepois eirdvayKes eKKXijmd^eiu ehai Kal ^epeip apyovTai lo 
^ n TToteti' dXXo tS>v rroXiTiKStv, rails S' d(f>iiar6ai, tovto 8' 
iiXiyap'^iKov, Kal to neipdcrdai TrXeiovs eK t&v evnopcov elvai 
Totis dp)(0VTas, Kal Tots fieyiaras eK rmv fieyi(TTa>v Tt/Mtj/id- 

20 Toiv. 6Xiyap)(^LK^v 8k iroieiKai Trjv Trjs ^ovXrjs aipeaiv alpovv^ 
rai fikv yhp ndvTes kirdvayKes, dXX' e/c tov irpmrov Tifiij- ^5 
/laTos, eiTa irdXiv tcrovs eK rov SevTepov, efr' e/c tZv rptTCiv 
irX^v oi) TToLaiv kirdvayKes ^v rof? £k t&v Tpircov ^ Terdfyrmv, 
eK Sk [rov rerdpTovj Tmv TeTdpTwv fiSvois kvdvayKes roTs npco- 

21 Tois Kal rots 8evTepois. etr kK tojutcop taov d(ji' eKdarov tihtj- 
jiaros dvoSel^ai ^rja-i 8eTv dpidfiov. ecrovrai 8fi irXeiovs oi 20 
e/c Twv iieyia-rmu Ti/ir]fidT<ov Kal ^eXriovs Side to kviovs (lii 

22 atpelaOai rwv Srj/ioriK&v Sidi rb /x^ kirdvayKes. my fikp o^v 
oiiK kK 87](i0KpaTias Kal novapyias Set ovvLtTTdvai Tfjp roia^ 
Trjv TToXiTeiav, kK tovtcop ^avepov Kal t&v vcrTepov ^r]6r]a-o/il' 
voav, orav kiri^aXXfj irepl Trjs roiai^TTjs iroXiTeias ^ a-Kei^ir 2S 
tyei 8k Kal irepl ttiv a'ipemv t&v dpyovrwv tS e^ aiperStv 
alpeTotis einKiv8vvoV el ydp rives avarfjvai OeXovai Kal fierpioi 
TO irXfjOos, atel Karb, rfjv rovrmv aipeO^a-ovrai ^ovXritrcv. rh 
fikv oSv nepl rijv TroXireiav r^v kv rols vofiocs tovtov '4xet 
rov Tp6iTov S'* 

Eia-l 8i rives iroXireiai Kal dXXai, at jikv iSicormv all 
8k ^iXoao^mv Kal iroXiriK&v, Trdaai 8k rwv Ka6e<rrriKviS)v 
Kal Kad' &s TToXirevovrai vvv eyyurepov elan rovrtov dfupO' 

P a 

36 nOAITIKflN B'. 7. 

repcov oiiSfls ykp oSre Trjv vepl rh, TeKva KOivorrjTa Kal tus 

35 ywaiKas dWos KeKaivoTonrjKev, odTe Trepl to, avwiTia t3>v 
yvvaiK&v, aXX' diro tS>v dvayKaiwv dp\ovTai /idWov, 
SoKet yap Tiai to nepi ras ovarias eivai /leyLo-Toy Terd^Oai 2 
KaXmg' irepl yap tovtodv iroielcrOai (paa-L tols aTaaeis trav- 
ras. 8io 0a\ias 6 XdkKriSopws tovt' etV^reyKe irp&Tos' 

40 tprjcrl yap Seiv tcras Hvai ras KT^creis rmv ttoKitZv, tovto 3 

1266 b^e KaToiKL^ofieyais jiiv ev6vs ov ^aXeirbi/ mero noteiv, ras 

S' rjSi] KaroiKovfiivas epyooSearepov /liv, ofims Se Tayj-crr &v 

6fj.a\i<r6^vai t5 ras irpoiKas rods fiev vXovcriovs SiSovai (lev 

XanfidviLV SI jiri, tovs Se irivrjTas fi^ SiSovai fiev Xafi^d- 

5 veiy Si. UXdrcov Se toijs vofiovs ypd^v /i€XP' Z*^" '''"'oy 4 
&eTO Seiv koiv, TrXeiov S\ tov nevTairXaa-iav eivai rfjs eXo- 
yia-TTis firjSevl rmv iroXiTwv k^ovaiav elvai KT-qaaaOai, KaOd- 
nep eipr]Tai Kal irporepov. Set Se firjSe tovto XavQdveiv roiis 5 
■ovTOD voiioOerovvTas, XavBdvei vvv, on to rfjs ovaiag TarTOv- 

10 Tas irXrj6os Trpoa~qK€i /cat r&i/ reKvmv to irXfjOos TaTTeiv 
e&v yap vTrepaipr) rfjs ovaias to /leyeOos 6 t5>v TeKvcov dpi6- 
fiSs, avdyKt] tov ye vojiov Xveadai, Kal )(a)pls Trjs Xva-ecos 
^avXov rS noXXoiis e/c wXovatccv ylveaQai 7revr]Tas' epyov 
yap fjLrj vemrepotroiovs eti/ai Tois toiovtovs. Start jiev ovv ej(e£ 6 

15 rtvh Svvajiiv els r^v 7roXtrtKfii> Kotvcaviav fj rijs oiarias ofia- 
Xorrjs, Kal tS>v ndXai rives (paivovrat SteyvooKores, olov Kal 
^6X(cv evo/ioGerrja-ev, Kal rrap dXXois earl vojjlos hs KcoXvei 
KrdaOai yfjv OTToa-tjv &,v ^ovXrjrai ris' o/xotms Se Kal r^v 
ovaiav TTwXeTv oi vojioi KaXiovaiv, wcrnep ev AoKpoTs vojios 

20 ea-rl fifj TrcoXeiv, eb,v fifi (pavepSiv drvyiav Sei^rj av/i^e^Tj- 
Kviav ert Se rovs iraXatois KXrjpovs Siaadi^eiv rovro Se Xv6ev 7 
Kal irepl AevKdSa Sr]/j.oriKriv eTrotr/a-e Xiav r^iv iroXireiav 
aiiTwv, ov yap en crvve^aivev diro r&v mpianevoiv nfirjfid- 
roav els rhts dp\&s ^aSi^eiv. dXX' eari rfiv la-6rr]ra /iev 

25 .iirdp)(eiv rfjs ovatas, ravrrjv Se ^ Xiav elvai iroXXriv, mare 
Tpv<pdv, ^ Xiav oXiyrjv, Sare ^t}v yXia^pws. SrjXov ovv toy 

1266 a 34— 1267 a 19. 37 

oi)( Ikuvov to Ths ovaias laas iroirjcrai tw vo/iodiTrjv, dWa 

8 ToD fiicrov oroyaaTiov. eri 5' et ris Kal Tfjv fierpiav Toi^eiev 
oiaiav iracnv, ovSev o^eXos' /iaXXov yap Set ras iiridv/jLias 
ofiaXi^eiv ^ tAj oiaias, tovto 8' oiiK ea-ri fifj TTaiSevofiivois 30 
iKavas inb rmv vojiatv. aXX' tira)? Slv etneiev 6 ^aXeas Sti 
Tavra Tvy^^dvu Xiycov avTOS' oterai yap 8voii> Toiroiv lao- 
TTjTa SeTv indpyjeiv rah noXeiriv, KTija-ecos Kal iraiSeias. 

9 aXXii rrjv re traiSeiav t^tls earai Sei Xiyeiv, Kal to /iiav 
fivai Kal Trjv ainijv ovSkv o(j>eXos' earn yhp Tr]v avrfjv fiev 35 
etvai Kal fiiav, dXX^ TavTr]v etvai TOLaijTr]v k^ ^s e<rpvTai 
npoaiperiKol tov nXeoveKTelv ^ y^prnidrmv fj ti/m^s ^ avvap.- 

10 (fyoTepmv. en aTaa-id^ovaiv oil fiSpov Slot, Triv dvia-oTtjra Trjs 
KT'qaeats, dXXoi. Kal Sia Trjv tS>v Tifiwv TOvvavTiov Se nepl 
eKdrepov 01 jikv yb,p woXXot Sib, to nepl Tas KTrjcreis dvi- 40 
aov, 01 Se j(apievTei irepl tZv Tifimp, eav laai' oQev Kal " ev 1267 a 
1 oe if] Tipfj rjjjiev KaKos rjoe Kai ea-OXos. ou fiovov 01 
dvdpamoi 8ia TdvayKaia dSiKovaiv, S>v aKos eivai vofii^ei 
T^v iaorrjTa rfjs ovaia^, ware fi-q XamoSvreiy Sia to piyovv 17 
neipfji', dXXa Kal aircos yaipaxri Kal /irj em6vp,S>(riv eav 5 
ycfe/j [lei^m e)(fD<ni' eiridv/iiav t&v dvayKaim>, Sih. Tr\v 

12 TavTTjs iaTpeiav dSiK'qaovaiv ov toivvv Sia TavTrjv fiovov, 
aXXh Kal dv eiridvfioTev, iva yaipma-i rais dvev XvirZv 
fiSovais. Ti o5v aKos t&v Tpimv tovtoov ; toTs jiev oiicria Ppa- 
X^ia Kal kpyaaia, toTs Se a-oa^pocrvvrj' TpiTov S', ei Tives 10 
^o^XoivTO Si aiiTwv )(«'pe"') owk dv eTri^rjToTev el ft^ napic, 

13 (piXoa-Q^ias aKos, al yhp dXXai dvOpmrmv SeovTar enel 
dSiKovai ye Td /iiyicrTa Sid Tas iiwep^oXds, aXX' ov Sid 
rd dvayKoia, olov Tvpavvovcriv oiy *''« fifj piySxnv. Sio Kal 
al TifiO-l fieydXai, dv diroKTeivrj tis ov KXeirTrjv dXXd 15 
Tvpavvov. &(TTe npos Tas fiiKpds dSiKias PoTjdrjriKbs fiovoy 

14 o Tpairos Trjs ^aXiov noXiTeias. eTi Td noXXd ^ovXeTai 
KaraaKevd^eiv e^ my Td irpos aiiTotis iroXiTevaovTai KaXms, 
Set Se Kal irpos Totis yeirvimvTas Kal Tois e^caSev iravras. 

38 nOAITIEflN B'. 7-8. 

20 dvayKoiov dpa t^v irdkirftav avvTtTd)(6ai rrpos Tr)v noXe- 
fiiK^v 1<TXW, irepi ^s eKeivos ovSev dprjKev. ofioms Se koI 15 
•trepl Trjs KTiqaems' Set yhp ov /iSvov npos tA? iroXiriKas 
X/oijcrety iKavijv {rirdp'^eip, dWa Kal irpbs rods e^oodev Kiv- 
Svvovs. SiSirep aSre toctovtov 8ei irXrjBos inrdpyjEiv S>v ol 

25 irXrjcriov Kal KpeiTTOvs kin6v[iri<TOv<nv, oi Se e^ojrey ajxCvuv 
ad Swrja-ovrai rods kinSvTas, oHQ' oUtcos oXiyqv mare fifj Svva- 
(r0ai iroXe/jLov iiweviyKeiv fxrjSe t&v iawv Kal rSav o/ioiau. 
eKeiPos fikv oSv ovSkv SiwpiKev, Sei Se tovto. jirj XavOdveiv, on 16 
avfi^epei irXfjdoi ovalas. tcray o^v dpicrros opos rh jjl^ Xvai- 

30 TeXetv Tois KpeiTTOtri Sib, t^v iirep^oXfiv iroXefieiv, dXX' 
oSrms coy &v Kal fir/ e)(6vTcav ToaavTrfv ovviav. oiov EH^ov- 17 
Xos AiTotppaSdrov fieXXovros 'Arapvea TroXiopKeiv eKeXev- 
aev avTov, crKeyjrdpevov ev irocrm y^pdvm Xrc^eTai rS \copiov, 
XoyicraaOaL tov \p6vov toiutov Tfjv Sairdvrjv eOeXeiv yb.p 

35 eXaxTov tovtov Xa^mv eKXme'iv rjSrj rbv Arapvea' ravra 8' 
eLTT^u eiroirjcre Toy AvTo^paSaTr/v (ruvvovv yevojievov iravo'aa- 
6ai rfjs iroXiopKias. ?o"rt fihv oSv ri t&v avn<f)ep6vT(ov to 18 
T^y ovfflas eifai iaas toTs noXCrats npos t5 iirj a-raa-id^eiv 
npos dXXi]Xovs, oi pfjv fieya oiiSeu d)S eineiv. Kal yhp Slv ol 

40 yapievTes dyavaKTOiev &v &s oiiK ia-cav Svres d^ioi, Sib Kal 
ipaivovrai noXXaKis eniTidepei/oi Kal araa-td^ovTes' ert S' 19 
1267 b 1^ novrjpta t&v dvBpmnoav dnXrjarov, Kal rb npwTOV filv Iko- 
vov Sim^oXia povov, orai' 5' ^Sri tovt ^ ndrpiov, del Seov- 
rai TOV nXetovos, ecoy els dneipov eXOcoffiv dneipos yhp fj 
Trjs kniOvpias <p6<nS) ^s npos t^v dvanXrjpmaiv ol noXXol 
6 (Sktlv. tS>v oSv toiovtwv dp)(r], pdXXov tov ras oicrias opa- 20 
Xi^eiv, TO Totis jiev inieiKeis rg tpiiaei roioirovs napaaKevd- 
^eiv &(rTe pfj ^oijXea&at nXeoveKTeiv, rods Sk (paTiXovs &aTe p^ 
Svvaa-dai' tovto 8' ecrT^v, &v iJTTOvs Te m<ri Kal pfj dSiK&v- 
Tai, oil KaX&s Se ovSk Tfiv ItroTijra rrjs oicrias eiprjKev nepi 21 

10 ycip Tfjv Trjs yfjs KTrjviv lird^ei povov, eari Se Kal 8ovX<ov 
Kal Poo'KTipdTcci' nXovTos Kal voptcrpaTos, Kal KaraaKevri 

1267 a 20— 1268 a 3. 39 

woXA^ Twv KaXovfievoav iirinXcov, fj iravToav odv Ta&r(ov lao- 

22 T7]Ta ^riTrjTiov irj rd^iv tivSl jieTpiav, ^ irdvra kwreov, <pai~ 
verai S' lie ttjp vo/jLoOeaCas Karaa-Kevd^cov rfjv iroXiv fii- 
Kpdv, it y ol rex''^'''"'^ ndvTes Sr]/i6aioc ecrovTai koX fji^i ^5 

23 TtXripoafid ri irapi^ovrai rfji noXems. aX\' eiTrep See Sr]- 
lioa-iovs eivai Toi>s t^ Koivii, kpya^ofikvovs, SeT Kaddirep kv 
'ETTiSd/ivcp re, Kal AiocpavTos irore KaTea-Keva^eu 'AQri- 
vr]<rt, TOVTov ex^'*' ''°'' ''poTO''' ir^pl [liv o5v rrjs ^aXeov 
voXireias cr)(eSbv eK tovtodv dv ris Oemprjaaev, ei ti ruyydvu 20 
KaXw eiprjKois rj /ifj KaXms' 

'iTTTToSapos Se Eipvcpavros MiXrja-ios, os Kal Tfjy twv 8 
iroXimv Siaipeariv eSpe Kal tov IleipaiS. KareTefiev, yevopevos 
Kal wepl TOV dXXov ^iov irepiTTorepos Siit tpiXoTiptav ovtods 
&(TTe SoKelv kviois ^rjir TrepiepySrepov rpiymv re nXjjdei Kal 25 
Koapm TToXvTiXu, en Sk kaOrJTOs eireXovs pey dXeeivfjs Se 
oiiK kv r£ xeip&vi povov dXXa Kal irfpl Tois Oepivoiis XP°- 
vovs, Xoyios Se Kal irepl Trjv 6Xr]v ^■Caiv elvai ^ovXSpevos, 
irpStTOS Twv pfj TToXiTevopevav kveyetptiai ti irepl iroXiTeias 

2 eiireiv Trjs dpia-T?]?. KUTea-Keija^e 8e Ttjv iroXiv t& TtX-qOei 30 
pev pvpiavSpov, els Tpia 8e pepr/ SiTjpripivrjv knoiei yhp 
ev pev pepos TeyyiTai, %v Se yewpyavs, Tp'iTov Se Tb trpo- 

3 TToXepovv Kal Th. onXa eyov. Sifipei S eis Tpia pept] Trjv 
)(copav, Tr]v pev Updv, Tijv Se Srjpoaiav, Tfjv S ISiav odev 
pkv tA vopi^opeva woirfaovcn Trpbs Toiis 6eovs, lepdv, d<^ S>v 35 
5* ot irpoTToXepoiivTes ^idxrovTai, Koivrjv, t^v Se tS>v yempymv 

4 iStav. ^eTO S' eiSrj Kal tcov vopcov efvai Tpia povov irepl 
S>v yhp at SiKai yivovrai, Tpia Tavr eivai tov dpi6p6v, 
&^piv pXd^Tjv OdvaTov. kvopoOerei Se Kal SiKacrTrjpiov ev Tb 
Kipiov, els h irdaas dvdyeaQai Selv Ths pfj KaX&s KeKpi- 4° 
ixBai SoKoija-as SiKas' tovto Si KareaKe^a^ev eK Tivwv ye- 

5 povTwv alper&v. Tcfes Se Kpicreis kv toTs SiKatrTrjpiois ov Sia 1268 a 
ijrr](po(popias coeTO yiveadai SeTv, dXXa <f>epeiv eKacrrov iri- 
vdKiov, kv m ypd<f>eiv, el KaTaSiKd^oi anXoos t^v Sikijv, el 

40 nOAITIKflN B'. 8. 

5* dnoXioi anXSts, Kev6v el Sk rb fieu to Sk firi, toSto 
6 Siopi^uv. vvv yicp ovk Sero vevojioOeTrjaOai kuXcos' avayKu- 
(uv yhp kniopKeiv fj ravra rj ravra SiKoi^oPTas. hidei 8e 6 
vofiov nepl tcov eipuTKovTwv ti t^ iroXei av/Kpepov, ottcos 
Tvyydvcaa-i Tifj.rjs, Kal toTs irauri twv eu tS noXeficp re- 
XiVTSvTcov iK 8r]fioaiov yiveaOai. t^v Tpoiprjv, m ov'ttcb tovto 

lo Trap dXXois vevofiodeTTj/jLeyov tan Se Kal kv jid^vais oStos 
6 vo/jLos vvv Kal kv irepais t&v noXemv. roiis S apyovra^ 7 
alpeToijs i>7ro tov S'^p.ov eivai TrdvTas' Srjfiov S eiroiei Ta 
rpia fiepr] ttjs iroXecos' rovs 8' acpedivras eiri/ieXeia-dai Koi- 
vwv Kal ^evLKwv Kal 6p<paviKoav. rii fiev ovv irXeiara Kal 

15 7a fidXia-Ta d^ioXoya rijs 'lTnro8dfiov rd^ewi ravr eariv, 
dvopriaeie 8' dv Tis vp&TOV fikv rfjv Siaipeaiv tov ttXtjOovs 
tZv TToXiTwv. o'c 76 ycip Te)(yiTai Kal 01 yecopyol Kal ol 8 
7a oTrXa e)(ovTes Koivoovovari ttjs rroXiTeias TrdvTes, 01 fikv 
yecopyol ovk eyovTes oirXa, ol 8e TeyvuraL oiire yfjv oUre oirXa, 

20 &(TT6 yivovTai a-)^e8bv SovXoi twv to, oirXa KeKTrjuivcov. /leT- 9 
e)(eiv fiev ovv iraaSiv twv tl/iwv d8vvaT0V dvdyKrj yap e/c 
7001' 7a owXa e-)(()VT(ov KaOia-TaaOai Kal (TTpaTrjyois Kal iro- 
Xi.TO(j)vXaKas Kal Tas KvpiayrdTas dp-)(cts o)S elireiv' firj 
jieTeyovTas 8e ttjs iroXiTeias TrSy oTov re <piXiKms e)(eLv 

25 irpos Tfjv TToXiTeiav ; dXXa Set xpeiTTovs eivai Tods t^, oirXa 
ye KeKTrifievovs d/i^orepeov twv fiep&v tovto 5* ov pa8iov /i^ 
iroXXovs ovTas' el Se tovt eaTai, ti 8ei Toi/s dXXovs /ieTe)(eiv 10 
Trjs TToXiTeias Kal Kvpiovs elvai ttjs twv dpypvTmv KaTaaTa- 
aems \ eTi ol yeoapyol ti yjiria-iiioi Ttj voXei ; Te-)(viTas /lev 

30 ycip dvayKoiov eivai (nava yap Sedrai iroXis TeyviTcav), 
Kal 8vvavTai 8iaytyvea6ai KaOdnep ev TaTs dXXais noXe- 
<nv diro Trjs Teyvris' ol 8e yecopyol iropi^ovTes fiev toTs toi. 
oirXa KeKTTjjievois t^v Tpocpfjv evXoycos &v ^a-dv ti ttjs 
TToXeoas ('■epos, vvv 8 I8iav e^^ovaiv, Kal TavTr]v I8ia yemp. 

35 yqaovaiv. eTi Se ttjv koiv^v, d^ ^s ol irpoiroXe/jioDvTes e^ovo'i 11 
Ttiv Tpo^rjv, el (lev avTol yeci>pyq<Tovat.v., ovk dv eir} to /id- 

1268 a 4 — 1268 b 27. 41 

XijJ'OV erepov Kal to yempyovv, ^oijXeTai 5' 6 vofioBeTris' et 
S' erepoi rives iaovTai Tcav re ra iSia yeoapyo^vTcov Kal ratv 
Ha-^tliav, TiTaprov aS jjLopiov ^<7Tai tovto tjjs iroXecos, oi8e- 

12 yos iteriypv, dWot, aXKoTpiov ttjs iroXiTeias. dXXk fjif)i> €('40 
TLS Toijs airovs 6^a-ei tovs re rfjv i8tav Kal Toiis Tfji/ Koiv-qv 
yeoopyovvras, to re TrXfjOos diropov ecrrai tZv KapirZv e| a>v 
eKaa-Tos yempyrjcrei Svo oiKias, Kal Tifos eveKev ovk eiiOiis 1268 b 
dnb TTJs yrjs Kal twv avTmv KXrjpeov avToTs re t^jv Tpoipi\v 
XrjyIrovTai Kal Tois fiayifiois irapk^ovaiv ; ravTa Sfj iravTa 

13 voXXriv e^et Tapayjiv. ov KaXcas S' ovS' 6 irepl Ttjs Kpi(Te(os 
e^et vofios, TO Kpiveiv d^iovv SiaipovvTa Ttjs Siktjs anXms 5 
yeypafi/ievr/s, Kal yiveadai tov SiKaa-Tfjv SLaLTr]Trjv. tovto S 
kv /lev Tg SiaiTji Kal irXiio<nv evSey^Tai {KowoXoyovvTai. 
ycip aXXTjXoty irepl Ttjs Kpicrems), ev 8\ rots SiKaa-TrjpioLS oiiK 
ecTTiv, dXXa Kal TovvavTiov tovtco twv vop,o6erS>v ol noXXol 
irapaa-Kevd^ovaiv oircos ol SiKaa-Tal p,^ KoivoXoymvTai irpbs 10 

14 dXX'qXovs. eneiTa ir&s ovk earai Tapa)(a>ST]S rj Kpiaris, oTav 
6(f>eiXeiv 6 fiev SiKaa-TfjS OLTjTai, prj toctovtov 8' oa-ov 6 Si- 
Ka^ofievos ; o fikv yhp eiKoai p.vds, 6 Se SiKaaT^s Kpivei 
8eKa pvas, fj 6 p.\v irXeov, 6 S' eXacra-ov, dXXos 8e irevre, 

6 Sk reTTapas' Kal tovtov S^ rhv rp&irov SfjXov on jiepiov- ig 

1 5 (Tiv ol Se irdvTa KaTaSiKaaovaiv, ol S' ovSev, tis oSv 6 rpo^ 
TTOS earai rijs SiaXoyrjs t3>v ■^■/jcpcov ; ert 8' ovSels kiriopKeiv 
dvayKa^ei tov aTrXSis dwoSiKaa-avTa ^ KaTa8iKdaravTa, ef- 
irep dirXws to eyKXrjfia yiypairrai 8iKaia>s' ov ykp /jlt]- 
8ev o^etXeiv 6 diroSiKdcras Kpivei, dXXa tAs eiKoa-i fivas" 20 
dXX' SKeivos ^8r} eTTiopKei 6 KaraSiKacras fi^ vojit^wv o^ei- 

16 Xeiv ris eiKoai fivas. irepl 8e tov toTs eipia-KOvai ti ttj no- 
Xei (TVfi^epov a>s 8ei yiveaOai Tiva Tijiriv, ovk ea-Tiv d(r<j>a~ 
Xes TO vojioQeTetv, dXX' €v6<pdaXfiov dKovvai fiovov e^et 
yhp <TVKo<pavTias Kal Kcvqaets, dv tv)(13, iroXiTecas. efi- 25 
iriirrei 8' els dXXo irpo^Xrjfia Kal aKey^iv erepav diropovai 
yap Tives irorepov ^Xa^epov ^ crv/ji^epov Tals iroXeai to 

42 nOAITIKIlN B'. 8-9. 

KiveTv Tois TTarpiovs vofiovs, &v § tis dWos ^eXricov. Si&irep 17 
oil paSioy tS XeyOevTi rayp <Tvy)(<opeiy, e'lirep fii] avfiipi' 

30 pet KiveTv, evSixerai 5' elaijyeicrdai Tivas vopxov Xvaiv jy 
noXireias o>s Koivhv dyadov. eTrel Se Treiroirj/ieOa [ivetav, 
en p-iKph Trepl aiiTov SiaareiXaadai ^eXrioy. e^^' V^P, 18 
Sanep eiwofiev, diropiav, Kat So^eiev &v ^iXrioi/ uvai to 
Kiveiv eirl yovv twv dXXwv iinaTTjfimv tovto avvev^voyev, 

35 oiov laTpiKfj KivTj6fT<ra iraph to, vdrpia Kal yvfivaariKfi 
Kai oXms al Te)(yai irdtrai Kal al Swdfieis, mcrr' eTrel jxtav 
ToiJTmv Sereov Kal t^v ttoXitik'^v, SfjXov Sri Kal irept raijTrjv 
dvayKalov ojioims ^X^"'" Trjiielov S' dv yeyovevai (pairj ris 19 
Itt air&p t&v epymv' Tois ydp dpyaiovs v6/iovs Xtav airXovs 

40 elvai Kal ^ap^apiKovs' kaiSripo^opovvTo re yap ol "EXXij- 
ves, Kal ToiS yvvaiKas ecovovvTO trap dXXriXwv, Saa re 20 
Xomb, Twv dp-)(aimv eari ttov vofiijuov, eii'^Oi] Trdjxnav ecrriv, 
1269 a oloy ev Kv/ir) irepl ret (j>oviKd v6p,os eaTiu, dv nXfjOos ti 
Trapd(r)(rjTai p.apTip(ov 6 Slwk(ov rov <p6vov t&v aiirov avy- 
yevwv, evo)(ov eivai rw ^ovco rov ^ex/yovra, ^rjTovai, 5e 21 
6'Xa)S oil rh irdrpiov dXXd rdyaOov iravres' e'lKos re Tois 
5 wpairovs, e'lre yrjyeveis ^aav eir ex <p6opas riyo? kawQ-qa-av, 
dfioiovs eivai Kal robs TV)^6vTas Kal rois dvo^rous, &(nrep Kal 
Xeyerai Karh, twv yrjyev&v, mcTTS droiroy rh p-eveiv ev tois 
TOVTonv Soyfiacriv. irpos Se tovtois oiiSk roiis yeypafi/iivovs edv 
dKivrjTovs ^eXriov. wcnrep yhp /cat nepl rcby dXXas rey^yas, 22 

10 Kal Tfjv jToXiTiK^v Ta^iv dSivarov dKpt^ws irdvTa ypa<f)f\- 
vai- Ka66Xov ydp dvayKatov ypa<p^vai, at Se npd^eis irepl 
tSiv KaO eKUOTov ela-tv. ck p.ev oSv tovtwv ^avepov oti Kivrj- 
reoi Kal rives Kal irore r&v vS/imv elaiv, dXXov Se rporrov 
eiTiaKoirovtnv eiiXa^eias dv So^eiev eivai noXXfjs. orav yetp 23 

15 ^ ro /lev ^eXriov fUKpov, to 5' edi^eiv ei^epms Xveiv rois 
vofiovs (pavXov, (pavepov &s eareov evlas djiaprias Kal rwv 
vopo&erSiv Kal r&v dpy^pvraiv oil ydp rocrovrov axpeXTJaerai 
KLvqaas, oaov fiXa^rjaerai rots &p\ov(Tiv direiOeiv eOiaOeis, 

1268 b 28— 1269 b li. 43 

24 ■\}re€8os Se Kal rh irapdSeiyfia to vepl rmv revymv' oil yhp 
ofioiov rb Kiveiv Ti)(yrjv Koi vofiov, 6 yocp v6/ios layiv 20 
oiiSe(iiav exet Trpbs to irddeaBai iraph to e6os, tovto 

S" oil yivsTai ei fifj 8iai yjyovov ir\rj6os, &a-Te Tb ^aSioos (le- 
ra^dWeiv ejc t&p {map')(ovT<ov v6fimv els iripovs v6/iovs 

25 Kaivois daOevrj voiecv eorJ Trjv tov vo/iov Sijva/jiiv, en Se el 
Kal KivrjTeoi, woTepov vdvTes Kal ev Trda-n iroXiTeta, ^25 
06 ; KoX iroTepov t^ tv^ovti t) ruriv ; ravTa yhp e)^ei /*€-. 
ydXr/v Sia^opdv. Sib vvv fikv d<p&iJiev ra^riv t^v aKeylnw 
dXXcov ydp ecrrt KaipSiv 

Hepl Se T^s AaKeSaijiovtmv noXiTeias Kal Trjs S!pr]~ Q 
TiKTJs, axeSbv 81 Kal trepl t&v dXXav TroXiTeiwv, Sijo ela-lv 30 
ai ff/cei/rets, /lia fiev ei ti KaX&s ^ fifj KaXms Trpbs Tfjv 
dpuTTtiv vevofioOeTrjTai rd^iv, iripa 8' et ti Trpbs ttju i/no- 
6ea-iv Kal Tbv Tp&irov inrevavTicos Trjs TrpoKeifievris aiToTs 

2 noXiTeias. oTi ftkv oSu 8ei rij fieXXoiHa-ri KaXS>s iroXnev- 
eaSai riju tZv dvayKatoav inrdpyeiv (r^oX'qv, ofioXoyo^fievSv 35 
kaTiv TLva S\ Tpoftrov iirdpyeiv, oi paSiov Xa^eiv. ij re 
ycb/> QeTTaXmv ireveaTeta iroXXdKis eireOsTO tols QeTraXots, 
o/iouos 8i Kal Tois AaKcacriv ol eiXcoTes (manep ypLp e<pe8- 

3 pevovres tois dTv\r}ftaai ^tareXoi/crti/)' wept 8e Toiis KprJTas 
oiSev 7ra> toioQtov av/i^e^rjKev atnov 5" la-as Tb Tin yeirvim- 40 
aras troXeis, Kaiirep iroXefioitras dXXriXais, fJ.r]8efiiav ehai 1269 b 
avnfia)(ov toTs dipiaTajievois Sih Tb pji avfupepeiv Kal 
avTais KeKTrj/ievais vepioiKovs" toTs 8e AdKaaiv 01 yeiTvi&v- 

Tes e^Bpol iravTes rjtrav, 'ApyeToi Kal Meatr^vioi Kal 'Ap- 
Kd8es' eTrel Kal toTs QeTTaXoTs Ka-r dpylts dtpitrTavTO 8ioi 5 
TO TToXeiiecu eTi toTs npotrxdipois, 'Aj^aiois Kal IJeppai^oTs 

4 Kal MdyuTja-iv. eoiKe 8e Kal el fit]Sev eTepov, dXXa. to ye 
Trjs enijieXeias epymSes ewai, Tiva Set npbs aiiTots oniXij- 
aai Tpmrop" dvieftevoi re yckp i^pi^ovai Kal t&v lereov d^iov- 
aiv eavTots tois KVpiois, Kal KaKonaO&s C&VTes eiri^ovXevovcri 10 
■Kal fiiaova-iv. SfjXov ovy ms ovk e^evpia-KOVtri tov ^eXTicrrov 

44 nOAITIKflN B'. 9. 

rp&iTOV, ots TOVTO avji^aivei irept ttju elXmniav. en 5e ^ 5 
Trepl Tas yvvaiKas dvecris Kal npos Tfjv Trpoaipeaiv rijs tro- 
Xireias l3Xa^ep&, Kal Trpos evSaifioviav TroXeeos. wcnrep yap 

15 oiKias fiepos avrfp Kal yvvrj, 8r}Xov on Kal iroXiv eyyis 
ToD Si)(a SiTjp^crdai 8ei vojit^eiv eis re to tSiv ^dvSpwv irXfj- 
60s Kal TO Twv yvvaiKcov, &crTe kv ocrais iroXiTdais <pavXms 
?X*' TO Trepl Tas ywaiKas, to rj/iKTV ttjs iroXeas eivai 8eT 
vofit^eiv dvo/ioOeTTjTOV. owep eKei a-v/iPe^rjKev' 6Xr)v yap 6 

20 Tfjv TToXiv 6 vo/ioOeTTjs elvai ^ovXSnevos KapTepiK-qv, Kara 
/lev Tovs dvSpas ipavepos ecTTi toiovtos &v, eirl 8e tS>v yvvai- 
kSiv e^rjfieXrjKev ^Sxn yap aKoXda-Tcos npos ditaiyav olko- 
Xaffiav Kal Tpv^epms. mcTTe dvayKalov ev ttj ToiaijTTj ttoXi- 7 
Teia TifiacrSai tov ttXovtov, aXXtos re Kav rlJ^oxri yvvai- 

25 KOKpaTO'Ciievoi, KaOdnep tu woXXii, twv aTpancoriK&if Kal 
TToXefiiKmv yev&v, e^<o KeXT&v ^ Kctv ec Tives ere/jot <pa- 
vepms TeTi/nJKam t^v rrpos tovs dppevas avvovtriav. eoiKe g 
y^p 6 (ivSoXoyqa-as irpS>Tos ovk dXoyms av^ev^ai tov'' Apr] 
irpb^TTjv A^po8iTriv rj yap npos ttjv tZv dppeveov ofJuXiav 

30 ^ npos T^v T&v yvvaiKwv ^aivovTai KaTaKmyijioi ndvTes ot 
ToiovToi. 810 napb, toTs AaKcoai tovQ' vnfjp-)(ev, Kal noXXd 
SmKilTO {ino tS)v yvvaiK&v enl ttjs dp-)(r}s airmv. kuitoi 9 
n 8ia<pepei yvvaiKas dpyeiv i\ Toiis dp')(0VTas irnb Tmv 
yvvaiK&v dpy^eaQai ; TaiTo ykp avfifiaivet. y^pyjaijiov 8' 

SSovarjs Trjs Bpaa-VTrjTOS nphs ov8ev Tmv eyKVKXimv, dXX einep, 
■nphs TOV noXefiov, ^Xa^epatTUTai Kal npos TavQ' at tS>v 
AaKoovav ^a-av. e8^Xco(rav 8' enl ttjs ©JjjSatW e/ij8oX^y 10 
Xpijft/iot fxev yhp oiSev ^a-av, &<mep kv irepais noXeaiv, 
Oopv^ov 8e napeiypv nXeim t&v noXefiimv. e^ dp)(rjs /iev 

40 ovv eoiKe av/i^e^rjKevai tols AaKoxriv evXoycos 17 twv yv- 

1270 a vaiK&v dvecns' e^m yap ttjs oiKeias 81^1 t^s orpaTeias H 

dne^evovvTO noXiv y^povov, noXejiovvTes tov re npos 'Apyeiovs 

noXe/jLov Kal ndXiv tov npos 'ApKd8as Kal Meera-rjvCovs- 

<r)(oXd<TavTes 8e aiiToiis fiev napelypv rS vo/ioOerrj npooo- 

1269 b 12— 1270 a 37. 45 

SoTTeiroirjfiivovs Siii, rbv aTparuoTiKov ^tov (TroXKoi yhp e\ei 5 
pLepr] TTJs dpeTTJsf), ras Se ywaiKas ^avi jjikv dyav kiri- 
yjEiprjaai tov AvKovpyov kirl Toiis vofiovs, &s d' dvTiKpovov, 

12 anocTTfjvai irdKiv. atrial fi\v ovv elatv aSrai tS>v yevo/xe- 
vcav, &a-T€ SrjXov on Kal raijTrjs t^s afiaprtas. aXX' fjfieis 
oil TOVTO (TKowoSfiev, rivi Set avyyvdt ft,r]v ex*"' ^ A*^ *X^"'» ^° 

13 aXXcb irepl tov opdws Kal /jltj 6p6ms. rA Se wept ri? yv- 
vaiKus exovra ii-q KaXms eoiKev, mawep kXi-^Orj Kal npo- 
Tepov, ov jiovov airpeiriidv Tiva noieiv rijs noXiTeias aiiTfjs 
Ka6' avrrfV, dXXa avfi^dXXiaQat Ti wpos r^J' <piXo)(^pr]- 
fiaTiav, fierii, yhp ra vvv ^Bevra toTs nepl t^c dvcoiia- 15 

14 Xiav TTJs KT'qa-ecos knniii'qa^uv dv Tis' toTs fiev yap avrav 
avjiPk^r]K€ KeKTrjaOai iroXX^v Xiav ovaiav, rots S\ irdp.- 
irav fUKpav Siowep els oXiyovs ^Kiv f] -j^wpa. tovto Se Kal 
5t^ T&v voficav TeraKTat (paJuXms' wveiaQai jiev ykp fj 
ircoXeiv Tr^v {)ndp)(ov<rav kiroirja-ev oil KaXov, opBSis Troirjcras, 20 
■SiSovai Se Kal KaraXeiireiv e^ovcriav eScoKe toTs ^ovXa/iivois' 
■Kairoi ravTo av/i^aiveiy dvayKoiov eKeiums re Kal oprms. 

15 eari Se Kal t&v yvvaiKmv (r)(eSov ttjs irdarjs xa>pas twv 
irevre (lepSiv to, 8vo, tSiv t' kniKXrjpwv ttoXXZv yivofievcov, 
Kal Sih TO TTpoiKas SiSovai (leydXas. Kairoi ^eXriov ^i' 25 
fiflSe/iiau fj oXiyrjv ^ Kal nerpiav Terd^Oai' vvv S e^eari 
Sovvai re Trjv kiriKXrjpov orm &v fiovXrjrai' kIlv diroOdvr) 
firi SiaOe/ievos, ov &v KaTaXiirrj KXrjpovofiov, o5tos & dv 

16 OeXrj SiSaxTiv. roiyapovv Svvanevrjs rrjs -^mpai \iXiovs iw- 
irets Tpe^eiv Kal irevTaKoa-iovs Kal oTrXiras rpia-fivpiovs, ovSe 30 
XtX/ot TO ttXtjOos rjcrav. yeyove Se Sid rmv epymv air&v 
SrjXov oTi favXas avTois eT^e Ta irepl t^v Ta^iv Tairajv 
jiiav yap irXrjy^v ov\ iiv/jveyKev ^ noXis, aXX' dirdiXeTO 

17 Sid Tfjv oXiyavOpcoiriav. Xeyova-i S' a>s kirl plkv tS>v npoTe- 
pcov ^aa-iXecov p,eTeSiSo<rav t^s iroXireias, mar. ov yiveaSai 35 
TOTS oXiyavQpamiav TroXefiovvTcoy troXiiv xp^vov Kai (pacriv 
eivai noTe tois SirccpTidTais Kot /ivpiovs' ov /jitjv dXX' eir 

46 nOAITIKHN B'. 9. 

karlv d\r]6fj ravra efre /t^, fiiXnov to 81&, Trjs KT^a-€(os 
oifiaXia-fiii/rji Tr\r]6veii/ avSpav t^v ttSXiu. inreyavTios Se 18 

40 Kat 6 Trept ttjv TiKvowoitav v6fios wpbs TaiJTtji' t^v Siopdio- 
1270 b (Tiv. fiovXo/ievos yhp 6 vofioBirr]! Ss irXeiaTovs ehai Toi/s 
SirapTidras, irpodyerai roi>s woXiras on irXeicrTovg iroifTaOai 
TraiSas' eari yhp airois vofios tov fikv yew^aavra Tpets 
vloiig dtppovpov eivai, tov SI Terrapas dreX^ irdvTCov. kuCtoi 19 
6 ^avephv on noXX&v yivofievcav, rfjs Sk y(mpas ofJro) SiTjpT]- 
ftepris, dvayKoiov iroXXois yivea-dai nivrjTas. dXXh, /jl^v 
Kai tA vepl rrfv i^opelav e^et ^aiXmv ^ yap dp)(^ kv- 
pia /lev airii tS>v fieytcrrcov avrois kvnv, ytvovrai 5* e/f rod 
S^fiov irdvres, mem ttoXXukis inirivTova-iv &v6pamoi a^oSpa 

10 rreyr]Tes eis rb dpyeiov, ot Siii Tf/v diropiav wvioi ?}<ray. 

■ eSrjXwa-av Se iroXXdKis fieu Kal irpSrepov, Kal vvv Sk kv 20 
Toli \Av8piOLS' Sia<p6apevTes yoLp dpyvpia nves, oarov k^' 
iavTOLS, oXrjv Tfjv ttoXiv dircoXecrav. Kat Sici ro rfjv dp- 
)(^v eivai Xtav /leydXriv Kal laoTvpavvov B-qfiaytoyeiv 

IS airois i]vayKd^ovTO Kal ol jSao-iXety, ware Kal Taih-r/ avv- 
eiri^XdnTiaQai t^v ngXireiav SrijioKpana yb,p k^ dpicrro- 
Kparias (rwi^aivev. (Tvve)(^ei fi\v o5v t^v iroXtreiav to dp- 21 
■)(eTov TOVTO, ■^av^d^ei yhp 6 Sij/ios 8iii, rb fieTi\eiv rrjg 
fieyiaTTjs dp^^fjs, &(tt eire Sioi, rbv vofioOirrjv etre Siii rv- 

20 X'?*' TOVTO <rv/nrknTa>Kev, avfi^epovTcos ej(et rois npdyfiaa-iv, 
8tT yhp rifv iroXiniav rfjv /liXXova-ai/ <rm(e<j-6aL travra /Sou- 22 
XeaOai rh fiepr] rrjs iroXecos elvai Kal 8iafiiveiv [raiira]- 
0/ fiev oSv ^acriXus 8iii t^v aiiT&v Ti/Ji.f)v o&Ta>s €)(^ovo-iv, ol 
8k KoXol KdyaOol 8ih ttjv yepovaiav (S.dXov yh.p tj dp-^^fj 

i^aiiTi] Trjs dperfjs kaTivj, 6 8h 8fjfios 8iii t^v k^opeiav (^Ka&- 
[(TTarai yap e£ ATrdfronvy aXX' atpeTrjv i8ei t^v dp-)^v 23 
etvai TO&rriv k^ &7rdvT<cv /iiv, p.^ tov Tpinrov 8\ tovtov hv 
vvv •trai8api<i)8r}s yap k<rn Xiav. eTi Sk Kal Kpitrewv elai. 
lieydXwv K^pioi, 6vt€S ol Tvy6vTiS, Sioirep oiiK avToyvmfio- 

30 vas ^iXnov Kpiveiv dXXoi KaT&, ypd/ifiara Kal toijs 

1270 a 38—1271 a 23. 47 

24 vo/iovs. ecm Sk koI ^ Staira rmv e<p6p(av ou^ ofioXoyovfiivq 
tS ^ovkrinaTi Trjs iroXeas- aurJ) /ikv yhp dveifievt] Xiav 
ia-Tiv, kv 8\ Tots dWois /laXXov i-rreplSdXXei eirl ro o-kXtj- 
pov, ware /ifi SvvaaBai Kaprepuu dXXii, XdOpa rhv vo/mov 
diroSiSpdaKovras dnoXaCuv twv {reo/iariKZy rjSovmv. ex*' 3^ 
Se Kal TO. nepi t^v t&v yepSvTwv dp)(riv ov KaXms avrois' 

25 eTTieiK&v jikv yhp ovToav Kal neiraiSevfiivcoy iKavms npos 
dvSpayaOiav Td)(a dv eiireie tls avft^ipeiv rg TToXef Kai' 
rot TO ye Sid ^lov Kvpiovi efi/at Kpivemv fjieydXav dfKpia- 
^riTrfaiftov, iari ydp, &<rrrep Kal aw/iaTos, Kal Siavoias 40 
yrjpar top Tpmrov 5e tovtov ireiraiSevnivwv wa-re Kal tov 1271 a 
vofioQirriv avrov dtnarTilv &s oiiK dyaOoTs dvSpdaiv, ovk 

26 d(r<paXis. ^aii/ovrac Se Kal KaraScopoSoKov/ievoi Kal Ka- 
Ta-)(api(6iiivoi. rroXXd r&v koivZv ol KeKoiva>vriK6Tes rrjs 
dp-)(rjs TavTtjS. Sionep ^eXTtov avToi>s fi^ dv^vBivovs elvaf 5 
vvy S' elffiv. So^eie 5' dt> fj tS>v €<}>6pa)v apx^ rrdcras ev6v- 
viiv Toii dp)(ds' TovTo Se rfj i^opeia jikya Xtav rb Smpov, 
Kal Tov Tp&irov aii tovtov Xeyo/iev SiS6vai. Suv tccs evO^vas. 

27 en Se Kal rfju aipeaiv r^v noiovvTai r&v yepovTmv, KaTa re 
TTiv Kpia-iv earl iratSapiaSris, Kal Tb aiiTov aheicrOai tov io 
d^uoQrjcrofievov Trjs dp)(fjs ovk 6p6&s e)(ef Sel ydp Kal ^ov- 
X6/ievov Kal (ifj ^avXofievov dpyeiv tov d^iov t^s dp^rjs. 

28 vvv S' otrep Kal nepl t^v dXXijv iroXiTeiav 6 vo/ioOeTTjs 
^aiverai ttoi&V ^iXoTiftovs ydp KaTaa-Kevd^wv Tois woXC- 
Tas Tovrm Keyjytyrai irpbs rfjv atpeaiv t&v yepovTmv ovSels 15 
ydp dv dpx^tv aiTrjvaiTO fi^ (piXoTifios Sv. KaiToi t&v 

y dSiKrjfidTcov tS>v eKovatcov rd vXeiaTa avfifiaivei (T)(^eSbv 

29 Sid ^iXoTifiiav Kal Sid (piXoxpT^fJiaTiav toTs dvBpwTTois. irepl 
Se fiaa-iXeias, el jiev (i^ ^eXTi6v kaTiv iirdpyeiv Tais iro- 
Xecriv ^ ^iXTiov, dXXof eaTca XSyos" dXXd fifjv ^eXTiov 20 
ye jiii Ka6direp vvv, dXXd KaTd rbv airov ^iov eKaa-Tov 

30 KpiveaOai tS>v ^aaiXeatv. oti Sk 6 vonodeTrjs oiS' airbs oieTai 
Svvacrdai noieiv KaXois KayaOovs, SfjXov dnuTTel yovv coy ovk 

48 nOAITIKilN B'. 9-10. 

oScny iKavms dyaOois avSpdaiV SiSirep e^eTre/iTrov (rvfi7rpe<r- 

25 ^evras roiis ky^Bpovs, koX atorriptav kvofii^ov rfj noXei eivai 
TO <TTaaid^€iv rotis PaaiXeTs. ov KaXas 8 ovSe irepi ra ava- 
aiTia tA Ka\ovp.iva ^iSiria vevojioOerriTai t5 KaraaT'^aavri 
irpmrov eSei yhp diro koivov [iSXKov uvai Tfjv avvoSov, 31 
KaOdirep h Kprirji- iraph, Sk tois AaKoxriv eKaarov Set 

30 (pepeip, Kal a-^oSpa TrevqTcov kviwv 6vt(ov koX toDto to dvd- 
\cop.a oi Swajiivrnv Sairavav, &a-Te avfi^aiyei TovvavTiov 
fw vofioOeTj] TTJs Trpoaipecrems. ^oijXerai fiev yap SrjfioKpa- 32 
TiKov etvai TO KaTaaKevaa-fia twv avcra-iTimu, yiveTai S" 
rJKiaTa SrjiioKpaTiKov oStco vivonoBerr^jievov fiiTkyew fieu 

35 7^P °^ ^dSiov ToTs Xiav nivqaiv, Spas Se Trjs troXiTeias 
oStos eoTiv aiiTOis 6 irdTpios, tw fi^ Swdjuvov tovto to 
TeXos (pipeiv p,^ p-STiyeiv avTrjs. tZ Se irepl Toijs vavdp- 33 
)(ovs vofitp Kal eTepoi Tives kviTeTLp'qKaaiv , 6p6Sis kwiTipav- 
res, aTaaeas yap yiverai aiTios' kTvi yap tois ^aaiXevaLv 

40 oSa-i (TTpaTrjyoTs diSioLS fi vavapyia cryeSov erkpa ^aaiXeca 
KadiaTTjKev. Kal SSI Se ttj imoOeaei tov vofioOeTov eTriTifirj- 34 
1271 b aeiey av Tis, onep Kal UXaTcov kv toIs vojjlois kirLTeTijiriKev 
npos yoip pepos dpeTrjs ri iraaa awTa^is t&v vopwv kari, 
Trjv TToXepiKrjv' avTij yhp y^ptjo'ipr) npos to Kpareiy. toi- 
yapovv etrw^ovTo pev iroXepovvTes, dTT&XXvvTo Se dp^avTes 
5 Sibi Th pfj kma-Taadai a^oXd^eif prjSe Tjo-KrjKevai prjSe- 
piav daKtjaiv eTepav KvpuoTepav ttjs TToXepiKrjs. toCtov Se 35 
dpdpTTjpa oiiK eXaTTOv vopi(ovai pev yhp ytveaOai ra- 
yaOa ri irepipdyjiTa Si' dpeTfjs pdXXov ^ KaKias, Kal 
TOVTO pev KaXS>s, oti pevToi TavTa KpeiTTCo ttjs dpeT^s 

10 inroXap^dvova-iv, oi KaXm. (pavXas Se e^et Kal irepl to, 36 
Koiyii ■)(prfpaTa Tols XTrapriaTais' oihe yhp kv t& koivw 
TTJs irdXecoy ea-TLv ovSev noXepovs peydXovs dvayKa^opevois 
iroXepeTv, eicr^epov<ri re KaK&s' Sih yhp to tSiv ^nap- 
TMT&v elvai T^v wXeioTTjv yr\v ovk k^erd^ovatv dXX'qXcov Tas 

15 eia^opds. dirofiefiriKe re TOvvavTiov tw vopoOeTji tov avp- 37 

1271 a 24—1272 a 7. 49 

(pepovTOS' T^u fikv yhp iroKiv TrenotriKev dyjirfiiaTOv, rods 
5" iSiaras ^tXo)(pr]fidTovs. wepl jikv o5v rfjs AaKe8ai/j,ovi<ov 
TToXiTetas eirl rouovTov elp'qirdai' ravra yap kvTiv b, ndXicrT 
av Tis eiriTi/iiqtreiev' 

'H 8e KprjTiKT] woXtTewt irdpeyyvs /lev ea-ri TaijTrjs, 10 
6j(ei Se piKpbt, pev oil ^upov, rh Se nXeiov ?jttov yXa^v- 
pas. Kal yhp eoiKe /cat Xeyerai Se ra TrXeiara pepiprj- 
a6ai rf/u Kpr/TiKriv iroXintav fi twv AuKcovav, roi Sk irXeT- 

2 <TTa rmv dpyaimv ^ttov Sirjpdpayrat twv vemrepcov, (paal 
yctp TOP AvKovpyov, ore t^v hriTpoiTeiav t^v XapiXXov tov 25 
^aa-iXems KaTaXmwv direS'qprjaev, Tore tov nXei<TTOv Sca^ 
Tpi-^jrai yjiovov irepi Kp^qTr/v Slit, rfjv avyyiveiav dnoi- 
KOi yhp ol AvKTioi Tmv AaKwvcov rjaav, KaTeXa^ov 8' 01 
irpos Tfjv dnoLKlav eX66vTes Trjv tu^iv twv vopav inrdp)(ov- 

3 aav kv toTs tots kutoikovo-iv. Sih Kal vvv ol nepioiKoi tov 30 
avTov TpoTTOv y^pwvTat avrois, wi KaraaKevda'avTos Mivm 
irpwTov Tfjv Td^iv TWV vopwv. SoKeT 8 fj vfja-os Kal npbs 
T^v dpy(rjv t^v ' EXXrjviKTiv ire^vKevai Kal KeTa-dai KaXws' 
irda-Tj yap kiriKUTai t§ QaXdcrffri, cryeSov twv 'EXXr^vrnv 
ISpvpivwv Trepl Trjv BdXaacrav irdvTwv ajre^ei yhp tt} pkv 35 
Trjs UeXoTTOvvrjaov piKpov, Trj Se Tfjs 'Aa-ias row Trepl Tpionnov 

4 Toirov Kal PoSov. Sib Kal T-qv Trjs OaXdaarji dpy^v KaTeir- 
\ev 6 Mivws, Kal Tag vqaovs Ths pev k-)^eipwaaTO ras 
5" wKitrev, TeXos Se kniOepevos Trj SiKeXia tov ^lov kTeXeiu- 
Trjo-ev eKei irepl KdpiKov. ey^ei S' dvdXoyov ij KprjTiKtj Td- 40 

5 ^ts irpbs T^v AaKwviKrjv yewpyovai re yap tois pev e'iXw- 

Tey Toiy S\ Kprjalv ol irepioiKoi, Kal ava-aiTia nap' dp<f)o- 1272 a 
Tepois ka-Tiv Kal to ye dp)(aTov eKoXovv ol AdKwves oil ^i- 
SiTia dXXa dvSpeia, KaOdirep ol KpfjTes, fj Kal SrjXov otc 

6 eKeiOev kX^XvSev. eTi Sk t^s iroXiTeias ij roots' ol pev 
yhp e<popoi ttjv aiiTrjv eyoval Svvapiv toZs kv Trj KprjTrj g 
KaXovpevoig Koapois, irX^v ol pev etpopoi nivTe tov dpi6- 
pbv ol Se Koapoi SeKa eicriv ol Se yepovTes tois yepovaiv, 


50 nOAITIKflN B'. 10-11. 

ody KaXovtriv ol KpfJTes jSouX^v, titroi* ^ccaikda 8e irpoTepov 
fikv ■^v, efra KareXvcrai' ol KpfJTes, Kat T-qv rjye/ioviav oi 

10 koa-fioc rfjv Karh. iroXt/iov i-)(ova-Lv' eKK\r}a-ias Se fie^reypvai 7 
irdvrei, Kvpia 8' oiSevos e<TTiv dX\' ^ a-vpeTnfp-r]<j)iaat rA S6- 

• ^avra toIs yepovcn Kal rots Koa-fiois. tu jjiev oOv Tcav ava- 
a-iTiav ey^ei ^eXriov Tois Kprja-lv fj roty AaKcoa-LV kv fiev 
yap AaKiSaifiovi Karit Ke(f>aXfiv eKaaros eia-(f>epei to re- 

15 Tay/ievov, ei Se firj, fiereyeiv vdfios KwXvei rfjs noXireias, 
KaBdirep eipi^rai Kal nporepov, kv Se Kpi^rrj Koivorepmv, 8: 

. dno navTrnv yhp t&v yivofievav KapnSiv re Kal PocrKrjfid- 
rwv Ik tS>v Sr]p.o(Ti(ov Kal ^opcov ■obi (pepovcrw 01 irepi- 
oiKoij reTUKTai fiepos to fiev Trpos tovs 6eoi)s Kal tois koi- 

20 vhs XeiTovpytas, to Se toTs crva-cnTwis, &(tt e/c kowov Tpe- 
^eaBai navTas, Kal ywaiKas Kal naiSas Kal dvSpas' 
Trpos Se TTjv oXiyocriTiav coy m^eXifiov iroXXa ne^iXo- 9 
a6(pi]Key 6 vo/ioOeTrjs, Kal trpos Trjv Sid^ev^LV tSw yvvai- 
K&y, 'iva [ir] iroXvTeKvSxri, Tr\v wpos tovs dppevas TTOirja-as 

25 o/iiXiav, nepl ^s ei (pavXcos ^ /j.^ (pavXcos, erepoy ea-Tai 
Tov SiaaKei^aaOai Kaipos, on Se to. irepl to. ava-criTia ^eX~ 
Tiop TeraKTai toTs Kprjcrlv rj toTs AaKwcri, (pavepov. Th 
Se nepl toijs Koap-ovs eTi y^eipov t&v e^opmv S fiev yhp 10 
ey(ei KaKov to tcov e^opoou dpy^elov, {mdpyei Kal tovtois- yi- 

30 povTat yhp ol Tvy^ovTes' t S' eKei a-vfKJ)epei rrpos TfjP iroXi- 
Teiav, kvTav6a oiiK ea-Tiv. eKei fiev yap, Sth to t^jv atpe~ 
aiv eK TrdvTwv eivai, peTeymv 6 S^jios Trjs peyio'Trjs dpyTJs 
^ovXeTUL fieveiv T^y iroXiTeiav' evTavBa S ovk e^ airdvTwv 
alpovvTai TOVS Koap-ovs aXX' eK tlvwv yevmv, Kal tovs yepou- 

35 ray e/c twv KeKoaiirjK&rwv. irepl S>v Tois auTois ay tis ei- H 
Trete Xoyovs Kal irepl Tmy ev AaKeSaipovL yivop,eyo/)y' to 
yhp dyvwevBvyoy Kal to Sih ^lov jMel^ov e<m yepas Trjs 
d^ias avTOis, Kal to p^ Kara ypdpp.aTa Apyeiy aXX' 
aiiToyvwpovas emaipaXes. to S' ii<rvyd^eLy pi] peTey(oyTa 12 

40 Toy Sijpov ovSev vrjp.e'tov tov TSTdyQai KoAcSy oiSev yap 

,1272 a 8— 1272 b 32. 51 

[ .X-rJlifKiToi Ti Toty Kotr/iois SoTTep ToTs e^opois, irSppm y' 

13 diroiKov(Tiv iy prjaoa tZv SLa<pOepo'uvT<ov. ^u Se nokovvTai rijs 1272 b 
a/iaprias Tavrrjs iarpeiav, aroiros Kol oil irokiriKr) aWb. 
SvvaaTevTiKrj- iroWaKis yiip €K^d\\ov<n avaravTes rives roijs 
Koa-povs ^ Tmu (rvvapy6vT<ov avrmv fj twv ISuorwy, e^eort 

Se Kal p.era^x) roTs Koa-pois dnemeTu rffv dpyrjv. ravra 5 
5^ irdvTa ^iXriov yiveaOai Karh vopov fj kut dvOpammv 

14 ^ovXrja-iv' oil yb,p da-^aXfis 6 Kavwv. irdvToav Sk ^avXora- 
Tov TO TTJs dKoapias tZv Swarmv, ^v KaOiaraa-L iroXXaKis 
orav pfi SiKas ^ovXmvTai Sovvai' fj Kal SijXov ws e^ei ri 
TToXiTeias 17 rd^is, dXX oil noXireia iarlv dXXa SvvaaTeia 10 
pdXXov. eldidaai Se SiaXap^dvopres tov Sfjpov Kal rods 
(piXovs povapytav woielv Kal aTaaid^eiv Kal pdj^ecrOai wpos 

15 dXX'qXovs. KaiTot tl Sia<pepei to toiovtov f) Sid rivos )(p6vov 
prfKen ttoXlv eivai ttiv Toiavrrjv, dXXii XHea-Oai Tr}v iro- 
XiTiKrjv Koivcaviav ; eari S' eTriKivSvvos ovtods ^)(ovaa noXis, 15 
Twv ^ovXopifoav eiriTiOeadai Kal Svvapevcov, dXXh Kadd- 
irep eiprjTai, aeo^eTai Siii tov tottov ^evrjXaaias yap to 

16 irSppco TTeiroirjKev. Sib Kal rb t&v wepioiKiov pevei toIs Kpr}- 
aiv, 01 S' eiXayres d<pia'TavTai iroXXdKif oSre yap e^coTepi- 
xrjs dp)(TJs Koivcovovaiv oi Kpfjres, vemcrTi Te voXepos ^eviKos 20 
Sia^e^rjKev els Trjv vrjaov, os TreirottjKe (pavepav ttjv da6e- 
yeiav tcov exei vojimv. irepl pev oSv ravTrjs eiprjaOa) TOtravS' 
■qpiv TTJs TToXireias' 

UoXiTeveadai Se SoKovai Kal KapyrjSovioi KaXm Kal 11 
iroXXa irepiTTms npbs Tois dXXovs, pdXicrTa S' evia irapa- 25 
jrAijo-Zcoy roty AdKCoaiv aSTai yhp al iroXireiai TpeTs dX- 
XrjXais Te avveyyUs irms elori Kal tSiv dXXmv iroXii Sia- 
(pepavaiv, ^ Te KprjTtKTi Kal tj AaKcoviKri Kal Tpirr] tovtcov 
f] Kap)(T}Sovici>v Kal ttoXXo, twv TeTaypevmv e)(^ei irap' 
2 aiiToTs KaXms. <Tr]peiov Se iroXiTeias awTeTayp,evr]s rb Tbv 30 
Sfjpov ey^ovaav Siapeveiv ev ttj Td^ei ttjs iroXiretas, Kal 
pT]T€ (TTaaiv, 6 Tl Kal d^iov eliretv, yeyevrjcrOai prJTe tvt 

E 2 

52 nOAITIKflN B'. 11. 

pavvov. e^et 5e irapairX'qaia rfj AaKcofiKfj TToXireia ra 3 
(lev avaaiTia tS>v eTaipimv toIs ^lSltiois, ttjv 8e rmv eKa- 
35 tov Kal Tendptov dpy^^v tols e^Spois (ttX^j' oi ytipov' ol 
fiev yap Ik t&v tv)(6vt(ov e'urt, ravTrjv 5' alpovvTai ttjv ctp)(r}V 
dpiaTLvSriv), robs Se fiaa-iXeTs koI ttiv yepovcriav dvdXoyov 
rails €KeT ^aaiXevai Kal yepovaiv Kal ^eXriov Se rotis ^a- 4 
a-iXeis jirire Kara ro aiiro eivai yevos, prjSe rovro ro rv- 
40 X^''' **' '''^ Siaipepov, eK rovrcov alperoxjs pdXXov fj Ka6 fiXc- 
Kiav' peydXmv ykp Kvpioi KaOecrrcores, &v evreXeis dxri, 
1273 a/^eyaXa PXdirrovai Kal e^Xayjrav ^Sr] rfiv iroXiv rrjv rmv 
AaKeSaipovicov. ra jiev ovv TrXeia-ra rmv eTnriprjGivroDv &v 5 
81& T^y napeK^dcreis Koiva rvyydvei wdaais ovra rais 
elprjfiivais TToXireiaiS' rmv Se vpos r^v inroBecriv rfjs dpi- 
5 aroKparias Kal rfjs iroXireias ri pev eis Srjfiov eKKXivei 
pdXXov, rh S' els oXiyapyjiav. rod pev yhp rh pev rrpoa- 
dyeiv roL Se prj irpoadyeLv npos rov Srjfiov ol ^acriXeis 
KijpioL perh rmv yepovrmv, dv opoyvmpovmai ndvres' el 
Se prj, Kal rovrmv d Srj/ios' a S' av elcr^epma-iv oZroi, oil 6 
10 SiaKovcrai povov diroSiSoacri ra) Srmm rh So^avra rols dp- 
yovaiv, dXXd K^pioi Kpiveiv eld Kal rm ^ovXofievm rois 
ela^epo/ievois dvreineTv e^eariv, orrep kv rais krepais iroXi- 
reiais ovk eariv. rb Se ras Trevrapx^'^'S Kvpias oUaas iroXXav 7 
Kal peydXmv ii^ avrmv alperds elvai, Kal rfjv rmv iKa~ 
15 rov ravras alpelcrdai rfiv peyicrrrjv dp-^fiv, en Se ravras 
rrXeiova dpyeiv xpo^ov rmv dXXmv (/cat yip e^eXr]Xv66res 
dpxovcn Kal peXXovres^ oXiyap^iKov ro Se dpierdovs Kal 
pfj KXrjpmrd.s dpurroKpariKov 6ereov, Kal ei ri roiovrov ere- 
pov, Kal TO Tar SiKas iiiro tSi' dp^eimv SiKd^ecrOai ird- 
20 ffa?, Kal fifj dXXas inr dXXmv, KaBdirep ev AaKeSaipovi. 
napeK^aivei Se rijs dpiaroKparias 17 rd^is rmv Kap)(r]So- 8 
vimv pdXiara rrpos rijv oXiyapyiav Kara riva Sidvoiav rj 
avvSoKel rols iroXXols' ov ydp povov dpia-rivSrjv dXXd Kal 
TrXovriySriv o'lovrai SeTv aipela-Oai roi/s dp-^ovras' dSvvarov 

1272 b 33— 1273 b 1 6. 53 

9 yoip Tov diropovvTa KaX&s dp)^eLv /cat aypXd^eiv. eiirep ovv 2$ 
TO fiev alpeicrOai ttXovtivStjv oXiyapyiKov, to Se kut dpe- 
T^v dpioTOKpaTLKov, aiiTTi tis &v eLt] tu^is Tpirr], KaO' rjv- 
Trep (TVVTiTaKTai. Kal toTs Kap^rjSoviois ra irepl Trjv tto- 
XiTetav aipovvTai yap eis Svo Tama ^XiirovTes, Kal fid- 
XicTTa Tag fieyia-Tas, tovs re ^da-iXeis Kat Toi>s aTpaTTjyovs. 30 

10 Set Se vojii^eiv a/jidpTtifia vo/ioQeTOv ttjv irapiK^aa-Lv uvai 
T^S dpiaTOKpaTias Tavrrjv e^ dp)(^s yap tov6' •opdv eo-rt 
T&v dvayKaioTaTCOv, ottcos ot ^iXTia-Tot Siji/covTai a)(oXd{eiu 
Kal jiriSkv dcryrjiioviiv, firj iiovov dpy(OVTiS dXXh, (irjS' 
tSioDrevovTes. el Se Sei ^XeiTeiv Kal irpos eiiiropiav X*/""' 35 
a-^oXr\i, (paSXav Th Tcby fieyicTTas mvrjTas etvai tZv dp)(wv, 

llTJjv re ^aariXetav Kal Tfji/ crTpaTTjyiav euTi/ioi' yb.p 6 vofios 
oStos noiei tov ttXovtov /jloXXov ttjs dpeTrjs, Kal ttju ttoXiv '■ 
oXtjv <f)iXo)(prifj.aTov on S' dv vnoXd^rj Ttfiiov elvai to 
Kipiov, dvdyKT] Kal Trjv tZv aXXwv ttoXltZv So^av dKO- 40 
Xov6eTv TOVTois" onov Se jii] jidXiara dpeTrf TLjxdTai, TavTrjv 

12 o^x olov Te ^e^aicos dpLVTOKpaTeXa-Qai t^v iroXiTeiav. eOi^e- 1273 b 
aOai 5' evXoyov KepSatveiv Toiis dtvov/ievovs, oTav SaTravq- 
a-avTes cip^axriV aToirov yap el irevrjs ^v eirieiKrig Se 
^ovX-qaeTai KepSatveiv, fpavX&repos S' mv oii ^ovXija-eTat Saira- 
vrja-as. Sio Set tovs Svvafievovs dpiaT dp^eiv, ToijTovs ap\eiv. 5 
0eXTiov S\ el Kal wpoeiTo ttjU evwopiav t&v knieiKSiv 6 vo- 
fioBeTtjs, dXXa dpyovTooiV ye eirifieXeiaOat ttjs (TXoX^s. 

13 (pavXov S' dv So^eiev eTvai Kal to irXeiovs dp-)(^s tov avTov 
dpxeiv onep evSoKi/iei irapa tois Kap)(rjSoviois. ev yhp 
ixfi ivbs epyov dpicTT dtroTeXelTai. Set S' ottods yivrjfai tovto 10 
opav TOV vofioOeTrjv, Kal jirj irpocrTaTTeiv Tov aiiTov' avXeiv 

14 Kal crKVTOTOiieu/. wad' ottov fj,^ /iiKpit iroXis, iroXiTiKmTepov 
irXeiovas /leTe^eiv tZv dp\cav, Kal SrjjioTiKmTepov' koivo^. 
Tepov Te ydp, KaQditep eiTTOfiev, Kal KaXXiov eKacrTOv diro- 
TeXeiTac t&v avTwv Kal daTTOv. SrjXov Se tovto eirl twv 15 
TToXe/iLK&v Kal T&v vavTiKmV ev tovtois ydp dfi<poTepois 

54 nOAITIEflN B'. 11-12. 

^ Slo, trdvTav its ihriiv SceXijXvOe To dp-)(eiv Kal to ap)(^eer- i 
6ai. 6\Lyap-)(iKfjs B' odarrjs ttJj TToXiTetas dpicrTa eK^ev- 15 
yova-c Tw irXovreTv, aUi ti tov Brifiov /lipos eKTri/xnoyTes ejrt 

20 Tag TToXeis, TOVTCp yh,p ImvTai Kal ttoiovcti /loyifiov Tr]v iro- 
XiTeiav. dXXa tovti ecm T'Cyjjs '^pyov, 8u Se da-TaaidcxTOvs 
eivai Sioi. TOV vo[io6iTr}v. vvv Se, &v drvyia yivTjTai Ttj 16 
Kal TO ttX^Bos diTO(rT^ twv dpyonivwv, oiSiv kcrTL (pdpfiaKoy 
8id tZv vifimv Trjs f\<ru)(iag. irepl jikv ovv Tfjg AaKeSai/iouimv 

25 TToXireias Kal KprjTiKTJs Kal ttjs KapyrfSovimv, a'itvep SiKaicos 
evSoKifiova-i, tovtov iyei tov Tporrov' 

12 Tmv Sk dnocpTjvafiivoiv ti irepl iroXiTeias evioi fiev ovk 
kKoivavrjO-av Trpd^emv ttoXitikSv ovS' wvtivcovovv, dXXa Sieri- 
Xea-av ISuorevovTes tov ^lov, irepl S>v e'l ti d^ioXoyov, eiprj- 

30 rai a)(^eSov irepl irdvToav, evioi Se vo/ioBeTai yeyovaviv, 01 
fiev Tais oiKeiais noXecnv, 01 Se Kal tZv oOveicov Tiai, iro- 
XiTevOevTes avror Kal tovtohv ol jjiev v6/j,cov kyevovTO Sr]~ 
jiiovpyol jiovov, ol Se Kal iroXiTeias, oTov Kal AvKovpyos Kal 
XdXwv oStoi yap Kal vofiovs Kal iroXiTeias KaTeaTrjcrav. 

35 irepl fiev ovv rrjs AaKeSaifiovioiv eiprjTai, ^oXmva 8' evioi 2 
jiev oiovTat yeveaBai vofioOeTqv (rirovSaiov oXiyapyiav Te 
yhp KaTaXvaai Xiav dKpaTov oS<rav, Kal SovXevovTa tov 
Sfjpov irava-ai, Kal SrjfiOKpaTiav KaTaa-Trja-ai ttjv irdTpiov, 
jii^avTa KaXms ttjv iroXiTeiav eivai yap t^v jiev ev 'Apeiw 

40 irdym ^ovXfiv oXiyap-^^iKov, to Se Tas dp)^iis alpeTas dpi- 
CTTOKpaTiKSv, Th Se SiKaaTrjpia Stj/iotikov. eoiKe Se HoXcov 3 
1274 a eKeiva jiev virdp)(ovTa irporepov ov KaTaXvaai, rrjv re jSov- 
Xfjv Kal T^v tS>v dpywv aipecriv, tov Se Srjfiov KaTaaTrjaai, 
tA SiKaoTTrtpia iroi'qcras eK irdvToav. Sib Kal fiifupovTai 
Tives avTw- Xvaai yap OdTepov, Kvpiov iroiiqaravTa to Siko- 
6 aTtjpLov irdvTtov, KXr/peoTov ov. eirel yhp tovt tayya-ev, ma-irep 4 
Tvpdvvcp tS Srjum y^api^ofievoL Tfjv iroXiTetav eh ttjv vvv 
Stj/ioKpaTiav KaTeaTTiaav, Kal Tr^v fiev ev 'Apeim irdyat /Sou- 
X^v 'E(j)idXTt]s eKSXova-e Kal JTepi/cX^s, to. 8k SiKaarripia 

1273 b 17— 1274 a 41. 55 

/iiado^Spa KareaTrjo-e UepiKXfj?, Kal tovtov Sjj tov rpovov 
€Ka<TTOS Twv Sij/iaymymv irpo'^yayev ait^cov els Trjv vvv Srj^ 10 

5 fioKpaTiav. (paiverai Se ov Kara, Tfjv XoXmvos yeuiaOai. tovto 
7rpoaipe(7Lu, aWa p.a\\ov dvo avfinrmfiaTos (ttjj vavap- 
Xias y^p ev ToTs Mr/SiKoTs 6 S^fios airios yevo/ievos e^po- 
vi]fiaTia-6r], Kal Srjfjiaymyotis e\al3e <f)a^Xovs avriiroXiTevo- 
fieucov tS)V eirieiKcav), firel XoXoav ye eoiKe t^v dvayKaio^ 15 
rdrrjy dvoBtSovai r^ Srjficp Svvafiiv, to tois dp)(^a,s alpei- 
aOai Kal ev&vveiv (lir]Sk yhp tovtov Kvpios a>v 6 Sfjfios 

6 SovXos av eir] Kal TToXe/ttoy), tcis 5' dp)(as eK tSiv yvtapi- 
jiODv Kal TWV eviropcov KaTea-Tirjcre irdcras, eK t5>v rrevTaKo- 
■crio/jLeSifivcov Kal ^evyiTrnv Kal TpiTov TeXovs Ttjs KaXovfiivris 20 
lirrrdSos- to Se TeTapTOV QtitlkSv, oIs ovSefiias dp)(rjs fieTrju. 
vofioOeTai Se eyevovTo ZdXevKos re AoKpoTs toTs ewi^e^v^ 
ptois, Kal XapSvSai 6 K(x,Tava?os toTs aiiTov iroXiTais Kal 
rais dXXais tuTs XaXKiSiKais iroXeat Tais irepl 'iToXiav 

7 Kal ^iKeXtav. ireiprnvTai Si rives Kal avvdyeiv coy 'Ovo- 25 
fiaKpiTov fiev yevofievov irpmTov Seivov nepl vojioQeaiav, yv^va- 
aOfjvai 8' avTov iv KprjTr) AoKpov ovTa Kal emSrifioCvTa 
Kard Te)(yrjv navTiK'qv tovtov Se yevecrdaL QdXrjTa eraTpov, 
QdXrjTos S' dKpoaTrjv AvKovpyov Kal ZdXevKov, ZaXevKov 

8 Se XapcovSav, dXXd Tavra (lev Xiyovaiv daKenroTepov 7^30 
yjiovco Xeyovres, eyeveTO Se Kal ^iXoXaos 6 Kopivdcos vo- 

' jioOeTrjS 0rj^aiois. rjv 8' 6 ^iXoXaos to /J-ev yevos tZv 
BaK-)(iaSS>v, epaaTfjs Se yevojievos AioKXeovs tov viK'ija-avTos : 
'OXv/imaa-iv, ws eKeivos Trjv iroXiv eXiire Sia/iKrija-as tov 
JepcoTa TOV Trjs /jLrjTpbs A.XKv6vr]S, dirfjXBev els ©rj^as, Ka/cet 35 

9 TOV Ptov eTeXe^Tr]<rav d/Kporepoi. Kal vvv eTi SeiKvvovcri Toi)% 
rdipovs avT&v dXXr]Xois fiev eiavvonTovs ovTas, irphs Se rfjv 
Tcov KopLvOicov yaipav tov fiev ovvotttov tov S' ov avvoirTov 
fwdoXoyovo'i ydp avTohs o&too rd^acrBai ttjv Ta<prjv, tov fiev 
AioKXea Sid ttjv dire\Oeiav tov irdOov's, ottcos fifj dnonTos 4° 
earai fj Kopivdia dno tov )(aiJ.aTos, tov SI ^iXoXaov, oiroos 

56 nOAITIKflN B'. 12. 1274 b 1-28. 

1274 b diroTTTOs. wKr]<rav fikv oSv Sih rriv ToiavTijv ahtav naph, 10 
Tois Qrjfiaiois, vo/iodeTfjS S' airoTs eyivero ^iXoXaos irepi 
T aWciv TivS>v KoX irepl rfjs iraiScnrouas, ofiy KaXovaiv 
kKeivoi vopovs deriKovs' koX tovt koTlv ISims inr eKeivov vevo- 
5 /loOeTfifiivov, oTTCos 6 dpidpos <Tci^r]Tat tS>v KXrjpcev. Xa- 11 
pmvSov S' iSiov pkv ovSev e<m irX^v at SiKai tS>v i^euSojiap- 
Tijpmv (jrpcoTOS yaip kiroirj<re t^jv eTria-Krj-^iv), rfj S' aKpi^eicc 
tS)v vS/ioDV ea-Ti yXa^vpairepos Kai twv vvv vofioOer&y. 
[paXeov 5' tSiov rj twv ov(tiS>v dvo/idX(ocris, HXdrmvos S' ij 12 

10 re rZv ywaiKmv /cat naiStov Koi ttJj oixrias KoivoTrjs Kal 
TO. avcrcriTia rZv yvvaiKoav, en S 6 nepl rrjv pidrjv vofios, 
TO Tods yrj^ovTas avinroaiapy^av, Kal Trjv kv toTs TroXefii- 
Kois dcTKrjariv owas dp<})i8i^ioi, yivatVTai KaT&, T-qv neXeTrjv, 
as Siov p.^ TTiu p.\v xp^cripov eivai Toiv yepoiv t^v 8e 

15 d)(pr]a-Toy'^. ApdKovTos Se. vopoi pkv ela-i, iroXiTeia 8' iiTrap- 13 
\oiari Toiis vopovs eOrjKev iSiov 5' kv toTs vopois oiSiv kariv 
6 Ti Kal pveias d^tov, TrXfjV ^ ^aXenoTris 810. to ttjs ^r/pias 
piyedos. kyevero 8e Kal TliTTaKos vopmv STjpiovpybs dXX' 
ov noXiTeias' vopos 8' i8ios aiiTov to toi/s peOvovTas, dv 

20 Ti iTTaia-toa-i, TrXetco ^ijpiav diroTiveiv twv vtj^ovtwV 81& yhp 
TO irXewvs v^pi^eiv pe6i5ovTas rj vij^ovTas ov irpos t^v avy- 
yvwprjv ajrejSXei/rej', oTt 8eT pe6vov(nv ex^iv paXXov, dXXa 
irpos Th avp^epov. kyeveTo Se Kal 'Av8po8dpa5 'Prjyivos 14 
vopo6eTr]S XaXKi8evai ToTf knl QpaKrjS, o5 vept re Tck ^0- 

25 viKo. Kal xAy kniKX^qpovs kaTiv ov pfjv dXXei i8i6v ye oi8ev 
aiiToD Xeyeiv e)^oi tis dv. Ta pev ovv nepl Tas iroXiTeias, 
Tds Te Kvpias Kal rcty virb tivwv elprjpevas, eaTca Tedewprj- 
pkva t6v TpOTTOV tovtov. 


The following notes are intended to be used in conjunction 
with the apparatus criticus of Susemihl's editions, and especially 
that of 1872. It is in these editions alone that the MSS. and their 
readings, and also the version of the Vetus Interpres, can be fully 
studied. In those cases, indeed, in which I have been obliged to 
choose between a reading supported by the whole of one family 
of MSS. and one supported by the whole of the other, and the 
choice was attended with doubt, I have commonly noted the reading 
which I have not adopted, and I have taken some pains, in dealing 
with the readings offered by the first family of MSS., to point out 
the passages in which we are unable to affirm with certainty that T 
agreed with M^ P^, for perhaps even the third and last of Susemihl's 
editions hardly makes it clear how numerous they are. The student 
of Susemihl's apparatus criticus, in fact, occasionally finds in it 
readings which Susemihl does not accept ascribed to n^, and may 
naturally infer that tf (i.e. r as well as Ms P^) support the reading 
adopted by him. This is, no doubt, frequently the case, but on 
the other hand it frequently happens that the reading of r is not 
ascertainable, and of course, when this is so, Susemihl's reading 
rests only on the authority of Ms P", for we cannot assume without 
proof that r agreed with M^ P^ and not with n^ ; on the contrary, 
r often agrees with n* against M^ P^. Thus the induhitable dis- 
crepancies between n* and n'' prove on examination to be con- 
siderably less numerous than might be supposed ^ I have seldom 

' Susemihl would seem in the fol- 13, 7ei'o/i^co(s n'' : 1258 b 1, iteraBXri- 

lowing notes of his third edition, for rtitijs U' : 1260 a 31, 6 ante irafi add. 

instance, tacitly or otherwise to attri- n'. In 1260 a 21, the reading ivdv- 

bute to n' a reading which can only raiv is ascribed to n', but we cannot 

be attributed with certainty to M' tell from Vet. Int. omnium whether he 

P' : — 1252 b 2, oJ om. n^ : 5, t& post found AirivTiav or ■ncaiTm' in his Greek 

«oi om. n": 1253 a 32, 6 om. n": text (see his rendering of 1263 b 17 

1255 b 23, ToTs post iv add. n': 26, sq.). These references need not be 

dtj/airouKi) tP: 1256 b 8, Siiojiivr) TP: carried farther than the First Book. 


noted variants clearly not supported by the whole of a family, 
except when I hoped to be able to throw some fresh light on their 
value. The readings which I have given from 0^ will at any rate 
serve to illustrate the character of a manuscript which, though be- 
longing to a well-known variety, does not always agree with P*, the 
MS. to which it is most nearly allied. I have drawn more largely 
on the Vetus Interpres, noting freely any renderings which seemed 
to call for remark. I have sought by a study of his method of 
translation to contribute to the solution of the important question, 
in what cases we can safely infer from his renderings a variation in 
the Greek text used by him. Here and there, but not often, I have 
noted renderings to which Susemihl has omitted to call attention. 
I have also occasionally indicated passages in which the text of the 
translation appears to be by no means certain, and recorded any 
readings found in the MSS. of it consulted by me which seemed to 
deserve mention. But my main object in these notes has been to 
discuss the copious data furnished by Susemihl, and especially to 
throw light on the characteristics of the MSS. and the Latin trans- 
lation, in the hope of contributing to the ascertainment of the 
correct text of the Politics. 

My quotations from the Latin translation of Leonardus Aretinus 
(Lionardo Bruni of Arezzo) are based on a comparison of the beauti- 
ful MS. of this translation in the possession of New College, Oxford 
(MS. 228), which belongs to the middle of the fifteenth century, 
with a Bodleian MS. (Canon. Class. Lat. 195). I have drawii 
attention in the following notes to one or two passages in which 
these MSS. do not support readings ascribed by Susemihl to 
Aretinus ; I do not know what is the cause of this discrepancy, but 
I may refer to Susemihl's remarks in his first edition of the Politics, 
p. xxix sq., as to the supposed existence of two versions of Aretinus' 
translation, for it is possible that the discrepancy is thus to be 
accounted for. 

The conjectures by which scholars have sought to emend the 
text will be found fully recorded in Susemihl's editions. 

I have already (above, p. xlviii, note i, and p. xlix, note 2) ex- 
plained the symbols which I have adopted from Susemihl. A full 
■account of the MSS. of the Politics and the Vetus Interpres con- 
sulted by Susemihl will be found in the Prolegomena to his first 
edition (that of 1872), and also a full account of the corrections in 
P', P'^, and P*. As to the Vatican Fragments, see the Preface. 

I add some remarks on the MSS. consulted by me. 

MS. 112 belonging to Corpus Christi College, Oxford (O^) is a 


fifteenth century manuscript containing the Politics together with 
other writings of Aristotle, or ascribed to him (see for its contents 
Mr. J. A. Stewart, The English Manuscripts of the Nicomachean 
Ethics, Anecdota Oxoniensia, vol. i, part i, p. 5), and bearing at 
the foot of its first page the following inscription : — Orate pro anima 
Joannis Claimondi collegii corporis Christi primi presidis, qui hunc 
librum eidem condonavit. (Mr. Stewart mentions, p. 6, that Clai- 
mond was President of Corpus from 1517 to 1537.) Its text of 
the Politics is written in a very legible hand, but there are not a 
few corrections both between the lines and in the margin, and these 
corrections are made partly by the writer of the MS. himself, partly 
by a corrector (corr.'), whose handwriting is in many cases easily 
distinguishable from that of the writer of the MS., but in some not so, 
and especially in those in which the correction is between the lines 
and consists of a single letter only, or two or three. The ink used 
by this corrector is often very similar to that of the MS. One or 
two corrections in the first two books are apparently due to a second 
corrector. The text of the Politics in O^ is nearly akin to that of 
the P* of Susemihl (MS. 2025 of the Bibliothfeque Nationale at 
Paris : see as to P* Sus.^, p. xxiii), though neither of these MSS. 
is copied from the other, but the corrections from a MS. of the first 
family which lend a special interest and importance to P* are 
wanting in O' : the corrections in O^ which are due to corr.^ are 
mostly derived from a MS. of the second family, though a few of 
them (for instance, the expunged addition of dpxovrav koI in 1260a 
4) may be derived from the Vetus Interpres or possibly from some 
gloss. The following passages (to which it would be easy to add 
indefinitely) will suffice to establish its close kinship with P*: — 
1355 a 24, &iia — hiKoiav om. pr. P* pr. O' : 1256 a 14, iiipos om. P* 
pr. O' : 1257 a 13, •yeymi/e P* O' : 32, el(Ti(r6ai pr. P* pr. O' : 1257 b 

27, ovK — 28, re'Xoi om. P* pr. O^ : 1258 a 14, ajravra Seov om. P* pr. 

O^ : 16, XP"^ P* 0\ On the other hand, O^ often differs from P*.: 
thus in 1253 a 7 O^ omits &Cv^ i>v, P* only iiv. in 1253 b 35 O' has 
Toiis, which P* omits : its reading differs from that of P* in 1254 a 
15 sq. : in 1257 a 33-34 it is free from the blunders found in P*,: 
in 1258 a 38 pr. O^ omits Ka/m&v km t&v, pr. P* only kqI tSk: in 
1259 a 12 pr. O^ has \6yav, P* 6\iy<ov: in 1261a i pr. P* omits 
several words, not so O' : in 1262 b 13 0' has (rvfujivvai., not so P*. 
Here and there we find O^ agreeing with P" ^ (thus in 1257 a 16 it 
has fie iXoTTw, in 1263 b 31 iras, in 1264 b 14 f"'|at, in 1271 b 12 
avayKa^oiMhovs), or with P'" T** (1264a 35, neviareias: 1267 b 28, 
Xoyot); more rarely with M^ P" (as in 1264 b 13, evdis: 1266 a. 5, 


fiTfiTa : 1268 b 15, Sr/Xovan), or with M^ (as in 1252 b 3, dworf'XetTO : 
1263 a 24, ayadav). 

I pass on to MSS. of the Vetus Interpres. MS. Phillipps 891 
(z) is a parchment MS. in quarto form, containing the translation 
of the Politics together with that of the Oeconomics and an un- 
finished fragment of the commencement of the translation of the 
Rhetoric, and written at Zara in Dalmatia' in the year 1393- This 
appears from the following inscription on a blank page at its com- 
mencement, which is in the same handwriting as the MS. : — Lzier 
polUicorum et yconomicorum Arisiotelis in hoc volumine depuiatur (deo 
volente) adusum met Jacobini quondam \^=condam\ Alberti de mqyn- 
itbus ( may?ienttbus=^di€i Maynenti) de Vic. [Vincentia or Vi- 
««//«= Vicenza] quern scripsi in civitate Jadre 1393 cum ibi forem 
ab illius civiiatis communitale pro fisico opere fnedicine salariatus et 
habitus. Laus et honor deo. (For the interpretation of Vie. and of 
the contraction for quern scripsi I am indebted to the kind aid of 
Mr. F. Madan, Sub- Librarian of the Bodleian Library. The inter- 
pretation which I have given above of the symbol 9" is that of 
Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, Keeper of the MSS. in the British 
Museum, to whom, no less than to Mr. Madan, my best thanks 
are due for valuable and ready help. Mr. Maunde Thompson ex- 
plains the meaning of quondam Alberti to be ' formerly son of Alber- 
tus ' or ' son of the late Albertus.' Having found the form Patricii 
de Ficcolominibus in the tit\e ofa book published in 1485 ('Pontificale 
A. Patricii de Piccolominibus, Romae, 1485 '), I thought it likely that 
mayntibus was a family-name, but the word remained a puzzle, till 
Mr. Maunde Thompson solved the problem by discovering the name 
Mainenti in a list of families belonging to Vicenza contained in the 
' Historia di Vicenza, by G. Marzari, Venice, 1691.' I shall be glad 
if the publication of this inscription should lead to the communica- 
tion of further particulars respecting the writer, Jacobino dei Mayn- 
enti.) At the commencement of the MS., prefixed to the translation 
of the Politics, are the words to which attention has already been called 
(above, p. xlii) ; they are in red letters but in the hand of the writer 
of the MS. : — Incipit liber politicorum Aristotilis a fratre Guilielmo 
ordinis praedicatorum de greco in latinum translatus. At the close of 
the translation, the words quod decens (answering to to irpinov, 5 (8). 
7. 1342 b 34) are not followed either by the sentence— re/?'^«a huius 

' For other MSS. transcribed at thank for informing me some years 

Zara, see Schenkl, Ausonius, pp. xxiii, ago of the existence of a MS. of the 

xxvli. I owe this reference to Mr. Vetus Interpres in the Phillipps 

Robinson Ellis, whom I have also to Library. 


operi's in greco nondum inveni — which succeeds them in all the MSS. 
but a, or by the sentences -which are here found in a and rec. a (see 
Sus.^ ad loc), but simply by the words — Explicit liber polliticorum 
Aristotilis. At the top of the pages of this MS. and in the margins 
and in a large blank space purposely left at the foot copious 
annotations are inserted, and the text itself is interspersed with 
corrections and expknatory additions. Here and there we meet 
with corrections which are in the same hand and ink as the MS. 
and have obviously been made by the writer of it, but most of them 
and all the annotations are in a far smaller hand than that of the 
MS., and one which, perhaps for this reason, differs a good deal from it. 
Some, however, of these annotations and corrections are apparently 
in the same ink as the MS., and as these are in the same handwriting 
as others which are in a darker ink, it seems probable that all the 
annotations and corrections were added by the writer of the MS.* 
If so, he was evidently a diligent student of the Politics in William 
of Moerbeke's Latin Translation. I have given in the following 
Critical Notes those of the various readings of z in the iirst two 
books which seemed to possess most importance, and have added 
in Appendix C a complete list of its variations in these books from 
the text printed by Susemihl, with the exception of unimportant 
errors of spelling. It will be seen that its omissions and blunders 
are many, and that here and there the original reading has been 
erased and an incorrect one substituted ; nevertheless, it has in not 
a few passages either alone or in conjunction with a preserved the 
true reading. It has no doubt likewise done so in the books which 
I have not as yet collated, for in glancing at a passage in its text of 
the Seventh (4 (7). 13. 1331 b 31) I found the word exKeirat, which is 
rendered in the other MSS. laM, rendered (rightly in all proba- 
bility) iacel. It is worthy of notice that as z was written at Zara in 
Dalmatia, so the allied MS. a was ' written in Italy ' (Sus.*, p. xxxiv). 
It is possible that a search among Venetian MSS. of the Vetus 
Interpres, if such exist, might bring to light other MSS. belonging 
to the same family and superior to a and z. We might then be less 
in the dark than we are at present as to the origin of the marked 
difference between the two families. 

MS. 112 belonging to Balliol College, Oxford (o) is ascribed by 
Susemihl (S^s.^ p. xxxviii) to the earlier part of the fourteenth 
century, and is the oldest of the MSS. of the Vetus Interpres yet 
collated. Its text of the translation of the Politics is evidently 

^ I might be able to speak more more of these annotations than I have 
positively as to this, if I had read as yet foupd time to do. 


nearly allied to that of Susemihl's c, a far later manuscript, but c is 
not copied from o. 

MS. Bodl. Canon. Class. Lat. 1 74 (y) is a beautifully written Italian 
manuscript, belonging to the fourteenth century, and, in Mr. Madan's 
opinion, to the latter half of it. Each page contains two columns. 
The text of the translation of the Politics contained in it has been 
tampered with in places by an ingenious corrector, who has here 
and there contrived with the aid of a penknife to convert the 
original reading into an entirely new one : thus in the rendering of 
1256b 13 we find parientes over an erasure, the original reading 
Ijaving probably hten pro genitis, and in 1258 a 7 again we find iam 
over an erasure, the original reading having probably been non. 
These erasures, however, are readily discernible, and they do not 
seem to occur very often. This MS. is allied, not to a or z, but to 
the bulk of the MSS. of the translation. 


1252 a 2. li/eKEi/] ' Only the forms ending in -a are Attic (eveKo, 
elvtxa, owem) . . . the form hexev does not occur in Attic Inscriptions 
till after about 300 b.c' (Meisterhans, Grammatik der attischen 
Inschriften, p. 103). Aristotle's frequent use of ewxev deserves 
notice. 8. elvai om. r P^ pr. M^ ; a later hand adds it in M^ after 
Tov. Sus. brackets it, and refers (ed. i) to 7 (5). 12. 1316b 2, oi 

SiKoiov oioi/rai eivai iirov fierex"" ''^s ffoXttos roiis Kcicrqiiivovs iirjhev Tois 

KcKTtjiiivois, where P^*^ tf read elvai and r M^ omit it (probably 
wrongly, as they stand alone), and to 2. 7. 1266 b i, oi x'^en-oi' 
^€To noWiv, where V n om. elvcu. : he also gives a reference to 
Schanz, Nov. quaest. Platon. p. 33 sq. The question whether 
(Tvai. should be retained here is a difficult one, for though tf are 
somewhat prone to omit, and more than once omit elvai where it 
seems to be required (e. g. in 1257 b 7), yet they occasionally omit 
it where it can be dispensed with (e. g. in 1 298 b 36), and Aristotle is 
well known to be sparing in his use of elvai (see Vahlen, Beitr. zu 
Aristot. Poet. 3. 330, and his edition of the Poetics, p. 243 sqq. : see 
also Bon. Ind. 239 a 9 sqq.). On the other hand, its omission causes 
a harshness here, which it does not cause in 1266b i. In i. 9. 
1257 a I, again, the verb is yo/iifety, not oUaBai, and the construc- 
tion is softened by the use of ar. Meteor, i. 14. 352 a 25, aWa 

TOVTov Ttjv mnav ov rt)v xoO Koa-fiov yivuriv oieaBai xpVi however, is a 

iiearer parallel, tov airov] Vet. Int. idem (tA aird r .?). 15. tovs om. 

1252 a 2— 1253 a 2. 6;^ 

pr. O^ (with n') : it is added in the margin by a corrector. Biit 
n' often omit the article — e.g. in 1269a 7, 1291 a i, b 3, 1297 a 
35. 24. 8^] em'm Vet. Int., but we often find eni'm in Vet. Int. 
where we expect another word — e.g. in 1253 a 23, 1256 a 31, 
1272 a 41. £m'm does not always stand for ydp in Vet. Int. (see 
critical note on 1271a 23). 25. aairep iv rois &KKoii\ Vet. Int. 

qmmadmodum et in aliis, but he probably did not find mi in his 
Greek text any more than he found it there in 1335 b 30, where 
he translates KaSdncp ra rav veaTcpav sicut et iuniorum (see Busse, p, 
30). See also below on 1262 a 29. 26. avvhvd^m6ai\ y z have 
comhinare : I read obviare or obinare in o, not (with Sus.) ohinari. 

1252 b 2. Ms pi add 04 before xo^kotuttoi : we cannot tell from 
aeris figuratores what Vet. Int. found in his Greek text : tf omit 
it, and they may well be right in doing so : see Vahlen, Beitr. zu 
Aristot. Poet. 3. 340 sq., and Bon. Ind. 109 b 36 sqq. 5. Ms P' 
add TO before hovKov : about the reading of r we cannot be certain : 
a similar difference of reading occurs in 1261b 25. See on the 
subject Bon. Ind. 109 b 44 sqq. : Vahlen, Beitr. 4. 409. The read- 
ing of r being doubtful, it seems better to follow n^ 8. ^ap- 
^apimi 8'] Vet. Int. barbaris quidem. But the Vet. Int. occasionally 
substitutes ye for hi (e. g. in 1268 b 16), 14. Xa/xovSas /aevj M» 
P^ 6 piv Xapavbas : Vet. Int. Charondas quidem, which may re- 
present H-aprnvbas pev, the reading of n''. Charondas is nowhere else 
in the Politics honoured with the prefixed article by any MS. 15. 
6p.oKa.7rovs] ofioKiiirvovs ' tf P* L^ corr. M'' ' (Sus.), also O^ : as to M^, 
however, see Sus.' p. xii. note 20. The New College MS. of 
Ar. has homotapos, but Bodl. homocapnos. 17. Vet. Int. domuurfi 
for oiKi'ay, but he probably found muxas, not oliu&v, in his Greek text, 
for in 1259 a 35 he has domibus for oi/«'a. 20. avvfiKBov om. r M* 
pr. P' : not so Ar., who has nam ex hiis qui suberant regno accre- 
verunt. 28. ^817] ^ ht] is the reading of O' and of all known 
MSB. except P', which has rjhri, and two others which have 17 8e (Ar. 
quae quidem) : Vet. Int. iam. 29. iikv ovv\ oSv om. M^ P\ and 
perhaps Ar. {constituta quidem gratia vivendi), but pkv olv is un- 
doubtedly right: it is a common fault in the MSS. to drop out 
o5i/ after /icV (see 1257 b 3, 1294 b i, 1300 b 24, 1303 b 15, 1314 a 

25). 31. avrril Vet. Int. ipsa {airri T). 

1253 a 1. I follow n^ in adding kqI before tc'Xos (so O') : n' 
omit it, but the presumption is against this family of MSS. in 
cases of omission. 2. M^ P' add 6 before &v6pamos (Sus.'), just 
as they do in the corresponding passage, 1278b 19, and in 
1253a 32; we cannot tell whether Vet. Int. found the article in 


his Greek text or not : n^ omit it in all these passages, probably 
rightly: see above on 1252 b 2 and the authorities there re- 
ferred to. 5. Susemihl omits to call attention to the fact that 
Vet. Int. has sceleratus for avea-nos : Vet. Int. would seem to have 
misread dvevnos as avoaios — cp. 1253 * 35> where he translates 

avoa-iaiTaToi/ by scelesttssimum. 6. Srt nep afuf &i» a(nrep iv rreTTots^ 

See Susemihl's apparatus criticus for the various readings of the 
MSS. in this passage. O^ omits aft)| &», leaving however a lacuna 
where these words should stand. O^ here differs from P*, for pr. 
P* omits only &>/. Vet. Int. sine tugo exiskns, which is no doubt 
a translation of avev fuyoC rvyxavav (for Tvyxdveiv is often rendered 
by exisUre in Vet. Int. — e.g. in 1260 b 31, 1269 b 24), and this is 
probably a gloss explanatory of nful &». Ar. does not render 
art Tttp — TreTTots, but this does not prove that the clause was wanting 
in his Greek text ; it may well have been imperfect and incom- 
prehensible. All the MSS. may be said to have tuttoIs (ttctoIs 
M*"), though n-ertu/oir appears in the margin of P^ P* and S''. 
Vet. Int. sicut in volatilibus, but he may possibly be here trans- 
lating a conjecture added in the margin of the MS. used by him. 
There can be little doubt that Ttrrdii is the right reading. 10. 
^a>v iaav\ Vet. Int. supra animalia, but he seems now and then 
to add prepositions without finding an equivalent for them in his 
Greek text — thus in 1263 a 37 he renders i<\>ohimv pro viaticis, in 
1263 b 41 Tois avaairlois pro conviviis, in 1316 b 2 t^s jrdXemy per 
civitafem, and in 1273a 28 rots KapxiSoviois apud Calchedonios. 

See also below on 1273b 15. 12. For iKr\Kv6e tov ex^iv auyS-qinv 

\v7rr)pov rat ^Seos, the Aldine text has eX^^vOev, P* » MP Ub Lb (and O') 
7rpoij\6ev, followed in all these MSS. (which belong to the less good 

variety of the second family) by fiore alaSdvea-dai tov Xvirrjpov nal 

jlSe'os. Compare the deviation of P*' Q Mb Ub L^ Aid. from the 
text of other MSS. in 1253b 2-4, and of P*" Q L' in 1258a 32 
sqq., and of P*' Ub Ls C in 1286 b 25, where they read aXX* oJ 

KaraXcii/'M tovs vUls 8iaB6)(ovi 6 /SacriXfur eV i^otxrlas e)(a)V tovto iroirjo'm 

(an evident gloss), arid ofP^'L^ Aid. in 1260 a 32, where t6i» 
riXdov takes the place of to rc\os in these MSS. O^ agrees with 
P* in all these passages. In the passage before us, as in some of 
the others referred to, a gloss seems to be substituted for the text, 
for it is not likely that we have to do with traces of a double 
version. See also the readings offered by P*° L^ C° in 1301 b 33 
and 1309 b 2, and by P*« IJb Vb L^ in 1302 a 28. 22. eX tis 
Xt'yft] Vet. Int. si quis dicai, but this is no proof that he found Xe'yot 
(which P' alone has) in his Greek text, for in 1288 b 36 he trans- 

1253 a 5-ta 23. 65 

lates Koi el tSXXo \eyovtn KoXm: ei Si aha dicant bene. 23. iravra 

8c] All MSS. of Vet. Int. but k have omnia enim. 25. tf omit xai 
before ^uo-h : P^ omits kuu. before ■np6repov, and most MSS. of Vet. 
Int. (but not a or z) omit et here. Vet. Int. has prior, and several 
of the less good MSS. of the Politics have itpmipa. O' (like P*) has 

Km (j}vi7€i Kal Trporepa. 28. /tojSei' he6fievos\ Vet. Int. has nullo 

indigens, but he probably found lirjhkv in his Greek text. 30. 
TrpOTos] O^ has nparov, with s however superscribed above the 
final V — I think by the writer of the MS., though it is difficult to 
be certain. 32. Ms P' add 6 before rndpaitos: we cannot tell 
whether Vet. Int. found it in his text : see above on 1253 a 2. 36. 
Trpos a(f>po8iiTia Koi iSaSrjvj Sus.^ : ' ad post venerea ei add. 0/ but this 
ad is expunged in o by dots placed beneath it. z adds ad here. 
' Praepositionem cum plurium nominum casibus copulatam ante 
unumquodque eorum repetere solet Guilelmus' (Sus.^, p. xxxiii). 

1253 b 2-4. The reading followed in the text is that of 
the first family of MSS. and the better variety of the second, 
except that M^ P^ read ^ oiKia iroKiv in place of tvoKui okia (Vet. 
Int. rursum domus), and that r in 3 had olxias in place of oIko- 
vofiias, unless indeed domus is a conjecture due to the translator. 
The reading of P*« Q M^ IJb L^ (and also of O'), on the other 

hand, is as follows : — avayiai nepl o'lKovoiilas emeiv npoTcpov' traira yap 
TroXts i^ oIkimv ovyKevrai, oiki'os Se P'^pt, f^ ^v 0.Z61.S oiKi'a avv'urraTai. 

Bekker follows the reading of these MSS., substituting however 

avayKoiov for drayxTj, and in his second edition irepX oUias for rre/A 

olKovoplas. But see above on 1253a 12. OlKovo/iias Si pept) (not 
oUias Se pepr]) appears to be the true reading, for oiKovopias here 
corresponds to olimvopias 2 (which is the reading of all extant MSS. 
and of r) and is confirmed by eotj 8e rt plpos (so. oUovopias) 12. 
Besides, if olKias 8c pipt) be read, the tautology in 3 seems excessive. 

Cp. also I. 12. 1259 a 37, cTTCi be rpla peprj t^i olKovopiKrjs ^v. 17. 

Swaipedaj Svvapeda M' P^ C* ; Vet. Int. ei utique . . . poierimus, which 
represents Khv . . . SwalpeBa (the reading of almost all the MSS. of 
the second family), for in 1252 a 26 Vet. Int. renders deaprjo-etev &v 
uiique contemplabitur, in 1 253 b 8 a-KevTeov &v eh) considerandum uiique 
erit, in 1253b 26 avaynaiov hu eiij necessarium uiique erit, and so 
generally. In 1253b 38 oihiv av ehei is nihil uiique opus essei, in 
1264 a 3 ohn av fKadcv non uiique laleai. 19. o y z render n-oXtT«^ 
by poliiica (z polliticd), which is preferable to poliiia, the reading 
adopted by Susemihl. 23. z adds mani/esium quod after pars 
domus esi, perhaps introducing into the text a conjectural emenda- 
tion in the margin of its archetype, the object evidently being to 

66 Critical notes. 

obtain an apodosis. 24. dSimrov koI Cijv] est after impossibile om. 
z, perhaps rightly. 25. So-n-f/) 8e Taly] Strjre/j tqIj pr. O' (corr.^ in 
marg. yp. fio-n-ep 8e eV), but neither of these readings is probably the 
correct one, for the former is that of P* " U^ L^ Aid. (see as to 
these MSS. above on 1253 a 12 and 1253 b 2-4), and the latter, 
though adopted by Bekker, is found only in MSS. of little authority : 
Ar. (who translates ut vera in artibus) perhaps found it in his text. 
The best MSS. have &<tw€(, Se rals. 26. jueXXei] Vet. Int. deimt, 
but this is no proof that he found /xeWoi, in his Greek text (see 

above on 1253 a 22). 27. t&v oiKovonucavj n' r^ olicovofUKm, but 

in 1256 b 36 Vet. Int. has yconomico et politico (oiKovofUKav koI wo\i- 
tikSiv n) wrongly beyond a doubt, and perhaps here the three texts 
of the first family are affected by a similar error. O^ t-Sk oiKovoiuKav ; 
Ar. sic etiam in re familiari (tSx oIkovo/ukS}!/ ?). 33. ' q om. M' 
del. P* ' (Sus.). We cannot tell whether Vet. Int. found it in his 
text. O^ has o. ^Sui/aro] 'Eta as syllabic augment in ^iXofiai, 
Sivaiiai, /leXXm does not appear [in Attic Inscriptions] till after 
284 B.C.' (Meisterhans, Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, p. 78). 
All the MSS. have rjSivaTo here and rt^ovXero in 1259a 16, but in 
1307 a 31 Ms pi have rjSivavro, the reading of r is uncertain, and 
tf have eSivavTo. 37. Suecrflat] vno&veixBai V M', possibly rightly, 
for Aristotle may not have preserved the metre in his quotation 
(compare the various readings in 1328 a 15 and 1338 a 25): O' 

SvcaSai : Ar. prodiisse {pvf<r6m ?). ovtos al KepxiSes ixepKi^ov] Vet. Int. 
sic si pectines pectinarent, but it is hardly likely that he found « in 
his Greek text after ovras. 

1254 a 5. S'] z om. autem (so M^). 6. Here again Bekker 
in reading hiovrai 8' follows the less good MSS. : the better MSS. 
of both families have (cm hiovrai. O^ has Scovrai 8', but koL has been 
added above the line with a caret before Seovrai, and then crossed 
out. Trjv avTfjvj kanc before eandem om. z (with a g n), perhaps rightly. 
9. TO re yap /idpioi'] quod quidem enim pars, the reading of o as well 
as of several other MSS. of the Vet. Int., may perhaps be correct, 
and not quae quidem enim pars (Sus.), for in 1257 b 28 quod finis 
stands for rb reXos. 10. 8\a>s] Vet. Int. simpliciter (i. e. an-X«y, 
cp. 7 (5). I. 1301a 29-33): aTrXffli oXffls M^ P'. See Susemihl's 
apparatus criticus. Susemihl holds in his third edition, in opposition 
to a marginal remark in P'', that oXus is a gloss on ajrX£i and not 
imkai on okas, and that dTrXSs is the true reading. It seems 
strange, however, if that is so, that all the authorities for the text 
should read SX<or in 13. 14. airoO] So 0\ 15. The reading 
SvBpaiTov &v r M^ pr. P' etc. is supported by Alex. Aphrodis. m 

1253 b 24— 1254 a 39. 67 

AristOt. Metaph. p. Ig, 6 (Bonitz), t&v yap BoSKov ev toU noXirotoir 

flvai emev &s avdpcmos S>v SKKov iariv, where, however, the Laurentian 

MS. of Alexander (L) has tov yap SoSkov iv toXs UoKitikoXs fmev eivai 
TOW avBpamuv tov aXXou ovra (cai p.r] eavrov ; avSpaiTos Si P^ and 

probably P' (for there is an erasure here in P'), and also most of 
the less good MSS. O^ has avBpanos, followed by 8e expunged by 
dots placed beneath it, but whether these dots were placed under 
fie by the writer of the MS. or by a corrector, it is impossible to 
say. An, as Sus. notes, probably read 8e', not &v, but this is not 
quite clear, for his rendering is — qui enim sui ipsius non est secun- 
dum naturam, sed (oKKaT) alterius homo, hie natura est servus. 
' Lectio avBpaiiros &v unice vera videtur, si quidem est natura servus 
non is, qui quamquam natura alius hominis tamen ipse homo, sed 
is, qui quamquam homo tamen natura alius hominis est' (Sus. Qu. 
Crit. p. 341). Passing on to aXXou 8' cWli/ x.t.X., we find in Vet. Int. 
alterius autem est homo, quicunque res possessa out servus est. He 
would therefore appear to have found in his text 6r hv Krrjiia rj 8o€Xor 
5, or perhaps ts &v laijiia § 8o£Xor &v, which is the reading of M^ : 
the better MSS. have 8oi)Xoj &v, those of less authority avBpanos &v. 
O^ has dXX' oiS" eoTu' avBpamos 6i &v KTijpa y (i. e. ?', for O' is without 
iotas subscript) 8oCXos Sv, and in the margin, added by the writer of 
the MS., yp. avdpaiios &v. Ar. has — alterius autem est qui possidetur 
homo existens instrumentum ad acquirendum adivum et separa- 
bile. He probably read avBpimos &v. See Susemihl's apparatus 
criticus for the various readings : he adds in his second or expla- 
natory edition — ' we must regard either hovKos iariv or (which is 
less probable) avBpanos av as the reading from which the other 
readings have arisen, but in either case this reading has proceeded 
from a mere dittography ' (i. e. a repetition of avBpanos av or SoCXdr 
iarnv in 15). Hence Susemihl reads [SoiiXos cVto/]. Busse, how- 
ever (De praesidiis Aristotelis Politica emendandl, p. 22), attaches 
little importance to the est of the Vet. Int., who, he thinks, found, 
not 8ovXos eoTiV, but 8oi;Xoy &v (which can hardly be a dittography) 
in his Greek text, and rendered it freely by servus est (compare the 
renderings noticed above, p. Ixv) : he holds SovKos &v, however, to 
be ' hoc loco omni sensu destitutum,' and falls back on the reading 
avBpanos &v. This is, as has been said, the reading of the less good 
MSS., but by adopting it we escape the difficulty of supposing 
Aristotle to have used the word bovKos in his definition of the i^va-a 
SovKos. Susemihl's latest remarks on this passage will be found in 
Qu. Crit. p. 340 sq. (1886). 39. t&v yap p.oxBripav k.tX^Y et. Int. 
pestilentium enim et prave (the equivalent for (fiavKas in 1254 b 2) 

F a 


se habendum. I know not what pestilentium stands for in Vet. Int., 
but fwxBripla is rendered in 1303 b 15 by malitia, and in 1314a 14 
by nialignitas. Vet. Int. omits to render hv, but this he occasionally 
seems to do (e. g. in 1256 a 4, 1265 a 30). 

1254 1) 14. n^ add icai after x"/""") 'n which they are probably 
wrong: see below on 1260 a 26. 18. O' (like P*) has kcu. tovt 
e<TT iiT airav. 23. Xdyo) 11^. Ar. nam cetera quidem animalia 
raiionem non sentiunt : he would seem therefore to have read Xdyou, 
as does O'. 34. yiiioivro is rendered in most MSS. of Vet. Int. 
\iy fiunt. The reading of o is not sint (as Sus. with a query), but 

1255 a 5. (cal before Kara om. tf pr. P", etc., ai)d Pseudo- 
Plutarch De Nobilitate. As to the De Nobilitate, if Volkmann's 
account of it (Leben Schriften und Philosophie des Plutarch, 
I. 118) is correct, no weight can be attached to its testimony. 
See also Bernays, Dialoge des Aristoteles, pp. 14, 140, and 
Wyttenbach's notes (Plutarch, Moralia, tom. 5, pars 2, p. 915 
sqq.). But in fact the passages quoted from Aristotle were not 
given in the MS., and were inserted by J. C. Wolf, the first editor 
of the work (see Volkmann ind Wyttenbach), so that the text of 
them in the De Nobilitate possesses no sort of authority. 14. 
z adds et before violeniiam pati, thus giving an equivalent for kcu. 
^id^ea-dai, which none of the MSS. of the Vet. Int. known to Sus, 
appear to do. 16. Susemihl gives violentia as the equivalent in 
Vet. Int. for tt]v ^iav, but he notes that violeniiam is found in a : it is 
also found in o y z and may probably be the correct reading. 29. 
orav Tomo \iyaaiv\ Vet. Int., according to Susemihl's text, cum hos 
dicunt, but o y z have cum hoc dicunl. Is hos a misprint ? 35. 

I follow Tl? (and O^), which omit xal before iKfidepov : cp. 7 (5). 12. 

1316b 15, ort afrmTevofievoL KaraTOKt^Sfievot ylvovrai TrevrjTes (sO 11], 

and other passages collected by Vahlen, Poet. p. 2 16 sq. £l before 
liberum is omitted in z, but probably through an oversight. 37. 
No MS. gives %Kyovov, except P^, which removes the iota of cKyouotv 
(sic) by placing a point under it, nor was tKyovov found by Vet. Int. 
in his Greek text. This reading, like some other good ones 
peculiar to PS may well be due, as Susemihl points out (Sus.' pp. 
xiii-xiv), to the emending hand of Demetrius Chalcondylas, the 
writer of the MS. 

1255 ta 2. yivea-dai] yevia-Bai M^ P^ * O^, etc. : Vet. Int. fieri, which 
may represent either yiuea-Bai or yevca-dai (or indeed other forms, as 

it stands for yeyovivai in 1268 b 38, and for yeyev^crdai in 1272 b 

32). 12. r Ms pr. P' add toO aafxaTos after fiipos: Sus. thinks that 

1254b 14— 1255b 26. 6g 

this may have been the original position of these two words, but it 
is possible that they may have been added in the margin to explain 
Kex<»pia-fievov 8e iiepoi, and then have found their way into the text. 
Additions which may thus be accounted for occur occasionally in 
P*''Ls{see Susemihl's apparatus criticus in 1309b 2, 1313b 32, 
1316 a i), and also, though less often, in the first family of MSS. 
(e.g. in the passage before us, in 1259b 14, in 1268a 37, and 
possibly in 1335 a 37 : see also below on 1263 a 12). 14. tov- 
T(»K ri^ia/iemis U : qui tiatura tales dignificantur Vet. Int., but it is 
doubtful whether he found toioutois in his text, for, as Busse 
remarks (p. 42), he translates rivis by quales in 1264 a 38 : never- 
theless, it is true that in 1284 a 9 he renders a^miiievot t&v la-mv 
dignificati aequalibus, and that this is his usual way of rendering 
phrases of this kind, so that we expect his here rather than tales. 
Ar. quapropter aliquid est quod simul prosit et amicitia servo et domino 
invicem secundum naturam ita disposiiis. 18. r) fih yap . . . ^ 8e] z 
kaec quidem enim . . . haec (or hoc) autem (not hie quidem enim . . . 
hie autem, like almost all the other MSS.). 24. M^ P' add tqis 
before ivpaKovaais: whether Vet. Int. found Tai9 in his text, we 
cannot tell from in Syracusis. fVaiSeueK] So O^ : M^ P' inalSeva-iv : 
Vet. Int. erudivit, which might represent either inaiheuev or iirai- 

deva-ev, for in 1267 b 18 Karea-Keia^fV is ronstituit, in 1267 b 30 

consiruxit: in 1267b 31 eVo/fi \% fecit, though in 33 hiripa is divi- 
debat. 26. jrXeiov n : see Bon. Ind. 618 b 13 sqq., and Liddell 

and Scott, s. v. Meisterhans (Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, 
p. 68) observes — 'before long vowels we find throughout in Attic 
Inscriptions -« (jrXfi<»i', •nXtia, itXdovs) : before short vowels in the 
classical period (till 300 B.C.) -f (n-Xeoi/oi, liKeovav, wXeoo-w) — in the 
post-classical period, on the other hand, -ei (TrXeiovor, jrX«di/(»i<, TrXf ioatK) : 
the neuter singular, however, even after 300 b.c. usually retains the 
siinple vowel.' tov Toio\iTav\ so n'* (and O') : tf tovtwv. ox^ottohk^] 
oi/^oTToti/TiK^ rests only on the authority of M^ P^, for it is of course 
impossible to say whether Vet. Int. found a^tmouK)] in his text or 
o-^<moa]Ti,KT\. O' (like P*) has oi/^ottohjic^ (or rather o-\^o7ro(?;((i)), which 
probably points to a^tmouKi), for in 1258a 37 pr. O' has xpw""""'?'"?- 
The same MSS. which here read oyjronouKri, read (if we allow for 
clerical errors) KepKiSoirouKfj in 1256 a 6, where M^ P' (about r we 
cannot be certain) read KepKtdonoirjTiK^. All MSS. have tckkottohj-jkij 
in 1253b 10. 'In Plato wjroTrouKTi is now restored from MSS.' 
(Liddell and Scott). In Eth. Nic. 7. 13. 1153 a 26 and Metaph. 
E. 2. 1027 a 4 o^oTToiijTiK^ is the form used, but in the latter 
passage the MSS. are not quite unanimous. In Metaph. K. 8. 


1064 b 21, Bekker, Bonitz, and Christ read oyjfOTrouK^, but two 
MSS. (one of them A^) have o^moafrua). In Eth. Nic. 1. 1. 1094 a 

1 1 pr. Kb (the best MS.) has xa^"""rotiKi7. 35. l>.rj airois KOKO- 

iraBelvj Vet. Int. ^uod non ipsi malum paiiantur. 

1256a 6. KfpwSojrouK^] See above on 1255 b 26. 10. x"^™'"] 
So n^ (and O') : x'^'^os r P^ and possibly M^. See explanatory- 
note on this passage. Corn'' P" (i. e. the writer of P^ in darker 
ink than that of the MS.), followed by Bekk., adds i\ before 
olKovofiiKfi, but Sus.^ (p. xviii.) says of the corrections thus classed 
— 'maximam partem coniecturas sapiunt, etsi vix eas ex ipsius 
librari ingenio haustas esse crediderim,' and the erroneous ad- 
ditions of T) before oIkovoiukt) in 1257 b 20, and a-Koirelv before 
jrpotr^Ket in 1258 a 25, rest on the same authority. 12. n's yap] 

Most MSS. of Vet. Int. quod em'm (o quid ent'm), but z, like a, has 
tfuae em'm. 16. ttoXXo] o multas rightly: is multae (Sus.) a 
misprint? 23. z, like a, has bestiarum et enim, answering to 

Tav re yap Srjpiav. 30. TroXi] ffoXXot pr. O^ (with P*, etc.), »roXw 

corr. ' : M' rf have the same blunder in 1316b i. Vet. Int. multis, 
but he probably found ttoXXoI in his text. 31. ol fikv ovv\ Vet. 
Int. §ui qm'dem enim : he seems, therefore, to have read o! \ikv ykp, 
unless enim is a blunder, which is very possible. Three MSS. of 
Vet. Int. om. enim. 40. Too-oCrot <7xeSdi»] z tot fere, retaining the 
order of the Greek text, and quaecunque for oo-oi ye, not quicunque, 
like the MSS. examined by Susemihl. 

1256 b 1. TTopifowTOi] Kopiiovrai M^ P^, and r xi ferunt (Vet. Int.) 
represents trnpi^avrai., not Tropi^ovrai, which perhaps is the case, for 
acquirere stands for iropiieiv in 1256 b 28, 1268 a 32, etc., though 
we have emerunt for nopiirm in 1285 b 7. nopifeo-flai, however, 
seems the more probable reading, for we have n-opifovrer ttji> rpoipTjv 
in 1268 a 32, and nopi^eadai Trjv Tpo(j>riv occurs in De Gen. An. 3. i. 
749 b 24 and Hist. An. 1. 1. 487 b i. No instance o( Ko/ii^etrdai Tipi 
rpaipriv is given in the Index Artsiotelicus of Bonitz. O^ rropi£ovTcu. 
At. si5i praeparant (^= iropi^ovrati). 6. &s h> rj xp^'c <r<>vavayKa(rf\ 

quocunque modo et qportunitas compellat o (where et may possibly 
be intended to represent o-ui/- in owiavayKa^j)). 8. SiSo/iei/ij] SeSo/ic'n; 
Ms P^ and possibly r (Vet. Int. data), but data is just as likely to 
stand for hihopAv^, lot facta represents yam\iivt)^ in 1262 a 38 (cp. 
1263a 12, big, 1270a 24, 1272a 17), laudata enaivmipAm]^ in 
1258 a 40, iransmutatum iiera^aWoiuvov in 1257 b 4, vocatam koXou- 
\tivmi in 1256b 14. 0^ hihofievt). 9. TeXfimflelcriw] Vet. Int. 

secundum perfectionem or secundum perfectam (sc. generationem), for 
the reading is doubtful (y z secundum perfectam, and, if I am right, 

1255 b 35—1256 b 36. 71 

o also, not secundum perfeciionem, as Sus. with a query). Ar. sic 
etian od perfeciionem deductis. 13. toIs ■yfwu/ifi'oir] row ycvofihoK n^ 
(O') Bekk.i : i-ois yewo/teWy M^ pi Bekk.'' Sus, Most of the MSS. 
of Vet. Int. have genitis (so z), or what probably stands for genitis, 
but Sus. finds geniratis in two of them (k o) : I must confess that 
after looking at o I feel doubtful whether the contraction found in 
it stands for generatis \ still k remains. Genitis, however, is pro- 
bably the true reading ; but this may just as well stand for rolr 
ytwcotievois (cp. i2g8a 35, where geniio stands for tiS yfwrjBivn) as 
for T019 yevoiievoK or rols yuioixevois. It is not impossible that Ar. 
found the last-named reading in his Greek text, for his translation 
is ad natorum educationem, and he renders rS>v yivofte'vav in 1335 b 
22 and TO. yivofieva in 1336 a 16 by natos; but no MS. of the 

Politics has toXs yivofievois. If we read rots yevofihois (=Toir TfKvois, 

as in 4 (7). 16. 1335b 18), there is a good deal of harshness in 
the use o{ yevofievoK in two different senses in 13 and 15, and yeco- 
lihois 1 5 loses something of its point ; it seems probable also that 

in 1335b 18 the true reading is to yewafieva J3}, not to yevofisva n' 

(so in De Gen. An. 2. 6. 742 a 24 r^ yevonhfp has apparently in 
some MSS. taken the place of the true reading t^ yevvainevif, 
which is found in Z and accepted by Aubert and Wimmer). I 
incline on the whole to adopt the reading which may well be 
that of U\ and to read rois yewaptevoK. Cp. Menex. 237 E, wav yap 
TO TCKov Tpo^v. ej(ci fTTiTTjSeiav ^ au tckt)' tf Koi yvvif SrjKrj reKovm re 
ciKrid&s Kal ftrj, dSX VTro^dKXofievri, iav firj extl 'njyA* Tpo(j)rjs t^ yevvafjievif. 
In Plato, Laws 930 D rh yevop-evov, TO yewtjSiv, and TO yewapevop are 
all used close together. 14. ttju to3 xaXov^evou yaXaxToj <j>v(ri,vj 

Vet. Int. vocaiam lactis naturam (rrp) KoKmipkvrp) ?). 15. yevopkvoi^ 
' TiKfiadeimv Ar. Sus.' " forsitan recte,' Sus.', who now places \y&>o- 
ficWs] in his text ; but I find in the New College MS. of Ar., and 
also in BodL, quare similiter est genitis quoque existimandum plantas- 
que animalium esse gratia et cetera animalia hominum causa. O^ 
yfvopAvoK: Vet. Int. genitis. 20. ytVi^raj] yivrjTcu M^ P' and 
possibly also T (Vet. Int. fiant\ 26. The text of tf and 
especially of r M* has suffered here from the intrusion Of glosses : 
see Susemihl's apparatus criticus. Vet. Int. hoc praedativum helium 
et primum (z however omits ei with M^ P'). Ar. ut natura id 
helium iustum existat. 28. o y 2 have quarum est for hv lari (in 
agreement with rerum). 32. ayaBrfv pr. 0\ but dots are placed 
under -ijv and av is written above, probably by corr.' 36. oIkovo- 
IUkShv Kd, 7ro\iTiKSai\ eiKovopiKa koI noKinKa T : see note on 1253 b 27. 
Ar. multitude insirumentorum rei familiaris ei rei publicae. 


1257 a 3. Vet. Int. either misread fKeiVijs as Kft/ue'yi; or found 
<ii\iivr\ in his text, for he translates posita. Ar. sed neque est idem 
neque valde remotum. He fails to render cKfim]s, but then he also 
fails to render rfj elprnievT). 6. KTrmaros] xprifiaros M^ and probably 
also r, for Vet. Int. has ret, not ret possessae {ret, however, stands for 
vpayiiaTos in 8). 10. Sus.^ by a misprint omits yap after kcH. 17. 
b] qua o rightly: y z guare (with most MSS. of Vet. Int.). 38. kov 
eC\ Kol €1 P^, and possibly r also (Vet. Int. ef st) ; Vet. Int., however, 
occasionally fails to render av (see above on 1254a 39). 40. 
fm^aXkovTav] emBoKovrav P^, Bekk.'^, Sus. (Vet. Int. imprimentibus 
might stand for either reading). For dn-oXwo-i? the MSS. of Vet. 
Int. have absolvant: so yz, and also o, though Susemihl gives its 
reading (with a query) as absolvat. 

1257 b 7. ilvai om. tf : see note on 1252 a 8. Here it can 
hardly be spared. 11. kqI »dfior] O' kqI A vd/uoi', but the breathing 
over «r has been struck through, and corr.^ has written something 
ending in -os (probably kqI cd/ios) in the inner margin, where the 
binding partly conceals the correction. See Susemihl's apparatus 
frz'/«iraj on this passage. 12. ouTe] So O' (with n): oiSf Bekk. Sus. : 
but cp. 6 (4). 6. 1293 a 8, Sore n'oWdxi; ov Koivavovrri t^s eKicXijo-ias 

oiiT€ (so n : oiSe Bekk. Sus.) roC Sixaffii/ : 6 (4). 13. 1297 b 7, iav fifi 

(so n'^ Bekk. : fiijre n'^ Sus.) v^pi^rj ns airoiis lifjTe dcpatpriTai p.riSev r^s 
oiaias. 15. aTToXfirai] Vet. Int. /en'/, cp. 1263 b 28, where he 

renders anpria-ovTai hy privaniur, and see below on 1262 a 2. 20. 
fj 8f KUTrrfKiKri, TroiTjrticij k.i-.\.] Vet. Int. cavipsoria autem facHva 
peamiarum, etc., which shews how he interpreted the passage 
and punctuated it. 21. aXV fi\ Vet. Int. sed, not sed aut, as in 

1305b 15, or nisi, as in 1272 a 11 and 1286a 37. 24. oJro9 

om. n^: compare, however, 2. 11. 1273 a 9, where tf om. oStoi, 
3. 17. 1288 a 29, where n^ om. tovtov, and 8 (6). 4. 1319 b 11, 
where tf omit toOto. It is of course possible that n'' are wrong 
in adding these words in the four passages, but the use of oSros 
in the passage before us at any rate, followed by the explanation 
6 arro rairris r^r xPW"'''"''^^; is characteristically Aristotelian (cp, 
.5 (8). 5- 1340 a 32-34: 6 (4). 9. 1294 b 23). See also 1258 b 8. 
We must bear in mind that n^ are prone to omit words. O^ has 
oSi-or. 33. 6pa rn, and so O^ : z has videmus, but the symbol for 
-mus is over an erasure ; y, however, has videre (the first two letters 
of this word in y project slightly into the margin and may have been 
tampered with), and though o has video, the last two letters are 
over an erasure, the original reading having apparently occupied 
less space than video, for the last letter of this word is in actual 

1257 a 3—1258 a 2. 73 

contact with the first letter of accidens, a perpendicular line being 
drawn to separate the two words. Possibly therefore the original 
reading of o was vide' (=videmns). 'Op5> is not perhaps impossible, 
for we find \iya, Pol. 3. 13. 1283 b i : 6 (4). 15. 1299 b 19 : tWw, 
Rhet. I. 10. 1369 b 23: e\aSov, Phys. 8. g. 257 b 22: not Som 
tnifiaiveiv. Meteor, i. 3. 339 b 23 (where, however, Blass — Rhein. 
Mus. 30. 500 — suspects that Aristotle is quoting from one of his 
own Dialogues) : 8t€iXo'/xi;i; M^ P^ ' ^ Qb Vb L^ Aid. {divistmus Vet. 
Int.: hifiKoneBa V^ Bekk.) in Pol. 6 (4). 3. 1290a 2, but perhaps 
Gottling and Sus. (following corr. P*) are right in reading SieiXo/tew 
in this passage, for in 1290 a 24 the MSS. and Vet. Int. agree in 
reading SteiXo/jiev. The emendation opajixv dates as far back as 
Sepulveda and Victorius, and indeed earlier, for it appears, as we 
have just seen, in one or tvro MSS. of Vet. Int. : Bekker adopts it 
in both his editions, as does also Susemihl, though he brackets the 
termination. 35. iira\\aTTei\ variatur z (not variaf) probably 

rightly, for variari, not variare, is the equivalent for litaKKaTT^w in 
the vetus versi'o {cp. 1255 a 13, I3i'7a2). 36. eKaTcpa] iKOTcpas 
' vetusta et emendatiora exemplaria ' mentioned by Sepulveda (see 
p, 19 of his translation); three MSS. also of the Vet. Int. (b g h) 
have ulrigue pecuniativae, and tKarepas is the reading translated by 
Leonardus Aretinus (variatur enim usus eiusdem exisiens utriusque 
acquisitionis, eiusdem enim est usus acquisitio, sednon secundum idem); 
but all known MSS. of the Politics have eRaripa, and most of the 
MSS. of the Vet. Int. have uterque (agreeing with usus). z has uterque, 
altered into utrique, not, I think, uirique altered into uterque. If we 
read ixaTepa, two uses of xpw""'"*^ ^^^ referred to, and this seems 
to suit better with eVaXXaiTft than rj xpi"''? ixaTepas Tfjt x/'W"''*''"*?^ '• if 
ixarepas, two kinds of xpw"<''"Ki3 are referred to, whose ' use ' (not 
' uses') 'overlaps' [inaWdrTei). Perhaps we rather expect to hear of 
two uses than of one use. Hence on the whole cKarepa seems 
preferable, but Uarepa might so easily take the place of iKarepas 
that the true reading is doubtful. 38. rrjs 8' fj aC^^o-ir] Vet. Int. 
adds Jim's after augmentatio, but probably without any equivalent in 
his Greek, as Sus. remarks (Sus.^ p. xxxiv). 

1258 a 2. z adds et before ipsius (answering to leat before toC e5 
^v). Sus.^: '■et post autem librariorum culpa excidisse quam a 
Guilelmo omissum esse verisimilius duco.' As to ipsius, it should 
be noted that, as Dittmeyer has shown (' Quae ratio inter vetustam 
Aristotelis Rhetoricorum translationem et Graecos codices inter- 
cedat,' p. 34), William of Moerbeke in his translation of the Rhetoric 
often renders the article by ipse — e.g. in Rhet. i. 6. 1362b 16, 


■where for rfbovrjs lau Tov (rjv we find deUdationis et ipsius vivere. 
7. oiJo-ijs'] z rightly omits non before exisknte : all the MSS. known 
to Sus. add it: y probably had non before existente originally, 
though iam occupies its place now over an erasure. 32-840. Pr. 
O^ has here — aWa ttjs larpiKrjs, ovra Kal irepl ^(ptjiianariiajs cart ficv &s 
TOV oIkovojiov tan 8' As oC, alO\.a rrjs KtpSovs vjitjpeTi.icTJs, but corr.' adds 
in the margpin yp, aWa roC larpov, ouru Koi nepl tSjv pfpijfwxTiBj/, and 

KepBovs is expunged by dots placed beneath. For the various 
readings offered by P* ° Q L^ in this passage, see Susemihl's 
apparatus criticus. See also above on 1253a 12. These MSS. 
perhaps follow some gloss or paraphrase. 

1258 b 1. /aeT-a/SXijTK^i] fiera/SoXiK^s M^ P', here alone, for in 
1257 a 9, 15, 28, 1258 b 21, 29 these MSS. (like n") have the form 
lifTa^rfTuefi, nor is the word used elsewhere by Aristotle apparently. 
We cannot tell from translaiiva whether Vet. Int. found pxra^oKiKr^s 
or fiera/SXijrK^s in his Greek text, for he translates r^r /lera^Xi/rue^s 
in 1258 b 21, 29 hy translattvae. 4. i^ orrcp ivoplaBr}] So rf (and 
O*) with Ar. {ei non ad quod inducius est) : i^ anep itiopurap^Ba tf 
(Vet. Int. super quo quidem acquisivimus). 7. tf add ek before 
vo/iia-naTos, which 11^ (and O') omit. 18. ttoiois] Vet. Int. quibtis, 
but he has quales for rtWj in 1264a 38. 27. t/»'toi/] Teraprov 
T Ms pr. PS apparently a mistaken attempt at emendation. 30. 
tS>v otto yijs yuiop.havj oyexa terra genitts, z ex altera genitis. 33. 
TTfpl «ao-Tou] Here, as Sus. has already noted, o alone among the 
MSS. of the Vet. Int. has preserved the true reading — de unoguogue. 
36. O' (with P* and some other MSS. which Bekker follows) adds 
TTis before tuxis: see below on 1270b 19. 40. Xapijrt'Sn] Xap);Ti 
(xapiTi Ms) hi, n Bekk. Many of the MSS. of the Vet. Int., how- 
ever, and z among them, have karitide. Ar. a carite (Bodl. 
charite) pario. 

1259 a 10, In the fourth century B.C. the forms ?Kam, e\das, 
iXaZv take the place of iXatai, etc., in Attic inscriptions (Meisterhans, 
Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, p. 14), but here all the 
MSS. seem to have i\aiS>v, as all have Ueipaia in 1303 b 11, though 
some have jrnpea in 1267 b 23. 13. Most of the MSS. have 
iKaiovpylav, though some spell or accentuate it wrongly: P' has 
ikatovpyeiau: P* has eXmoupymw, O' iKawvpy&v, and SO T apparently, 
for Vet. Int. has olivarum. cultoribus. 'EXatoupyem is the word used 
in the citation from Hieronymus Rhodius in Diog. Laert. i. 26, 
which may possibly be a reproduction of the passage before us, 
and Liddell and Scott adopt this form of the word (not cXoiovpytov). 
In 1295 b 17 P'' has h&aiKoKlois, P'* Aid. SiSao-fcaXtiW, n' (probably 

1258 a 7— 1260 a 3. 75 

wrongly) SibatrKoKois. 16. ^^ouXero] See above on 1253 b 33. 
28. eVeXa^fj'] O^ has iire\a^ev with a superscribed over e, apparently 
by the writer of the MS.: no other MS. gives this reading, which is no 
doubt wrong : see, however, Schneider ad loc. ToOrow] toCto (Bekk.) 
is found only in one MS. and that an inferior one. 6 Awvutrtos] i 
om. M^ P' : whether r omitted it also, it is of course impossible to 
say. In 1252 b 14 Ms pi give the o to Charondas, which here they 
deny to Dionysius. 31. to \ikvToi. Spafm eaXea Koi TovTo] Vet. Int. 
gteod vera visum futt Thali el huic (o quod vera iussumfuerit Thali et 
huic). Sus. suspects that the translator found rh jucVot opafia QaKri 
Kai TQvra in his text : more probably he found to pivToi SpafM eaXcai 
KOI TovTov (unless he misread toOto as tovtov). This is a possible 
reading, but all MSS. have tovto. See note in Sus.', who now 
reads eaXe© km tovto. "Opafia has been variously emended, but 
Mitchell (Indices Graecitatis in Orat. Att. 2. 581) gives it as oc- 
curring, apparently in a similar sense to that which it bears here, in 
[Demosth.] Prooem. 55. p. 1460, 26, Spaita tovto iiroiflro 6 Stj/ios 
avTov Kokov, S avSpes 'Aft/i/aioi, Kol \v<TiTe\es Trj w6\ei, and it SuitS well 
with KaTavo^pa 7 and Karavofia-avTa 10. 37. luprj om. P' ' *, etc. 

(also O^). It is not perhaps quite certain that n} are right in 
adding it. 39. Almost all MSS. of Vet. Int. (including oy) 

have praeest, but apx"" is undoubtedly right : z has praeesse, which 
appears to be found in only one of the MSS. known to Sus. (b). 

1259 b 16. TO v€i>T€pov\ z has iuvenius rightly: the other MSS. 
of Vet. Int. iuvenem. 28. oxeSow Se] The weight of manuscript 
authority is in favour of ^ in place of hi, for of the better MSS. 
only pr. P^ has fie : Vet. Int., however, has autem. Ae seems to be 
right, answering to piv oSv 21. 31. xai before oKoXaoroff om. tf. 
35. Seoi ap] o oporteret utigue, but oporiehtt uliqtie, the reading of the 
other MSS., is probably right (see above on 1253 b 17). 

1260 a 3. 8(a</)o/)ai] duKpopas T (Vet. Int. Am'us autem esse differ- 
entiae), and so probably pr. OS for the accent of bia^pit is over 
an erasure: yz have huius autem differentiae, omitting esse (in z, 
however, differentiae is over an erasure), ainrep koI Tav <j>vtret apxo- 
fi€vaiv\ Susemibl's text of the Vet. Int. here runs, quemadmodum 
et natura principantium et subiectorum, and he thinks that the 
Vet. Int. found apxovrav urn added in his Greek text between 
^uo-ci and apxopivav. But it would seem from the apparatus criticus 
to his text of the Vet. Int. (Sus.^ p. 53), that of the nine MSS. 
used by him (a b c g h k 1 m o), one (o) omits et natura prin- 
eipantittm, making the passage run quemudmodum et subiectorum, 
and seven (b c g h k 1 m) read quemadmodum natura et subiec- 


torum (so y), except that later hands add principantium after natura 
in b and the margin of 1. Thus the reading adopted by Susemihl 
was apparently found by him only in a. I have found it, however, in 
z, which gives the passage thus — huius autem (esse om. z) differentiae, 
quemadmodtm ei natura principantium et suhiectorum. Whether Vet. 
Int. found dpxovrav Kal in his Greek text is, however, quite another 
question. Ar. quemadmodum in Mis quae natura obediunt. Qp- has 
fflo-jrep'ral tSw 0u(r« apxotiivav, but corr.^ has inserted a caret after 
(pia-n and adds in the margin dpxovrav Kal (a dot, however, has 
been placed under each of these words to expunge it — by whom, it 
is impossible to say). It is conceivable that Vet. Int. found a similar 
correction in the margin of the Greek text used by him, and 
translated it. 4. tK^ijyijrai] vf^xiyArai H} (Vet. Int. exemplificatur : 
exemplificabitur a z). 15. Ar. is said by Sus.^ ^ to add Sc after 
vTroXrinTfov, but his translation runs in the New College MS. 
and in Bodl. — eodem modo se habere necesse est circa morales 
virtutes, putandum est omnes participes esse oportere sed non eodem 
modo, sed quantum cuique opus est. 20. co-tik] o z have est, in place 
of et, before moralis rightly (Susemihl reads et and does not mention 
that o has "«/). 21. iztaiTtav^ Ms P' have cmavraiv : we cannot tell 
from Vet. Int. omnium, which reading he found in his text. 22. 

^ero ScoitpaTijs] O^ coeVo) ScDKpari;c (P* wfro o S&iKpdn;;). 26. appr^l 

Vet. Int. has virtute {=: dperri, which is the reading of pr. M^). 
TO op6a7rpayeiv'\ I foUow P'' ' Sb T^ (z has est in place of aut after 
virtute, but over an erasure) in omitting ^ before to opSoTroayelv : see 
Vahlen, Poet. p. 136 and Beitr. zu Aristot. Poet. i. p. 52, where 
among other passages the following are referred to — Poet. 8. 
1451a 20, 'HpaKKrjiSa BrjarjiSa Kai ra Toiavra woirjiJuiTa : Rhet. 2. 12. 

1388 b 33, opyrjv emBvjxiav Koi to roiavra (in the passage before us 
we have ^ instead of Kcii). Cp. also 2. 3. 1262a 12, ^paropa (jtvXcrriv, 
where n om. f/ (see Vahlen, Poet. p. 216) : Eth. Nic. 10. 10. 
1180 b 34, olov ioTpoi -ypa^eis (M^ O^') : Eth. Nic. 8. 14. 1161 b 23, 
oSoiis (9pi| oTiovv Kb O^^ [Opi^ 6S0VS oTwiv IP Qb), where other MSS. 

have oSois fj 6p\^ fj onovv: Pol. 3. 4. 1277b 10, olov immpxeiv brtrap- 
Xldevra, arTpaTrjyclv trrpanjyrjBivra Kai ra^iapx^o'avra Koi \oxayr](TavTa 

(where no MS. has ral before o-T-panjyein, though Vet. Int. has et 
before his. equivalent for it): 6 (4). 4. 1291 b 23-25, where 8e is 
absent after iropBpucbv, though Vet. Int. has autem : 6 (4). 4. 1292 a 
I, where V M^ n" om. bk: 7 (5). 8. 1308 b 27, \(ym S' avriKfrnOai 
Toiis inietKHS t& ir\rjdei, rois dwopovs rots eimopots M^ P' (other MSS. 

add Kal before tovs aitopovs). 31. 6 nals] 6 om. M^ P^ : we have 

no means of knowing whether Vet. Int. found it in his text. 32. 

1260 a 4— 1260 b 40. 77 

Tov Te\etov Koi (in place of TO TfXos jcal) P* ' Ls Aid. Ar. [sed adperfectum 
ei dticem) Bekk. O' has t6v rfKeiov Koi, but in the margin, probably 
added by corr.', t6 tcXoj koi. See above on 1258 a 32 and 1253 a 
12. Here also perhaps these MSS. follow a gloss or paraphrase: 
Aristotle's language in i. 12. 1259b 3 may well have suggested 
it. 36. c\\ei<lrri\ O^ iWflyjfei (or rather eXXeii^M), and so too pr. P' : 
all other MSS. apparently have AXeii^j : Vet. Int. deficiat, which may 
possibly represent itXd-^r), but we cannot be sure of this, for after 
ianta ut he could use nothing but the subjunctive. Bekk.' eXXtii^j : 
Bekk." Sus. iKKtb^ei. 37. Spa] apa pr. O^, changed into 2/3a 

probably by a corrector, for the circumflex is in darker ink than 
that used in the MS. 

1260 b 17. O' adds ml before i-ois TralSos (with n"). 18. corr.' 
O' adds ilvai in darker ink after yvvaiKas : a m z add esse after 
mulieres. 19. ot Koivavm\ Vet. Int. has dispensatores : Sus. 

thinks he found oikovo/xoi in his text in place of 01 Koivavoi, and 
adopts this reading. All MSS., however, have oJ Kowavoi, and is it 
not, to say the least, possible that Vet. Int. here as elsewhere has 
misread the Greek ? 


1260 b 27. 'Eirei SeJ n' om. 6c, but omissions in n' are not 
infrequent, and fie, which hardly suits the present ending of Book I., 
may possibly be a survival from some earlier state of the text. 28. 
T-jy] ^ P" ' pr. P*, etc. (so O') : t& M^ P' and possibly r (Vet. Int. 
qtiae). Perhaps ^ is more likely to have been substituted for tIs 
here than tIs for §. Cp. Metaph. z. i. 1028 b 6, fito Km. fj/iiv koI 

lidKiara koi •npSiTov kcu fiovov as flirelv wept tov ovtws ovtos BeapqTcov tI 
iartv. 31. Kav tl ruies mpat i'Tvyx'*'""''"''!"] "o' «» M^ : about T we 

cannot be certain, though Vet. Int. has e/ si quae aliae existunt, for 
he occasionally fails to render av (see above on 1254 a 39). Nor 
does existunt in Vet. Int. enable us to pronounce with certainty 
that he found rvyxoxmaiv in his Greek text, for in 1270a 27 he 
renders kov diroddvy et si moritur. As to Tvyxdvaaui, see explanatory 
note. 36. tm^aXe'o-flat] So O' : eVi/SaXXto-Sai M^ P' : inserere (Vet. Int.) 
may represent either. 40. TroXirem n : z civilitas (with g h 1 o, 
y civilitas with dots under li) : most MSS. of Vet. Int. civitas (and 
so Ar.). The same contraction ' may stand for n-oXw, ttoXw, 
w6K€nos, jToKeiuos, TroKiTrjs, and even woXireia, though the last word is 
most often expressed by another contraction ' (Gardthausen, Gr. 


Palaographie, pp. 246, 256). This perhaps explains the oc- 
casional interchange of n-oXiTeia, iroKirris, and wdXis : thus ■noKireias 
takes the place of iroXeas in tf 1294 b 39, TroKimmv of ■noKnav in P* 

etc. 1292 a 9, and rrokiTSiv of jroXtreifiK in r Tb 1265 b 34, while in 
1318 a 9 tf have irdXet, n'' jroXtTtia. See Susemihl's apparatus 
criticus in 1326 b 5, 1333 an also. I retain ■noKireia here, though 
not without hesitation. See explanatory note. Sus.^ * ■hSkk, Sus.' 
iroKiTcia. 41. Here Vet. Int. alone has preserved the true reading 
els o Trjs (unus qui uniits) : lo-oTrjs n (Ar. paritas). Only a fraction, 
however, of the MSS. of Vet. Int. give this reading. Of those used 
by Sus. only one (g) has unus as its original reading (in four, 
a b k 1, a later hand has substituted unus') : nullus pr. a b, alius c h 
and pr. k 1, illius m. Qui again is quod in c g h m and pr. k 1. 
Hence it is important to note that z has unus qui unius as its 
original and only reading. The reading of o is alitis quod unius : 
in y eius quid unius has been first written, but eius has been erased 
by dots placed beneath it and unus written above, apparently in 
the same ink and handwriting as the MS. 

1261 a 2. Vet. Int. fails to render iramtov, but see above, p. Ixiii, 
note 1 2, for other cases in which he omits words or phrases. 6. iv 
Tji iroKiTc'uj. rfi n\aTa>vos\ So O^, but rrj after irdKiTcla is added above 
the line with a caret — whether by the writer of the MS., is uncertain. 
Vet. Int. in politia Platonis. P'" * have the reading adopted in the 
text. 11. hi fjv alrlavj z perhaps rightly has causa, not causam. 
15. MS apuTTov tv on fioKuna jiaaav] So II' : the Order is different in 
n^ (and O'), which read naa-av i>s Spia-rov Sn fiaXiora in place of as 

apia-Tov tv oTt fioXiora iraa-av : the latter Order, however, though more 
rugged, is perhaps more Aristotelian. These MSS. also, as will 
be noticed, omit tv, probably because Spurrov precedes it, just as 
M^ P^ omit &v after hovKov in 1252 b 9. 18. ia-Tiv fj n-oXir] eo-TiTrdXis 

M^ P^ : whether Vet. Int. found the article in his text, we cannot say. 
All MSS., however, have 17 n-dXtr in 23. 27. itknia-Jii] eKKva-ei 
P^ : Vet Int. quemadmodum u/ique si pondus amplius trafiet, but 
it is not by any means certain that trahet represents eXinJo-et. 
It may represent iKKvacie or eKKva-ai (cp. 1253b i6, where Kh> 
cl Tt Swatfieda is rendered in Vet. Int. by ei utique si quid 
poierimus): on the other hand, in 1263 b 34 So-jrep kuv 4 ns 
TTotijcreuv is rendered quemadmodum utique si quis faciat. With the 
exception of P^ and the possible exception of r, all the MSS. here 
read eX/euoTj, and I have retained it, marking it however as strange, 
for we look rather for the optative. There is some harshness about 
eXftuaei. Ar. ceu SI pondus magis attrahat. 30. yfvfa6ai\ O^ 

1260 b 41— 1262 a 3. 79 

yivetr6ai (Sus.', in note, yLvetrOai}). 35. /ieTe^aXXov] jttere|3a\oi> M* 

pi : qtiemadmodum utique si iransmuiarentur (Vet. Int.) leaves the 
reading of r uncertain. 

1261 b 2 SQ. Here n^ read : Iv tovtois 8e /juixelo-dai to cV fiepet Toiis 

la-avs eiKciv (so O^ ; oiWIi/ two or three MSS.) ofioiovs (so P'' * : o/ioiW 

n' C* Bekk., also O^) toU e| tipjci'- M' P^ : toSto 8e jut/^cirai TO eV 
Itipu Tous '(TOWS euecii' to 8' is o/xoious ewat «^ apx?'- Vet. Int. Aof auiem 
imitatur scilicet in parte aequales cedere hoc (toS* r) tanquam similes 
sint a principio: scilicet here probably represents tA, as in 1261 b 
16, 1274 a 16, b 12, and it is also probable, though not absolutely 
certain, that tanquam similes sint stands for its ofutiovs etvai. Ar. et 
in eo imitari vicissim equales cedendo invicem alios aliis. See ex- 
planatory note. 4. Kara /lepor om. n^, but these MSS. are some- 
what prone to omit. 5. koi om. n'' Bekk. So 0\ which adds 
tS>v before apxovrtav with P*. Ar. eodem modo illorum qui regunt 
alii alios gerunt (so New Coll. MS.: regunt Bodl.) magistratus. 7. 
ov for oSre n^ ; oifre followed by icai occurs, though rarely, in 
Aristotle— e. g. in De Part. An. 4. 14. 697 b 16 oSre is followed 
by Koi ou. Cp. also Pol. 5 (8). 5. 1339 a 18 sq. n', it must be 
remembered, are prone to omit, and in 1264 a i they have ft^ for 
jai/8e, just as in 1265 a 18 Ms P' have m for /iijfiev and in 1268 b 16 
r Ms pr. P^ have oS for ovhev. 19. o om. M^ P^ (about r we cannot 
be certain), but wrongly. ' In addition to this passage Socrates is 
referred to in the Second Book as one of the interlocutors in the 
"Republic" of Plato 13 times (1261 a 6, 12, 16 : b 21 : 1262 b 
6, 9 : 1263 b 30: 1264 a 12, 29 : by, 24, 37 : 1265 a 11), and in 
not one of these passages is the article absent ; its authenticity in 
1261b 19 is thus placed beyond doubt, especially as the reason 
why it is added is not far to seek ; the reference, in fact, is not to 
the historical Socrates, but to Socrates as one of the dramatis 
personae of the dialogue' (Dittenberger, Gott. gel. Anz. Oct. 28, 
1874, p. 1359). It is, however, true that all MSS. omit the article 
in 5 (8). 7. 1342 b 23, where the Platonic Socrates is apparently 
referred to. 25. tois om. M^ P^ : about r we cannot be certain. 
35. jrpos . . . Toir aWow] Vet. Int. apud alios {jrplis misread irapa ?). 

1262 a 2. Xeyei] Vet. Int. dicet (and Ar., following as he often 
does in his wake, dicent), but in 1281a 19 he has corrumpet for 
(pOfipei, and in 1257b 15 peril for dTtoKehai, in 1263 b 28 privantur 
for tmpria-ovTiu. It is very doubtful whether these variations of 
tense in Vet. Int. represent variations in r (see above, p. Ixiii, notes 
10 and 11). 3. t6i/ api6ii6v] After t6» apiBjMv U^ add &v 

(Bekker and St. Hilaire, but not Sus., also find av in pr. P^): 


perhaps, however, it may well be dispensed with in the passage 
before us (compare such phrases as ottoIoi twis ervxav 3. 15. 1286 b 
24, and see Bon. Ind. 778 b 4 sqq.). '"Qv additum ab aliquo qui 
Phrynichi praecepta sectabatur: sedvide Lobeck. ad Phryn. p. 277, 
ad Soph. Aj. 9' (Gottl. p. 311). tov Sehos] Vet. Int. Am'us filius, 
possibly misreading tov Selvos as rovde vlos. 12. mpovj See ex- 

planatory note. As to (ftpdropa, see Liddell and Scott s. v. : the form 
used in Attic Inscriptions is (fipdrrip, not (ppdrmp (Meisterhans, Gram- 
matik der attischen Inschriften, p. 63). Vet. Int. has aut before 
con/riiukm, hut see above on 1260a 26. 20. yevopevaj O^ yivofxeva. 
21. rai yvvatKesj et (not etiam) femelloe o z. 27. tovs 8e ckouo-ioui] 
om. P'', probably owing to homceoteleuton, and o omits haec autem 
voluntaria, probably from the same cause. 28. yivecrdai is altered 

to yevia-dai in O^ (by whom, I cannot say). 29. &crnep vpos rovs 

anoSfv] Most of the MSS. of Vet. Int. have quemadmodum et eos qui 
longe, but a z substitute et ad for et. For the addition of et by Vet. 
Int., see above on 1 2 52 a 25. aTroflei/Ms P'^L^Ald.: cp. 1280b 9, airo- 
flfvMsP"* QbTbAld.jand 1280b 18, STroflevn (the Vatican Palimp- 
sest has oTrmde in 9 and anodfv in 18). "Airodev seems to be the 
reading commonly found in the MSS. of Aristotle, but aTvaBev 
is the Attic, or at least the old Attic, form (Rutherford, New 
Phrynichus, p. 60 : Liddell and Scott, s. v. mraBev). 30. aKKa\ 
a r Ms pr. pi- 

1262 ta 7. Tc om M^ P^ : Vet. Int. quidem, which probably 
represents yt. Ar. has enim only, but may well have found re yap 
in his Greek text. 8. rais jrdXeo-ic] z adds in before civitatibus 
(in 1261 b 8 we have piyiarov ayaOhv iv rais n6\e(rtv). 13. a-vp,- 

(pvrjvai] avp^vvai P^ ' etc. Bekk. (also O'), but avp(f>vijvat M^ P^ 

[<rvp(f)vrjai pr. P*, (rvptpvvrjai corr. P*) may not impossibly be what 
Aristotle wrote (though Plato in the passage referred to, Symp. 
191 A, has of course a-up(pvvai,), for in Eth. Nic. 7. 5. 1147 a 22 
Kb has avptpvijvat. Peculiar verbal forms are occasionally used by 
Aristotle; we have, for instance, irpoaSoTreiroiripepovs in 1270a 4, 
nuurSat in Rhet. I. II. 1370 b 18. 21. vi5»] So 0\ though P* 
(with tf) has moO : ki.vel patrem ut filii. 32. Tois (^uXaitas] om. 
Ms pi (so Sus." ' : Pi only according to Sus.'). Vet. Int. places his 
equivalent for these words {cusiodes) after hoBivrcs: custodes may 
of course represent either roir <l>i\aRas or 01 (f>i\aKes, but it is hardly 
likely that Vet. Int. found the latter reading in his text. 33. In 
reading ^uXa|i I follow tf: <^i;Xa|o/ «r tf Bekk. (and O'). Almost all 
the MSS. of Vet. Int., however, have for ml naXiv ol irapa rois (jivKa^i 
Toiis SSXovs TToXtVar el rursum qui apud alios cives : Sus. follows a 

1262 a 12—1263 b 18. Bl 

which adds custodes after apud, probably rightly (so too z). An 
translates 31 sqq., ov yap en k.t.X., nam non amplius appellant custodes 
fratres etfiUos et patres et maires qui (here the New College MS., 
but not Bodl., adds aV) aliis civihus dedunlur et rursus qui ex cus- 
iodibus aliis civibus. 40. x""?'* k.t.X.] seorsum ex legum statuto 
o, but the last letter of statuto is over an erasure. 

1263 a 2. n-So-t] Vet. Int. omnes : M^ i!aa&v. This variation, 
like that in 1266 a 4, was probably occasioned by an ambiguous 
contraction. 12. n* add dXX' aviaw) after 'urav, and these au- 
thorities may possibly be right, for cases of ' abundantia contraria 
copulandi ' are not rare in Aristotle (Vahlen, Aristot. Poet. p. 88), 
and dXX' aviawv might easily drop out after laav through homoeote- 
leuton, but perhaps it is more likely that dXX' ivia-av is a marginal 
remark which has crept into the text : see above on iz55b 12 and 
cp. 1268 a 37, where r Ms add kepov ehm after -/SoiXeTai 8' 6 

vo)w6en]s. 13. Ttpbs tovs d7roXat5oiTas liiv [^ Xa^/Sdroi/rasj TroXXaJ 

Vet. Int. ad fruentes quidem, si {d for rj) accipientes quidem multa: 
Xanfidvovras or "Kap^dvovras pev may possibly be an alternative read- 
ing which has crept from the margin into the text, together with 
the 5 introducing the suggestion (see Vahlen on tj vol, Poet. 4. 
1449 a 7). 23. KOI before orneoo-^ijfleV om. n'. ^flfo-i] So O^ (with 
n^), rightly in all probability (see explanatory note): efleo-t rf. 29. 
£KUOT^ Trpoa-eSpciovres T M^ Sus. 34. XP^''"' k<'""''s] Vet. Int. utitur 
tanquam communibus. 36. Khi htrfiaaiv k.t.X.] Vet. Int. si in- 

digeant pro viaticis in agris per regionem (a z itch per regionemz 
the other MSS. peregrinationem, except y which has peregritia- 
tionum). As to the addition of pro, see above on 1253 a 10 
and below on 1263 b 41. Vet. Int. appears to read av instead 
of «:&/, but then he often omits to render koi. 

1263 b 4. K(u rhv\ ' koi to P' Ar.' (Sus.)^-very possibly only a 
conjectural emendation, like some other readings peculiar to P' Ar. 
(see Sus.', p. xiv). The rendering in Ar. is quemadmodum et amatio 
pecuniarum, which probably represents KaOdirep koI t6 ^iKoxpriparov, 
.or possibly t6 (j)iKoxp^paTov tlvai, for rb <j)l\avTov thai is rendered a 
line or two above by amatio sui. 6. t^i Krriaeas . . . oSo-ijr] a 
z omit ?■» before /owifwzi)«« perhaps rightly. 7. ou om. n'. 9. 
and 11. TO om. M^ P' : Vet. Int. temperantiae quidem circa mulieres 
(so in n liber alitatis autem circa possessiones), but we cannot tell 
from this what he found in his text, for he sometimes renders the 
article and sometimes does not. 18. aXXms t* koi mav] z aliterque 
•et cum, answering to the Greek .more closely than, the reading of 
Susemihl's MSS. .aliterque cum (cp. 1269 b 24, where aliterque et si 



stands for aX\<or t€ kAk). 21. ^euSo^oprupiSw] So all MSS. her^ 
though in 1274b 6 all have ^evSoiiopTvpav : even here, however, 
two MSS. of Vet. Int. (a z) have falsorum testium, not fahorum 
testimoniorum. 28. arfp^a-ovrai] Vet. Int. privantur : see above on 
1262 a 2. 32. wdi/rmr] M^ pr. P^ Triwtij : Vet. Int. omnino, which 
represents TrdvTias in 1257b 21, iravrtjin i302a3. 34. x"P»""''"^"] 
Vet. Int. adds erii before deterior civitas, and it is perhaps on his 
authority that Vict, and Bekker read tarai x"P<bj; iroXw, but tarai is 
omitted in all the MSS., and, as we have seen (above, p. Ixii, note 2), 
Vet. Int. occasionally adds the auxiliary verb without support from 
MSS. Aristotle is sparing in its use. 41. to« o-uo-o-trtW] Vet. 
Int. pro conviviis : see above on 1253a 10 and 1263 a 36. 

1264 a 1. H7)8e] /i^n^: but see above on 1 261 b 7. 8. Suse- 
mihl has apparently adopted the form (ftarpia throughout his third 
edition, and it is true that in 1300 a 25 and 1309 a 12 all the MSS. 
examined by him, and in the passage before us nearly all of them, 
and in 1280 b 37 the best MSS., have this form. So again, in 
1319b 24 all the better MSS. except P' have <j>aTpiai. See however 
Liddell and Scott s. v. 9. Vet. Int. adds ei after his equivalent 
for fitrre, but, as Busse points out (p. 29 sq.), he does this in 6 (4). 
4. 1292 a 17 also, in both cases probably without warrant. 15. 
Koi before Ka6' cKairrov is not rendered either by Vet. Int. or by 
Ar., who translates — vel proprias singulorum. 21. i<^ims\ Vet. 
Int. dimitientes, which may perhaps stand for d(j>fVTes, the reading 
of some of the less good MSS. dn-eip^Kao-i] d(l>t}priKaa-i Ms P' : Vet. 
Int. negant, which perhaps represents djropijKao-t, for casanAv in 
1272b 5 is abnegare, and the Vet. Int. occasionally renders the per- 
fect by the present — e.g. in 1273 ^ ^7> ^268 b 38, 1272 b 32, 
1266 a 37. If this is so, d(j>rjpriKaa-i has only the authority of 
Ms P' in its favour. Perhaps also uTreipriKaa-i corresponds better 
to icjiivres. 26. n-otei] Vet. Int. faciutU. 38. TtW] Vet, Int^ 
qucdes, just as in 1258 b 16 he has quibus for Troi'otr. 39. n-otour 
Tij/as] TTOiouE nvas O' (so M^ P^ apparently) : Sus.' jrowur nvas. 

1264 b 7. dfi rr, not aifl: so too in 1254 a 25 and 1264 b 13, 
but atft in 1296a 24, 1299 a I, 1333 a 21 etc. See Bon. Ind. 
II a 47 sqq. 'The form d« prevails in Attic inscriptions from 
361 B.C. onwards' {Meisterhans, Grammatik der attischen In- 
schriften, pp. 14, 64). 9. ^ovdev S^] ^ jrovSeu dfi 0\ See ex- 
planatory note. 13. evBiis] So 0\ with M^ pr. P^ : about r we 
cannot be certain: the rest eidi. 'Eidis is properly used of Time, 
fiev of Place' (Liddell and Scott). 14. fiiiai] So O^: ' fu^ai M^ 
pi n' Bekk., at v. Classen ad Thuc. 2. 84. 5 ' Sus.^ Classen's note 

1263 b 21—1265 a 35. 83 

will be found among his critical notes, Bd. 2, p. 192. 19. r&v 
avTZv] All Susemihl's MSS. of Vet. Int. have eorum, not eorundem : 
z, however, has eorundem {rS>v airSai u). 26. tA is added in n* 
before icepl (Vet. Int here translates the article~^«a« circa 
leges). 3L t^v ra^ui] z (with a and pr. k) has ordinem rightly, 
yap] hi II'. 40. tov \6yov is not rendered by Vet. Int., but this 
may well be an oversight, similar to those pointed out above, p. Ixiii, 
note 12. Ar. also gives no equivalent for it — cetera vera extraneis 
peregit sermonibus. See note in Sus.'. 

1265 a 4. €is] So Mb P': jrpii O* (with n") : Vet. Int. ad, 
which may represent «i as in 1265 a 41, b 3, 1270 a 18, but 
may also represent n-pAr, as in 1254b 13, etc. Perhaps Trpos 
is more -likely to have been substituted for th than «s for 
jrpAr. 12. tA is omitted before fi/njoKOK in M^ P' : whether it 
was omitted in r also, we cannot tell. 14. Vet. Int. translates 
as if he found the words arranged in the following order — x^P"-^ 

Ba^vXiovias rj Tims SK^rjs direpdvrov Se^irei rols TotToirois t6 irX^dor, 

but his intention probably is to make it clear that he (wrongly) 
takes TO jrX^dos with rols too-ovtois : see Busse, p. 14 n. He might 
have remembered x^P"' wX^floi, 4 (7). 8. 1328 a 28. 16. mpC] 
Vet. Int. almost alone seems to have found wapa in his text, for he 
has praeier. For irepl with the ace. in the sense in which it is used 
here, cp. 7 (g). 11. 1314 b 25. 21-22. For the glosses which 
deform the text of tf here, see Susemihl's apparatus criticus. 24. 
Almost all the MSS. of Vet. Int. fail to render itai before itpbs: 
a z alone have et ad. 29. Suipta-m, to o-ocIms /iSKKovj Vet. Int. 
determinetur plane magis, but, as has been pointed out elsewhere, he 
occasionally substitutes the passive for the active. 30. &inrep ta 
« T« eHreK] Sus. is apparently in error when he says that tf omit A. 
Vet. Int. has quetnadnwdum si quts dicat. What he omits is hi, but 
this he is rather apt to omit (see above on 1254 a 39). He did not 
probably find emciev in his text, but eltctv, for non utique lateat (1264 a 
3) stands for <Ak hv tXaSev. 33-34. See Susemihl's apparatus 
criticus for the various readings here, tf are not quite unanimous 
in favour of t^ piv to and tib 8e to, nor indeed are n^ in favour of 
the reading adopted in the text, for P* etc. (and O') have to hi tA 
in 34 in place of tA 8e t^, but r n agree in reading iKairepov : hence 
it seems probable that the reading in the text is the correct one, as 
otherwise iKorepov has to be altered without MS. authority to iKoripif. 
T^ imirdvas] Vet. Int. adds viziere after laboriose, but it is very doubt- 
ful whether he found an equivalent for it in his Greek text. 35. 
e|€w aiyjerat] £|«r iperax n (At. viriutes habitus) : Vet. Int. quoniam 

G 2 


soli hi habitus sunt virtutes circa hahitudinem {citv — so n}) substan- 
tiae. Probably Victorius' conjecture is right and apeTa\ should be 

aiperai : cp. 1285 a l6, where Ms Aid. have aperal for alperai. 40. 

o/iaXur^ijo-o^ewji/J Vet. Int. respondentem. 'OpdKi^etv is usually repre- 
sented by regular e in Vet. Int. (e.g. in 1266b 3, 16, 1274b 9). 

1265 b 3. a.T!opii\ Vet. Int. dubitai (probably only a mistrans- 
lation, in which, however, he is followed by Ar.). 4. irapdfuyar] 
irepiCvyas M^ pi and according to Sus. r also, but almost all his 
MSS. of Vet. Int. have deiectos (so o y), and we cannot be certain 
what Greek word this represents : a z have iugarios (z in marg. 
aliter deiectos^, and this again is hardly a correct rendering either 
of neplCvyas or jrapdfuyas. Ar. has dispares. 13. twk dpxaiord- 
rav] Vet. Int. antiquorum, but degrees of comparison are often 
inexactly rendered by Vet. Int. (see below on 1270 b i, 1271 b 6, 
21, 1272 a 8). 19. on-o)j] jrSr M^ P^ : Vet. Int. quomodo, which 
may represent either ttSs or onas. 20. All Susemihl's MSS. of 
the Vet. Int. but one (1) have sit for ylverai (so o y) : z fit. 21. 
8cii/] om. pr. O', but it is added above the line with a caret, in 
darker ink than the MS. but probably by the writer of it. 25. 
<Tvp<l>epti\ For the various readings see Susemihl's apparatus cri- 
ticus. Vet. Int. expediat: O^, with some of the less good MSS., 
<Tvii(f)epri. See explanatory note. Ar. has videndum est . . . ne non 
prosit. 30. jroXjTeiav] TroXerctmi' tf , possibly righdy. 35. Sus." 
' tS>v om. n' ' : n^, however, would seem to be a misprint for P^ 
(see Sus.^ "). 39. i^opmi] Vet. Int. plebeiorum. In the next 
line he has ephoros for etjjdpms. Dittmeyer {pp. cit. p. 36) observes 
of William of Moerbeke's translation of the Rhetoric — ' hie quoque 
universus interpretis usus respiciendus est : ut verbum Graecum 
saepe non mutatimi versioni inserit, ita idem verbum hie iUic 
sive apto sive inepto vocabulo Latino interpretari conatur.' 

1266 a 3. x^P'O'™* naaav] Vet. Int. pessimas omnibus. See above 
on 1263 a 2. 5. ?jr«ra] So O^ (with Mspi). 18. On toO 
TCTapTov tSiv rerdpToiv, see explanatory note. Here probably two 
alternative readings have both been admitted into the text, askin 
some MSS. in 1266a 37, 1273a 35, 1254a 10. In 0\ after « 

bk rov TerapTov rav TerdpTrnv, the WOrds « Se tov TerdpTOv rav Tirrdpav 

are added, but they are crossed through and dots placed beneath 
them, probably by the writer of the MS. 23. (ruwordi/at] So 

O^ : (Tvve(TTdvai tf (Vet. Int. constare), and also pr. P'- 

1266 b 1. ras 8' r\h\\ Vet. Int. eas aulem quae iam habitabantur 
(8' ^8ij r ?, which Schneider adopts, rightly followed by Bekker and 
Susemihl), ' ^ P^ ^^ hi M^ Ar.' (Sus.), but it is not perhaps very clear 

1265 a 40— 1267 a 40. 85 

■what Ar. found in his text, for his translation is — poslquam vero 
conditaforet, difficilius quidem. O^ originally had tols 8ij, but 81) has 
been altered into 8e — by whom, is uncertain. 3. tas om. M^ P' : 
as to r we cannot be certain. 11. Vet. Int. multiiudinem for t6 

licyedos. 18. dn-dtriji'] dn-doTi)!' P^' and some of the less good 
MSS. (so O'): 5crr,» Ms Pi Sus. : Vet. Int. quaniamcunque, -which 
leaves it uncertain whether he found oiroa-rjv or ootjk in his text : 
dTrdoTjx Aid. Bekk. 26. S^Xow odv] All the MSS. of Vet. Int. used 
by Sus. except a have palam igitur, quod non sufficiens substantias 
aequales facere erit legislator (so. o y) : a z, however, have legis- 
latori. 28. Ta^euv\ rafet M^ P^: Vet. Int. ordinaverit, which 
probably stands for rd^fiev, for in 3. 4. 1277 b 22 el ovras avSpelos 
("u} is rendered by the Vet. Int. si sic fortis fuerit, and ini.2. 1252a 
24 €1 Tw /3Xe^»ei< is rendered jz" ^kzj viderit. 31. emeiev is pro- 

bably the true reading here, as in 1270 b 38, 1272 a 35, 1339 a 14. 
See Susemihl's apparatus criticus on these four passages and Bon. 
Ind. 222 a 4 sqq. 

1267 a 5. StCKa. icai] a z sed etiam (n sed et) : the rest wrongly 
sed. 8. aXXa KOI fiv eVifltifioIci'] Vet. Int. W(/ et si desiderent, 

probably a mistranslation of these words. So Ar.- verum etiam si 
concupiscant ut molestia careant et voluptate fruantur . See explana- 
tory note on 1267 a 5. 11. ^ov\oano\ Vet. Int. possint (pivaivro 
M"). 17. jSouXerai KaTatTKcvdCeiv] Vet. Int. qpus est constitui, 
where constitui may well stand for Km-aa-KcvdCfiv, but it is less easy 
to account for opus est. 24. &p] Vet. Int. quam, referring to 
multitudinem (TrKtjdos). 25. emdviifia-ovtriv] See Susemihl's ap- 
paratus criticus for the reading of M^ P^ ; it finds support in two 
MSS. of Vet. Int. only (c y), which read concupiscunt: most have 
concupiscant, one or two concupiscent (so z), either of which, however, 
may stand for im6viirifrov<nv — cp. 1268 a 41, where 6ria-n is rendered 
by ponat, and see below on 1267 b 35. a/itJwu'] Vet. Int. sufferre 
(=v7TeveyK€ivl). 28. oTi'TU Ar. Bekk.' (so Sus."); but Ar. has 
oportet autem neque id latere quantas facultates habere conducat. Stahr 
o n : Sus.' [o] tL 29. to iifj Xvo-tTeXeiv] Vet. Int. ut non pro levi 
habeat (so z and most MSS. of Vet. Int. : o ut nonprae levi habeat: 
Sus., however, reads, with g (so also y), ut non prolem habeat) : in 
1 2 79 b 9, on the other hand, to Xuo-iTeXoCi/ is rendered id quod expedit. 
Should ut non pretium habeat he read (cp. 1258b 1 6, where Xi/o-ireXf- 
mara is pretiosissima) ? 34. cBeKeiv] Vet. Int. debere [=fi€\Keiv 01 
d(/)«'\«i'?, cp. 1253b 26, 1268b 12). 35. rai/Ta] z has haec{hec): 
Susemihl finds hoc in his MSS. 40. &v om. n', probably wrongly, 
just as they are probably wrong in adding &v in 8 (6). 8. 1322 a 33 

86 CRITICAL notes: 

(cp. 3. 13. 1283b 15, where n om. hv, and see Bon. Ind. 41b 
6 sqq.). 

1267 to 1. SffXijtrroj'] Vet. Int, irreplehilis. Sus.^ ' nonne irreple- 
bilel,' and it is true that in 12^^ a 37 we find 17 8e BiKaioarvvri irdKin- 
Kov translated by the Vet. Int. iusUHa autem civile ; but see Dittmeyer, 
op. cit. p. 34, who shows that the practice of William of Moerbeke 
in his translation of the Rhetoric is to make the predicate agree 
in gender with the subject — thus in Rhet. i. 3. 1359 a 5 rourm 8e 6 
fieV TotoSroj KoiKkwu is rendered huic autem talis mors pul- 
chrior. 14. Karaa-Keva^av] constituens o, perhaps rightly: the 
other MSS. construens. 23. Heipaia] neipea 0\ 26. Kofirji (in 
place of K({(r/xtt) no\vTc\ei) Tl\ Ar. ornatu sumptuoso. ' Quibusdam 
exemplaribus ' (i. e. probably MSS., not printed editions : see 
above on 1257 b 36) 'illud m Si, quod in ceteris habetur, abest, 
ut prolixitas ad capillos, sumptus ad vestem duntaxat referatur' 
(Sepulveda, p. 51). "En 8e is, in fact, omitted in T^. 33. AH 
the better MSS. and some of the inferior ones have here t6 SiiKa 
eX"" (so O') : only one MS., and that of little authority, has to in 
place of TO as its original reading. The phrase commonly is oi ra 
oTrXa fx""'''^^! KiKTrffievoi (see e.g. 1268 a 18, 22 : 1297 b 2 : 1268 a 
30, 25), though not quite invariably (see 4 (7). 10. 1329 b 36 : 6 (4). 
13. 1297 a 29), and here the ro seems better away. See explanatory 
note. 35. TToiijo-oucrt] Most of the MSS. of Vet. Int. \a.\e/aciant, 
and in 36. for /Siaxroi/rat vivant, but this does not imply that the 
translator did not find the future in his Greek text: see above 
oni267a25. 37. tXhrf mi. tS>u vonavj Vet. Int. et species legum : 
Busse (p. 27) notes a similar change of order in the version given 
by Vet. Int. of 4 (7). 3. 1325 b 22. 

1268 a 3. itaTaStKafot] See Susemihl's apparatus criticus here and 
in the next line. The MSS. which have (earaSwaiee seem mostly to 
have anokvoi in 4. O^ has KaraSiKafot and anoKuQi, the last two 
letters of imoKv6i. being however expunged and ot superscribed, 
probably by the writer of the MS. All the MSS. of Vet. Int. 
known to Sus. have condemnetur for KUTaSutafot (so o y) : z, how- 
ever, has condempnet — rightly in all probability, for absolvat, not 
absolvatur, follows in all the MSS. Ar. si condempnaret . . . sin 
absolmret. There seems to be little doubt that KaraSixa^oc and 
diroXvot are correct (see Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, § 77), -npi 
hixi)v om. tf, possibly rightly, for the words may be only a gloss, 
but n^ are somewhat given to omitting words. Ar. si condempnaret 
simpliciter sententiam. 12. fuperovs ilvai\ Vet. Int. eligi. 17. 01 
before yrapyoi om. M^ P^ and possibly of course r (Vet. Int. 

1267 b 1—1269 a 19. 87 

agricolae). 25. tf add koI before Kpeirrovs. 26. M^ P^ om. 
ye : about r we cannot be certain, for Vet. Int. often fails to render 
yf. 34. yeapyri<rov(nv] Bekker's reading yeapyovam rests only on 

the authority of Ar., who has colunt. 39. aS] n' o^v, O^ oiv with 
ai superscribed, whether by corr.' or by the writer of the MS., is 
not certain, but very possibly by the latter, for the ink is quite that 
of the MS., and oSw is neither expunged by dots placed beneath 
nor crossed through. Ovv, though probably not the true reading 
here, is used in a similar way in Magn. Mor. 2. 9. 1207 b 31 and, 
2. II. 1208 b 37, and even in writings of Aristotle (see Bon. Ind. 
540 b 32 sqq.). 

1268 b 1. yeapyr)(T(i hvo oiKi'as] Vet. Int. ministrahit duas domos:. 
hence some have thought that he found {movpyfia-ei Sio oiKtas in his 
Greek text, but ministrare in Vet. Int. answers to huaKovAv (cp. 1 280 b 
5> 1333 ^ 8). He may here render a marginal gloss. Aian-ocijo-fi' 
would be better than huiK.oin\aei, but see explanatory note. 5. 
See explanatory note, huupavvra?^ ' etc. (so O^) seems better than hua- 
povvras u} (cp. t6v SiKaa-Trjv 6). On fiiio)s, see explanatory note. 9. 
aK\a Koi ToiniavTiov tovto] Vet. Int. sed contrarium huius : hence it is 
probable, though not certain, that V omitted Km, with M^ and read 
rairao with Ms P^ 12. d /*«"] v^v 6 M^ P' : about T we cannot 
be certain, for some MSS. of Vet. Int. have quidem index (so z), and 
others (so o y) index quidem. See explanatory note. 13. KpwA 
(Bekk." Sus.) is probably right (cp. i6 KaTaSucaa-ova-iv), though r n 
have Kpivet (so O'). 15. 8^] O^ has Se with 8^ superscribed, 
probably, but not certainly, by the writer of the MS. See ex- 
planatory note. 19. Ar. does not render Sixalas (si simpliciter 
petatur). 21. For the omission of ffh) here by n^, cp. 1288 a 6 
and 1336 b 36, where they omit it also. Ar. does not render it. 
32. \lik(kl\ piKpov n\ 35. \aTpuai\ c o medicinalis rightly : the 
rest medicinali (for the reading of z, however, see Appendix C, 
112. 3). 40. ea-tSripotjyopovPTo re yap^ Vet. \x\t. _ferrum eniw. 
portdbant tunc Graeci (ea-iSr]po^6povv t<Jtc yap?). 

1269 a 11. ■ypa<^^rat] ypatpuv tf, possibly rightly. 12. <^ave- 
pAv] Vet. Int. videtur. 16. Kai tS>u vojiodermv Ka\ tS>v apxovrav^ Vet. 
Int. et legislatorihus et principihus (apparently after sinendum). Busse 
(p. 27 note) compares voluntaii for vpoaipea-eas in 1271 a 32. 18. 
Tis is added in M^ P^ before Kanjo-as: Vet. Int. qui rnutaverit 
(perhaps = d wi'^o-as: see however his version of 1340b 24): Ar. 
qui corrigere perget (d Kivrjo-as ?). See explanatory note. 19. 
yjfevSos 8« K.T,\.'j Vet. Int. mendax quoque exemphim quod ah artibus 
(ab probably stands for itapa) : ■^et)8oy, here mendax, is falsum in 


1287 a 33. 21. TrX^y, which is written in P^' over itofa, is pro- 
bably intended as an alternative reading for wapa : see 1274 b 9, 
where ^aXcou is written above (pAoXdov in P^ '. Bekker, however, 
reads n-X^v Trapa in both his editions. 25. leai, which Bekker adds 
before Trdvres, is found in O^ and in P* etc., but not in the best 
MSS. 38. 01' before e"X<oT« is omitted in M' pi L^ : we cannot 
tell whether Vet. Int. found it in his Greek text or not. 40. 
5ro)] Vet. Int. unquam. 

1269 b 5. Tois efTraXoij] c o om. a before Tfussalis in Vet. 
Int. 11. ms] quasi instead oi quod o, perhaps rightly, for Vet. Int. 
takes i^evpia-Kova-i as a participle. 19. dKo^oflcVijrov] inordinatum in 
lege o. 21. ^avfp6s fori tmoOtos oJi'] I follow here the reading of tf 
(which is, except in matters of accent, that of OS and also of Ar., 
who translates — in viris quidem id fecisse constat) : toiovtos iarw tf. 
The reading of tf appears to me to be probably the true one, 
especially as in 26 r M« pr. P' omit ^awpSr, wrongly, it would seem, 
cp. 1263 b 9, 1311 a 16. 28. See note on 21. 28. "Apij] O^ 
has Sprjv with M^ P"^ *, etc. : we cannot tell which form Vet. Int. 
found in his text, for he has Mar tern. "Pi-pij is the Attic form 
according to Liddell and Scott. Vahlen reads *Apij in Poet. 21. 
1457 b 21, where Bekker had read'Apiji;. 30. KaraKcixt/iot] Cp. 
5 (8). 7. 1342 a 8. 'Forma KaTOK&xip-os in duobus Politicorum 
locis [also in Hist. An. 6. 18. 572 a 32] exhibetur sine varia 
lectione, Eth. Nic. 10. 10. 1179b 9 KaroKajxifiov [K^* Aid.] Bekk., 
sed KaTOK&xiiiov codd. L^" M^ O^ ' (Bon. Ind. 371 a 8). I retain the 
reading of the MSS.: Liddell and Scott, however, remark (s. v.. 
KaTOKaxr)) : — ' the corrupt forms KoraKaxt), KaTOKaxifios, must be cor- 
rected, except perhaps in late writers : cf. avoiuoxfi, a-woKaxfi' 35. 
dXX' eiTTfp, TTpor Tov woXefiovj Vet. Int. nisi ad helium. 38. raC^] 
All Susemihl's MSS. of Vet. Int. have hoc, but y has hec (= haec). 

1270 a 11. KCLi p.ri dpter] Almost all MSS. of Vet. Int. (including 
2) have aut before non recte, but aut appears to represent kw. in 
1262 a 8. 13. See Susemihl's apparatus criticus for the various 
readings here : I follow him in reading air^s xaS avrftv. O^ has 

tMiv naff avTrjv. 21. KaTaXfiVcti'] KaraXtjTEii; M^ P^ : Vet. Int. dere- 

linquere, which may represent either KmakuKav, as in 1252 a 30, or 
xoT-aXfiVcix. 22. Taiiro] So tf (touto P^) : O' (with li") and Bekk. 
Tovro less well (cp. 1269 b 34). 27. « om. Ms P^: about r we 
cannot be certain, for the Vet. Int. hardly ever renders re. Khv airo- 
edvr)] Here o agrees with pr. a in omitting (no doubt erroneously) et 
simoriiur — voluerit. 28. hv h> (taraXki?] z quern utique derelinquai, 
perhaps rightly. 37. Vet. Int. here renders ou fi^v dXKd by at- 

1269 a 21—1271 a 18. 89 

iamen, as in 1274 b 25 : he often renders it by quin immo sed (e.g. 
in 1262 a 14, 1264 a 11), and ov iiipi hy altamen (e. g. in 1267 a 39). 
12701) 1. jSouXo/afi/os yap k.t.X.] Vet. Int. volens enim legislator 
ut plures sini Sparitatae, provocat cives quod plures faciant pueros : 
but though plures is his rendering, he probably found TrXeiorous in his 
text in both places, for he is not always exact in rendering degrees 
of comparison : see above on 1265 b 13. 3. eort yap] The MSS. 
of Vet. Int. have est auiem, not est enim. 8. avrri] avrrj Ar. (hie enim 
magistraitis) : om. r M^ (so Sus.^ " : Sus.', by a misprint apparently, 
Ms P^). 12. 'AvSpiois] See Susemihl's apparatus criticus for the. 
various readings. As to the substitution of r for S here in n', it 
should be noted that 'this was an error to which Egyptian scribes 
were especially liable : see Blass, Hyperidis orationes quatuor, praef. 
p. xvii. I know not whether there are any other indications in n"^ 
that the archetype of these MSS. was of Egyptian origin. 14. 

Siyfiaymyeii/ k.t.X.] Vet. Int. regere populum (i. e. Srjimyayetv, cp. 
1274a 10) se ipsos cogebant reges: he evidently does not under- 
stand Srifuiyayciv, and he is quite capable of construing ^myicdfowo 
cogebant (cp. 1269 a 18, where ^Xa^rfaerca is rendered nocebit, and 
1271a 22, where Kpivca-Bai is rendered iudicare). Perhaps, as Busse 
remarks (p. 25), r had avroiis in place of airois. All the MSS. 

read airovs rjvayKa^ovTO Koi 01 ^acriKfls. 15. Taurijj O^ ravra : 

Tairri, however, is added in the margin, probably by corr.' 19. 
On 8ia Tvxriv see explanatory note. M^ P^ add tiji/ before rvxriv, 
just as in i332a32 they add rfis before rvxts: as to the reading in 
r we cannot of course he certain. In 1323 b 29 all the MSS. have 
ajTo rixis ovSe fim ttiv tvxiv. 21. On this passage see explanatory 
note. 32. airrj] mm) li', but see explanatory note. 33. pa\- 
Xov wrf(j/3dXX«] magis superexcedit o (perhaps rightly) : other MSS. 
magis excedit. 38. tiTretf] Susemihl reads «?roi, which is, how- 
ever, apparently only found in PS for M^ has eun), and the reading 
of r is unknown. See his apparatus criticus for the varieties of 

1271a 15. Touro>] Tourots O* (with n"). Ar. illis utitur. 17. 
T&v after oSuaniaTav om. n ^ O' Bekk.' : Bekk.'^ adds it in brackets. 
Whether Vet. Int. foimd this tS>v in his text, it is of course impos- 
sible to say; but after ahuaipaTav it might easily be omitted: cp. 
1283 a II, where in jrSo-ai' di/to-o'njTa r M^ pr. P* make avia-oTtjTa into 
la-aniTa, and 1 2 84 a 3, where in tov /St'oK t6v kot apeniv two or three 
MSS. omit the second tow. 18. <j>iKonfiiav] o y z have amorem 
honorum: Susemihl's MSS. amorem honoris. 8ta] Neither Vet. 
Int. nor Ar. (per ambitionem et avaritiani) renders bih. before (jsiKoxpij' 


nariav, and M^ omits it. But compare for the repetition of 8ia, 
7 (5). ro. 1311a 25. 19. In tf /ifi is omitted here and placed 
between }} and fiiXTtov (20). 20. cOO^a nfjv k.tX] Vet. Int. sedei 
si melius, non sicut nunc, sed per ipsius vitam unumquemque (o here 
adds nunc est) iudicare regum (o z regnurn). Hence Sus.^ reads 
ciKKa K&v (iiXnov, * * ye jifj KcSairep vvv, ShXa k.t!K. and supposes a 

second ^eknov to have dropped out before ye, or else S« or some- 
thing similar ; but (irjv may easily have been corrupted into k&v in r 
or misread by the translator. Ar. attamen melius non ut nunc quidem, 
sed pro vita cuiusque regis iudicare. 23. Enim here as elsewhere 
in the vettis versio (1268 b 34, 1280 a 38) represents t/oSv. 27. 

0i8iTta] In this passage, probably, as in others, we may ascribe 
the reading ^iJuVia to n^, for though almost all the MSS. of Vet. 
Int. omit the word, two of them (a z) have amicabilia. Compare 
Susemihl's apparatus criiicus on 1272 a 2, b 34. The form tpiKereiois 
occurs in the Herculanean papyri on which the fragmentary remains 
of the work of Philodemus de Musica are preserved (fragm. 30: p. 
1 8 Kemke). Plutarch, however, it is evident, used the form (jtiSirui 
(see Lycurg. c. 12 init.). ' Dicaearchus, Phylarchus, and Antiphanes 
(ap. Athen. Deipn. pp. 141, 143) also use either this form or that of 
<^«SiVm (see Meineke on Athen. Deipn. 143 a). Bekker reads 
(jtiSiTia both in the Politics and in Rhet. 3. 10. 141 1 a 25, though 
in the latter passage (see Roemer ad loc.) no MS. has preserved 
the true reading, nor yet the Vetus Interpres. So too C. F. Her- 
mann (see Gr. Ant. i. § 28. i) and Sch6mann (Gr. Alterth. r. 
280 n.). 31. (Tufi^aiWt] So O^ : Bekker reads avfi^aivtiu, but 
without support from the better MSS. Quare accidit in Vet. Int. 
leaves it uncertain what reading he found in his text. 32. to 
vofiodeTT] rrjs wpoaipea-cas] Almost all MSS. of Vet. Int. have legis- 
latoris voluntati (a m z have legislatori voluntati, y legumlatori 
voluntati). See above on 1269a 16. 37. avr^s tf Bekk. Sus. 
seems to be correct (cp. 1272 a 15, r^y TroXiTems): for the readings 
of other MSS. see Susemihl's apparatus criiicus. O* avrois. 40. 
atSioij] dt'Stos H? Ar. (praefectura ilia perpetua) Bekk. (aiSios O^). • 41. 
Vet. Int. does not render KajBiarqKcv, but see above, p. Ixiii, 
note 12, for other instances in which he fails to render words. Ar. 
/ere alterum est imperium. iSi] Vet. Int. hoc. 

1271 b 5. Vet. Int. adds ad virtuiem after his equivalent for fu;8«. 
Similar additions appear in his version in 1254 b 20 and 1287 ^ 30- 
Ar. omits these words — nee quicquam aliud exercere sciebant prae- 
stabilius quam rem militarem, 6. tovtov] So O', though P* 

with some other MSS. has tovto. Vet. Int. would seem to have 

1271 a 19 — 1272 a 16. 91 

fouttd TovTo in his Greek text, for he has — hoc autem peccatum 
non modicum. He probably found tKarrov in his text, though his 
translation is modicum, for he is often inexact in rendering de- 
grees of comparison (see above on i26gb 13). Ar. illud quoqtte 
erratum non sane minus, quod putant (om. fici/ with r M^?) bona 
ilia quae ad helium pertinent (he blindly follows Vet. Int. hona 
quae circa res bellicas) ex virtute magis quam ex vilio fieri. To 
omit iKv with r M^ would be a mistake : ' interdum oppositio per 
particulam y-iv indicata et inchoata non accurate continuatur ' (Bon. 
Ind. 454 a 17 sqq.). See Vahlen on Aristot. Poet. 6, 1450 a 3 sqq. 
and b 16 sqq. (Poet. pp. 118, 127). 21. to 8e irXeloi/] Vet. Int. 
plurimum autem, but see above on 1265b 13, 1371b 6. 22. 

(tni Xeyerat 8e] Vet. Int. et dicitur quidem (koi \eyfTal ye?), TE M> 

P'. 25. XapiXXou n, but in 7 (5). 12. 1316a 34 n have XapCKaov. 
This variation may possibly date back to an uncial archetype. See 
Sus.^ p. xiv on the confusion of olcn&v and 6va-iS>v in 3. 14. 1285 b 
10, 16. 27. oKoiKOL is here rendered by Vet. Int. domestici: see 
above, p. xlv, note i, for other renderings of the word in Vet. 
Int. 28. KareXajSoi/] Vet. Int. susceperunt. ol . . . eXfldvrei] o qui 
venerunt: other MSS. quivenerant. 31. wr KaTao-Kfudo-avroj] Vet. Int. 
ut instituit. 34. eVtKetTat] Vet. Int. supponitur {jm6Kei.Tai ?). 35. 
dwexei yap k.t.X.J O^ oKiyov Tjjs ne\o7rovvfi(rov (P* o\iyov Trjs ireXoiroviiri- 
a-av). Vet. Int. distat enim quidem a Polopo insula modicum, versus 
Asiam autem ah eo loco qui circa Triopium et a Rhodo (pdSou n*, 
perhaps rightly). Ar. read 'PoSok. 39. imOiptvos rrj SiiceXia] Vet. 
Int. appositus Siciliae: cp. 1305a 14, where imndevTcu is translated 
super ponuntur. 40. Kdptvav is the reading of all the better MSS. 
(so O') and of r (itapivov without accent P') : Vict, substituted 
KojuiKof, and either this or Ka/iixdv (the true accentuation of the 
word is, according to Sus., a disputed point) seems to be the cor- 
rect reading. It is easy to understand how the commoner word 
took the place of the less common one. 41. « om. M^ P^ : 
Vet. Int. agriculturae enim opus faciunt, but Vet. Int. hardly ever 
renders re, hence the reading in r is uncertain. 

1272 a 3. aj/Speia] O^ (with n") &.vhpva. Ephorus ap. Strab. p. 
480, and Dosiadas and Pyrgion ap. Athen. Deipn. p. 143 have 
avhpiia, not &vhpux. C. F. Hermann (Gr. Ant. i. § 22. 5) is for 
avbpeia. 8. nporcpovj Vet. Int. primo, but see above on 1265 b 
13, 1271 b 6, 21. 16. eV fie Kp^5 k.tX^ Ar. at in creta com- 
muniter est, ex cunctis enim quae a terra proveniunt vel armentis 
ex publicis et iis quae afferunt periici (so New Coll. MS. : Bodl. 
perieci: neither ha,vt periii, as Schn., Pol. vol. 2. p. 134) divisio fit. 


Thus Ar. omits, with all the better MSS., the which Bekker adds 
before « Tav hi\\u><Tlmv. Most of the MSS. of Vet. Int. omit et 
before ex publicis, but a adds it, and so does z. 24. jrw^o-as] a z 
have fecit: the other MSS. of Vet. Int. facit. 28. x"P<"' ™'' 
e^dpoov] Vet. Int. deterius quam quae ephororum, but whether he 
found \etpou fj TO. Twv i(j>6pa>v in his Greek text, may well be doubted, 
o fiev yap] Here pr. O' (cp. P*) has 6 iiev yap TO irepl Toiis K^tr/iovs 
oil KoK&s e^" KOKOU TO T&v icj)6pa)V ap-)(eiov imap\ei Kol rovrav, 

but corr.^ adds in the margin — yp. o pAv yap ex" kokov to t&v 
isl>6ptov dpxfiov virapxei Kal tovtiov. Evidently a marginal remark to 
nepl rois K6<Tp,ovs oil Kokas has found its way into the text of these 
two MSS. 29. TovTois] Tovrav U^ O^ Bekk., but the genitive 

seems doubtful (cp. 2. 5. 1264 a 29). Ar. z'd est et in illis, which 
probably implies that he found tovtw> in his text: cp. 1253b 27, 
where sic etiam in re familiari in Ar. probably stands for ovTta kox 
tS>v oiRovopiKaiv. 36. Tmv\ Sw U, evidently repeated from wepl ?>v 
35. Vet. Int. de hiis quae in Lacedaemonia fiunt. 40. oiSci' yap\ 
oiSe yap T (Vet. Int. neque enim) is adopted by Bekker, but probably 
wrongly. All the MSS. have oibh. 'Ti secludendum esse ci. 
Buecheler, fieVeo-Tt Coraes, sufHceret eort, sed nihil mutandum est' 
Sus.^ OuSe'i/ Ti is common enough used adverbially, but it does 
not seem to be often used as it is here. 41. jrdppm y aTroiKouo-iv] 
Vet. Int. longe enim peregrinantur, but, as Susemihl sees in his 
third edition, this is no proof that Vet. Int. found yap in his Greek 

1272 b 5. KOI pera^v\ o etiam (not et) intermedie. 8-9. See 
explanatory note. bUai\ Vet. Int. sententias, a.s in 7 (5). 3. 1302 h 

24- 16. Tols Pov\op.ivoK firmdea-Bai Ka\ bwajiivois n' : Sus. adopts 

this reading in all his editions, but holds in his third that some 
word is wanting before tois ^ovKophoii. Ar. est autem periculosus 
hie reipublicae status, si qui velint possintque invader e. 28. 

7) before hoKavLKq is omitted, not surely by Ms P^ only (as Sus.' 
holds), but by tf, for Vet. Int. translates — quae Cretensium et 
Lacedaemonica et tertia ah hiis quae Calchedoniorum. 30. ot;- 

fieiov be K.T.X.] Ar. signum est reipublicae bene institutae quf>d (so 
Bodl. : New Coll. MS. wrongly quo) populus in suo permaneat 
(so Bodl.: New Coll. MS. permanet) loco. Thus he does not 
render ?x<«'0'<»'i which M^ P^ omit, but probably wrongly. 36. 
yap after ph om. P' * etc., followed by Bekker, but the reading of 
n^ P* (and O'), which is adopted by Susemihl, seems preferable. 
Ar, praeterquam quod non dekrior : nam illi ex coniingentibus sunt. 
The same doubt as to the exclusion or insertion of yap recurs 

1272 a 24— 1273 b 15. 93 

in 1291 a 29 and 1331 b 84, but in 1291 a 29 n' are supported by 
the Vatican Palimpsest in adding it. 37. dpurrivSriv] Vet. Int. 
virtuosum: so again in 1273a 23, and TrXovnvSriu in 1273a 24 
divitem. 38. tow «ei jSoo-iXeCo-i] Susemihl's MSS. of Vet. Int. 
haMS hits quae tbi regibtis : 2. ri^ily hits qui ibi regibus. 39. See 
explanatory note on 1272 b 38. 40. ft re] eJ ti Sus., who takes 
St quid to be the true reading in Vet. Int., but a alone has si quid 
(z si quod) — the rest of Susemihl's MSS. having sed quod, sed quae 
(so o), or se que — and probably we should read sique in Vet. Int., 
the reading adopted by Susemihl in 5 (8). 4. 1338 b 16 : eire OS Are 
M^ n" Bekk. : Ar. melius auiem quod imperatorem non secundum genus 
neque ex vili aut precellenti magis eligunt quam secundum virtutem : 
ei re is probably right, cp. 1338 b 16. 

1273 a 7. TO 8c] rh 8e P^"* etc. Bekk. (so O*), but the same MSS. 
have TO fiex in 6, where Bekker's reading to /teV rests only on a 
conjecture of Morel's. 9. oJtoi om. n^, but see above on 1257 b 

24. 15. Tawrai aipeiirdail Toinovi aipci<T6ai pr. O^ (so P*), but 
corr.^ adds rairas in the margin. Both O^ and P* have rairas at 
the end of the line. Vet. Int. has hos in both places. 16. See 
the various readings for n-Xcioiia in Susemihl, and see above on 
1255b 26. 19. vno tSk a.pxfia>v\ Vet. Int. a principibus (vno twv 
apxovrav ?). 22, ^ (TvvhoKii tois jroXXoij] Vet. Int. ui (g ?) videtur 
multis. 39. on 8'] Here z alone among the MSS. of Vet. Int. 
which have been examined has enim (guictmque enim instead of 
quodcunque auietn), but it has enim instead of igiiur for o3» ini2 73 a 

25, and not a few other blunders are to be found in it in this part 
of the Second Book (8* r n). Ar. nam quicquid apud civitatis prin- 
cipes habetur in pretio, necessarium est et aliorum civium opinionem 
subsequi: but Ar. has enim in 1268 b 6 also, where r II have 
8'. It is not likely that Ar. found anything but bk in his Greek 
text in either passage : Sus., however, follows him against r n in 

1273 to 1. ovf(^ oiov re K.T.X.J ovx inov t' tlvai jSe^aiW apurTOKpaTUap) 

iroKvreiav II " Bekk. See on this reading the explanatory note on 

1273 b I. 5. apurr apx""] apiaTapxeiv TIL Bekk. (a WOrd which 

occurs nowhere else in Aristotle or perhaps anywhere), Spiar apx^iv 
Spengel, Sus. 6. TrpoeiTo] Vet. Int. praeferret, but ■npoUaBm, \% 
no better translated in 1307 b 4, 1314 a 37 sq. t\mopiav\ Smopiav 
V M.% but this kind of mistake often occurs — so in 1278 a 32 r 
M^ have mropovvTes wrongly for ev-aopovvres, in 1288 a 15 P' n' 
pr. P" have djropoty wrongly for fimpois: see also the readings in 
1300 a 2, 1302 a 2, 1303 a 12. 7. aiiKa apxovrav yf] Vet. Int. 


sed et principantium. Did he read xe for ye, as he seems to have 
done in 1274 a 15 ? 15. tSv avT&v] Vet. Int. ab eisdem, but we 
have already seen (above on 1253 a 10) that he occasionally inserts 
prepositions without authority, and here he had a special motive 
for doing so, for, as Busse (p. 21) points out, he seems to have 
taken rav airav with aTroTeXeiTot. 18. Koi is added before r^s 
iroXmlas in O^ as in P* etc. 25. Kpi;ruc^r] Ms P' Kprrnis: Vet. Int. 

Cretensium. 27. n om. n^. Ar. eorum autem qui de repuhlica 
aliquid tradiderunt. tus absent in 1.13. 1260 b 23, in 6 (4).!. 1288 b 
36, and in 5 (8). 5. 1339 a 14 (see Bon. Ind. 88 a 36 sqq.), but we 
have ein-eiK Tt in 2. 8. 1267 b 29. 28. ouS" miTtvcovovi'] Vet. Int. 
nullis. oKKa Si€Te\ea-ap k.t.X,] Vet. Int. sed perseoerarunt singuhri vita 
vivenies. 32. 01 fuv — ii6vov^ ot fikviyivovro drifuovpyoi vofiav tf. 39. 

filfyarra\ Vet. Int. miscuisseque, but this does not prove that he 
read /«'|ai « : see his rendering of 1259a 10 sq. e'vat] Vet. 

Int, fuisse. 41. to Se Sdcao-r^pta] to 8e 8iKa<TTr]ptov II', which 

Sus. prefers, comparing 1274a 4, but we have to StKacrr^pia in 
1274a 3. 

1274 a 2. r&v apx&v] O^ t5i/ apxovrav. 4. Sdrepov O^, with 

n'' Ar. {alteruni). 5. tfrxvo-ew M^ P^: we cannot tell from 
invaluii which reading Vet. Int. found in his text, for he often 
renders the imperfect by the perfect (e.g. in 1267b 18, 30, 31). 
•iCT-Xwo-eK, however, which Sus. adopts, seems preferable to 1.<r](ya> n^ 
O* Bekk. : cp. 6 (4). 13. 1297 b 23. 13. Mij8utoIy] o mediis. 
See Susemihl's critical note on Medis (Sus.^ p. 145). ict>povijiJiaTt<T6rj] 
Vet. Int. astuie concepit (the same misapprehension of the meaning 
of the word appears in his renderings of it in 1284 b 2, 1306 b 28, 
1 34 1 a 30). 15. «ret SoXaw yi\ Vet. Int. quoniam el Sohn : see 
above on 1273 b 7. 19. O' eirropav, but fp, is written over the 
first syllable, probably by the writer of the MS. 21. n^ add tA 
before tfijrjKdv, perhaps rightly (Vet. Int. quarium autem quod merce- 
narium). But I incline to think it is better away : cp. Aristot. Fragm. 
350' 1537 ^ 36 sq. and Pol. 6. (4). 4. 1291 a 4. 24. rais XoXm- 

8«ait] Vet. Int. Chalcidiae (t^s XaXraSiic^r r?). 25. Se Tiwet] 8^ 
KOI nvh O', but Koi has been expunged by a dot placed beneath it 
— by whom, is uncertain, n'' add ml before rti/tf. 27. JmSij- 
ftoBi/ra] Vet. Int. praefectum populo (perhaps, however, praefectus 
populo, which I find in o, may be the true reading). 29. In O^ 
8' is expunged by a dot placed beneath it, and 8" aZ superscribed — 
I do not feel certain by whom, 34. 'oXu/xttiWh'] The true 
reading of the equivalent for this word in Vet. Int. is probably (as 
Busse points out, p. 9) that of a and pr, b (also pr. z) olimpiasem. 

1273 b 18—1274 b 25. 95 

'Guilelmum 'oXu/un-iao-w pro nomine a verbo viKritravros apto ac- 
Jcepisse suspicandum est' (Busse, ibid.). Sm^joijo-oj] Vet. Int. 
reeordaius. 40. dwex^io"] Vet. Int. ahstinentiam. 'AirexStta is 
correctly rendered by Vet. Int. in 1305 a 23, 1322 a 2, 17, 41, 
OTTO rav xaiMTos] Vet. Int. a puhert. 

1274 b 5. Vet. Int. has Charondi autem nihil est proprium, and 
this is the order of the words in P* (and Ms f ). 6. ft-iv om. O^ 
with tf P*- ijfevSoiuifyrvpov T U At. {/alsorum iestiuni), i/ceu8o- 
liaprvptav Scaliger, Bentley, Bekk., Sus. : cp., however, Rhet. ad 

Alex. 16. 143^ ^ ^) *" "'TO^oo'E' ylfcvSonapTvprjaas yjrevSoiidprvpos b'tKrjV 

ovx v^e$€i. In 2. 5. 1263 b 21, where the MSS. of the Politics 
have -^evSoiiapTvpiSiv, two MSS. of the Vet. Int. (a z) have f alsorum. 
testium, not /alsorum iestimoniorum. 7. ima-Krjijriv Scaliger and 
Bentley, ema-Ke^u/ rn (Vet. Int. consideraiionem). 9. On the 
passage bracketed see explanatory note. All the MSS. (and Vet. 
Int.) read (^iXoXaou : P^', however, have the alternative reading (jbaXeou 
superscribed in the same ink, it would seem, as the MS. (Sus.^, p. 
xviii). avoimKaa-is Bekk., a.vapA\<o(Tis TL (Vet. Int. irregularitas, 
which represents caiapjdKw. in 1270 a 15, and here probably di«o- 
poKaais). 13. y'aiiavTaC\ So 11^ : pr. O^ had, I think, y'wovrai (with 

n^), but it has been dexterously altered into ylvavrai. 14. t^v 
\i.iv K.T.X.J Susemihl's MSS. of Vet. Int. have hac quidem manuum 
utile esse, hac autem inutile, but z has hanc quidem manuum 
utilem {utile pr. manus ?) esse, hanc autem inutilem. toIi'] So O' with 
P^' etc. : P'* Toiv. 20. n wraia-axn, though found only in 

L^ — a manuscript known to Camerarius, however, had n. nToUotn 
(Politicorum Interpretationes, p. 109) — is probably right. See 
Susemihl's apparatus criticus for the readings of the other MSS.: 
most of them read Tvin^(Taai (so O'). The word used in the 
law seems to have been d/iapTcivfiv, which n nTaia-aa-i approaches 
much more nearly than TUTrr^o-too-t. Camerarius refers to [Plut.] 
Sept. Sap. Conv. 13, v6p,ov, iv m yey pa<f>as, 'Edv tis otiovv iu6va>v 

dfiaprg, brnXaarlav ^ ra v^fjjovn t^v fij/uiav: to which reference may 
be added Aristot. Rhet. 2. 25. 1402 b 9 sqq. and Diog. Laert. 
I. 76 (Afiaprdvetv is the word used in both these passages). Schn. 
Ti iTTalcaai (see his note) : Bern. Sus. n itTmaaai : Bekk. rujir^o-iao-i. 
jrX«'o) irjiiiav] amplius damnum (not damnt) coz, perhaps rightly. 
dn-oTiWic] diroreiveiv probably pr. O*, for after t there is an erasure 
leaving a blank, in which « may once have stood {cmonvveiv 
V^, the rest coTordvew) : Vet. Int. ferre. ' In the older [Attic] 
inscriptions Tiva always forms reiaa, mura, heiaBrjv' (Meisterhans, 
Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, p. 88). Here the ei finds its 


•way into the infinitive aTroreiveiv. 25. ras orotXiJ/sour] Vet. Int. 
heredationes: his rendering of the word is no better in 1304 a 
4, 10, where he translates it herediiatibus and hereditaiione. He 
, certainly does not shine in his version of this twelfth chapter. 



1. The view that the jrdXts is a Koivavia had an important bearing C. 1. 
on Greek political speculation ; Plato already asserts it by im- ^^°^ *• 
plication (Rep. 371 B: 462 C : 369 C), but Aristotle seems to 

have been the first to fix the conception of Koivavia and to define 
its meaning. See vol. i. p. 41 sqq. 

2. dy'^^Q" '''■'■'OS- Cp. Eth. Nic. I. I. 1094 a 2, and Pol. i. 6. 
1 25s a 15, where the expression recurs, and also Eth. Nic. 3. 5. 
1112 b 15, TeXos T«. In Pol. 3. 12. 1282 b 15 we have — cW 8' hi 
iraa-cus fiiv Tois einaTrjfuu.s Km rexvais aryadov (not dyaOov rt) xA Tf\os. 

The ends which the various KoLvmv'uu seek to attain are described 
in Eth. Nic. 8. 11. ii6oa 8 sqq. In the passage " before us, 
however, dya66v n is explained by rov thai SokoCvtos aya6ov, though 
in strictness this need not be a good at all. On ' seeming good ' 
as the aim in action, see Eth. Nic. 3. 6 and the commentators, 
Sepulveda (p. 3) refers to de An. 3. 10. 433 a 27, 810 del kiwi fiiv 

TO opfKTov, aWa tovt tariv rj t6 dyadov ^ to (j>aiv6nevov dyaBoV oil irav 
Se, dWa TO vrpaKrhv dya66v. To eivai Bokovv dyaBov = to eKdaroi ta/at 
80KOVV dyaBov, or to ^aaiofitvov dyaBov (Eth. Nic. 3. 6. III3 a 20-24). 

4. irao-ai (ier k.t.X. These words repeat the second of the two 
premisses (1252 a 2) ; they do not contain the conclusion, MeV is 
' while,' as in 5 (8). 2. 1337 b 15 and 5. 1340 a i. Bonitz remarks 
on Metaph. e. 2; 1046 b 15 : 'in apodosi duo quidem membra, t6 
IKv vyieivov — ^jfvxpoTt]Ta et o 8' imoTTjiiav afi^a, quasi eodem ordine 
iuxta se posita sunt, sed ipsa apodosis unice in posteriore membro 
continetur; prius grammatice coordinatum, re vera subiectum est 
alteri membro. Cf. de hoc abusu partt. /leV — be Xen. Cyr. 1. 1. 4 et 
Bornem. ad h. 1.' 

Aristotle omits to prove that the aim of kou/uWoi is not the 
avoidance or mitigation of evil, which is according to some modern 
inquirers the end of the State. 

(MiXiara, Vict. ' illo " maxime " significatur studium ipsius vehe- 
mens in persequendo quod quaerit.' So Bern. Cp. 3, 12, 1282 b 15. 


98 NOTES. 

Cp. also Eth. Nic. lo. 4. 1174 b 21-23 ^^^ 5- "75 ^^ 3° sq., re- 
ferring to which latter passages Teichmiiller (Aristoteles Philo- 
sophic der Kunst, p. 177) says: 'der Eifer geht immer parallel 
mit den erstrebten Gtitern: je hoher das Gut, desto grosser die 
Bemuhung darum.' It is not certain, however, that imKurra here 
means more than 'above all' (Sus. 'ganz vorzugsweise '). 

5. KupiuT(iTT), 'most sovereign.' Cp. 2. '9. 1271 b 6. 

TTcJo-os TsspUxoiKTo. Tcls oXXos. Cp. Eth. Nlc. 8. 1 1 . 1 i6o a 8, oi 8e 

Koivaviai ircuToi ixoplois eoUatn t^s TroXtn/e^r, and 21, wdtrai 8' aSrai (<?£ 
Koivavlai.) viro ttjv iroKiTiiajV foixa&iv flvai, ov yap tov irapovros (rvp.<l>i- 
povTos ri TToXtriK^ ((j>Urat, aXX' fis airavra tou 0iov, and also Plato, 
Parmen. 145 B, navra 6e TO /icpr] xmo tov oXou TrEpifX"""'- ThesC 

passages explain the sense in which the words of the text are used. 
Aristotle is not thinking of the size of the Koivavtm here compared, 
for there were Koivavlai in Greece, especially of a religious kind — 
festival-unions, for instance — which extended, as our Churches 
often do, beyond the limits of the State, but of the more com- 
prehensive end pursued by the TrdXti — an end as wide as human 
life — which makes it stand to all other Koivaviai as a whole stands 
to its parts. Thus the end of the jroXmie^ eirurnip.ri is said in Eth. 
Nic. I. I. 1094 b 6 irepiix^iv to t&v aK\av. See Other references 
given in Bon. Ind. 581 a 41 sqq. 

7. The addition of i^ Koiruria i^ ttoXitiki^ serves to facilitate the 
transition to the subject discussed in the next sentence. 

S<roi fieK ouc. Socrates (Xen. Mem. 3. 4. 12: 3. 6. 14): Plato 
(Politicus 259). Aristotle himself had dropped one or two expres- 
sions in the last chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics (1180 b 1-2 : 
1180 b 24), which might be interpreted as lending some counten- 
ance to the view that the contrast of household and jrdX«s is a 
contrast of numbers. Common opinion is said in 4 (7). 2. 1324 b 
32 to identify Seo-jroTiKfi and TroXtriKij. It appears to be implied that 
if the difference lay only in the numbers of those ruled, the four 
characters would be the same : cp. de Part. An. i. 4. 644 a 16 sqq., 
Pol. 3. 8. 1279b 34, 38 (referred to by Eucken, Methode der 
Aristotelischen Forschung, p. 50. 4), where a numerical difference 
is treated as an insufficient basis for a distinction of species, and 
also Pol. I. 13. 1259b 36. 'Offot 'acerbius dictum est, ut fere 
nos : " wie gewisse Leute sagen " ' (Ideler, Aristot. Meteor, vol. i. 
p. 363). Mev oSv here introduces an inference from what precedes 
(which is not always the case : see Bon. Ind. 540 b 58 sqq.)—' the 
noXiTiKri Koivavia is the supreme Koivavla, and makes the supremest of 
goods its aim; hence it is a mistake to hold that the n-oXtrwrfr; 

1. 1. 1252 a 5—13. 99 

j9a(rtX(KiSf, oiKovojUKis, and ScoTrortKos are the same.' The jiiv seems 
to be taken up, if at all, by 8' 17, but, owing to the long 
parenthesis which begins in 9 with n-XijdM yap, the paragraph 
is perhaps not completed quite as Aristotle originally intended to 
complete it. 

iroXiTiK&i' . . . ilva.\. Tov aMv. The Vet. Int., Sepulv., and Lamb, 
(unlike Vict.) rightly make TroXiTtKoi/ k.tX. the subject and riv airrov 
the predicate. The article is omitted before iroKmKov, as in Xen. 
Mem. I. I. 16, rt TToXmKoc, to give the word an abstract meaning: 

cp. also I. 2. 1252b 9, a>; Tairh ^iaei ^dp^apov km SovXov Sv. 

11. dXiyciii', sc. apxr/, vofil^ovaiv etvai. The omission of &PXH is 
quite in the Aristotelian manner. See Bon, Ind. 239 a 52 sqq. 

12. us ofiSei' 8iai|>^pouo'ai'. On this construction with ins, cp. Poet. 
20. 1457 a 12 and Vahlen's note, p. 214 of his edition. Plato, 
(Politicus, 259 B) limits his assertion by adding the words jrpot 
apxTjv, ' in the matter of rule.' 

13. Kai iroXiTiK&c 8e Kal ^ao'iXtK&i' k.t.X. Giph. ' et de politico 
quidem atque rege,' and so Bern. (' und beziiglich des Verhalt- 
nisses zwischen dem verfassungsmassigen Staatsmann und dem 
Konige') — an interpretation in support of which Eth. Nic. 7. 4, 
1 146 b II, Kai TOW fyKpaTTJ Koi tow Koprepmov, iroTcpov 6 avros fj mp6s 

ttrriv might be quoted; but perhaps it is more likely that the 
sentence is framed on the model of that which precedes it (n-X^^ei 
yap 9 — ^atrCKiKov 12), and would run, if completed, koI TroXirttcov hi 

KOI ^aaiKiKov \ovk ei8« (or ovtu ?) voiJ,i(fiviTi 8ta<j)cpfiV otoi/] oTnv ixev avrbs 
tcjieo-T^Kt), [i/ojbu'^ovo-iw elvatj /Sao-iXiKiiv. The insertion of Sta<[>epetv vop.1- 
^ovat (Schn.), or of ovra 8ia<f)epeiv oiovrai (Gottl.), or even of ovK fl'Sft 

vopi^ova-t dta(j}ipfi.v (Rassow, Bemerkungen uber einige Stellen der 
Pblitik, p. 4, followed by Sus.), does not suffice to complete the 
sentence. The distinction drawn by the inquirers here referred to 
between the /3ao-tXntor and the ttoKitikSs fell short, in Aristotle's 
opinion, of the truth. They rested the distinction between them on 
the extent and duration of the authority possessed by them re- 
spectively, regarding the /Sao-iXims as a permanent autocratic ruler 
and the TroXmico'j as one who exchanged his authority from time to 
time for subjection to rule, and exercised it in subordination to the 
precepts of the kingly or political science. This distinction 
between the /Sao-iXocJr and the n-oXmitoi is not, so far as I am aware, 
to be found toiidem verbis in the Politicus of Plato, but Aristotle 
probably gathers it from Polit. 294 A, 300 E sqq., though Plato 
seems to draw it rather between the ideal paa-iKiKos and the actual 
TToXirucoc, than between the ideal /Sno-iXtitos and the ideal TroXmieo'j, 

H 2, 

100 . NOTES. 

whom he does not appear to distinguish (300 C). Plato, however, 
declines in the Politicus (292 E) to refuse the character of /Sao-iXtKor 
to one who, without actually ruling, possesses the kingly science, 
so that, if the Politicus is referred to here, the reference would seem 
to be not altogether exact. Aristotle, as has been said, holds that 
those who distinguished in the way he describes between the 
jSao-tXiKo'r and the ttoXitikos underrated the difference between them. 
The iSao-tXeur, according to him, differs in nature from those he 
rules (Pol. I. 12. 1259 b 14 : cp. Eth. Nic. 8. 12. ri6ob 3 sqq.) ; 
he is not their equal like the TroXmKoi (Pol. i. 7. 1255 b 18 sqq.). 
Nor is it the case, in Aristotle's view, that an interchange of ruling 
and being ruled occurs in all forms of TroXiTunj apxh (cp. Pol. i. 12. 

1259 b 4, Iv iiev oZv Tois noKiTiKois ap^ais rais jrXfiVrais fiera^dWei to 
ap^ou Kol TO ap^6fi€vov\. 

14. auTos (cp. Plato, Rep. 557 E, iav avTw trot iirljj) here seems to 
unite the meanings of 'alone' (cp. 5 (8). 4. 1338b 25) and 'un- 
controlled' (cp. 2. 9. 1270 b 8), and to stand in opposition both to 

Kara roiis Xdyous t^i iiTUTTi]firjs Trji ToiatJrijt and to KaTa p.4pos apxcD" 
Koi apxop^vos. So Schn., who however translates ' solus et semper,' 
■which hardly brings out the complete meaning. 

oToi' 8e K.T.X. 'E<j}ecrTTiKti should probably be supplied here. 

15. KarA Tois Xoyous k.t.X, The ideal king, and indeed the 
SwcDj no'KiTiKos (300 C), of the Politicus of Plato rules /tfra Texvjs 
(300 E), not in subordination to [KaTo) the written precepts of his 
art (compare the contrast of /iera tov opBov Xdyou and Kara tov opBov 
Xo'yoi/ in Eth. Nic. 6. 13. 1144 b 26 sqq. and Magn. Mor. i. 35. 
1 1 98 a 17 sqq.), just as a training-master who happened to return 
to his pupils from abroad sooner than he expected, would not feel 
himself bound by the written directions given them by him for 
their guidance during his absence (294 D, tqs tS>v tIxvh ■yvpva^ovraiv 
fTTiTa^eis). The ideal ruler, like the captain of a ship or a physician, 
should rule over those committed to his charge, ' not in subordi- 
nation to the laws, but with plenary authority' (299 C, /«) Kara 

v6iiovs, dXX' avTOKpaTopas). Cp. 30 1 E, Bavpd^opev BiJTa iv tcus roiavTois 
jroKiTciais oa-a |u/i/3aiV« yiyveirdai Kaxa koI Sa-a ^vp^rjo-eTai, t-oioiJttjs Tijr 
KprprtBos VTroKfipevrjs avTois r^r Kara ypappara Kai edrj, prj pera tmarripijs, 
irpaTToia-j]! rns Trpd^eis ', For the expression Tovs \6yovs Ttjs ejnoT^ptjs 
TTJs TomuTijE, cp. Eth. Nic. 7- 5- 1 147 3' 18, tovs \6yovs Toiis aTTO T^S 
im(rrr)pT]S : Polyb. I. 32. 7, ""' " *"'' Kivftv tS)V pepav iv rd^ei koi 

wapayyeWav Kara vd/ious (' ex artis legibus iussa dare,' Schweighauser) 
TJP^aTo. Cp. also Marc. Antonin. Comment. 6. 35, ovx 6pas, irSis 01 

l3drav(roi TfX"''"'" • • ■ dvrexovTai tov Xdyou ttjs Tex"'??, Kai tovtov airo- 

1. 1. 1252 a 14—17. loi 

vrrjvai ovx vTioyihovaiv ', In de Gen. An. 2. I. 735'i I we have ij 

Kivrj(ns fj Twv opyavav exovira \oyov tov rrjs Texpijy, but the expression 

perhaps bears a somewhat different meaning in this passage, and 
also in that last quoted. 

T^s ToiouTt)?, i. e. T^s ^gg-iXtK^y. Rassow (Bemerkungen, p. 3) 
and Susemihl (Sus.'', note 3) are probably right in thus explaining 
Trjs Toiairqs, which must apparently refer back here as elsewhere to 
something already mentioned. Plato, as Rassow points out, 

identifies the ^a(riKuai iirurrrmri with the jroXirucij imtTTriju] (Polit, 


16. TauTo S' ofiK eoTii' dKifiBrj. These words refer to the whole 
series of opinions described in 9-16, and especially to that which 

sums them up, that the itoKltikos, ^aa-iKmos, oiKovofUKos, a,nd Seo-jroriKor 

do not differ in kind. Compare the still blunter expression used 
in criticising the Platonic Socrates (7 (5). 12. 1316b 17), toOto 8' 

17. TO \ey6ii.evov, i.e. Aristotle's assertion in 9 (repeated in 16), 
that the doctrine criticised is erroneous. Mr. Congreve, however, 
and Prof. Tyrrell (Hermaihena, 12. 22) take the reference to be to 
1252 a 3-7. Against this view it may be urged, that (i) it seems 
more natural to refer to Xeyoiifvov to that which immediately precedes, 
especially as otherwise Sa-oi 7 — dKridrj 16 becomes a long paren-: 
thesis, introduced, strangely enough, by fiev oSv, and without any Se 
to answer to /lip oSv. (2) the word S^Xov has already been applied 
to the conclusion arrived at in 3-7 : (3) if we take t6 \ey6fievov to 
refer to the assertion that the noXis aims at the supreme good, we 
expect to be told in 2 1 sqq. that fresh light will be thrown on this 
subject, not that we shall better understand the nature of the 
differences existing between the parts of which the n-dXw is com- 
posed, and it is thus that these scholars explain tovtcov 2r. 

•ri)!' u<t>ii|y»i(i£i'r)i' (i^eoSor. Cp. de Gen. An. 3. 9. 758 a 28. ' Came- 
rarius viam et rationem quasi praeeuntem et ducentem ad certam 
cognitionem interpretatur ' (Schn.) ; we find, however, leara tov 
v(f>t]yriii£vov rpmrov in Pol. I. 8. 1256 a 2, where the metaphor-seems 
to fall into the background. Still v<jiriyfl(Tdai is probably used in 
both passages in a middle, and not, as Bonitz takes it (Ind. 807 b 
46 sqq.), in a passive sense. The same plan of inquiry — that of 
dividing a compound whole into its simplest elements and ex- 
amining these — had been followed in the Nicomachean Ethics in 
the case of eiSmiMvia, and so again in the Third Book of the 
Politics, the jrdX« being jroXtrmK n irXrjdos, the TroXjVijy is first studied. 
Cp. de Part. An. I- 4- 644 a 29, g /lev yap oia-la rb T^ Met Srojiovt 

loa NOTES. 

KpiXTUTTOV, 64 TIS bvVMTO TTfpi tS)V Koff CKaOTOV KOL aTO/KOV Tffl fl&Cl BetiSpelv 

Xap'is, &(Tirep irep\ avBpamov, ovra Kal irept opvidos, where the best 

method is said to be to examine the ultimate species separately, 
but the remark is added that it is better not to apply this method 
to fishes and birds, for the species under these genera are not 
far apart (oi woXi diearara), and much repetition would result 
if it were employed in relation to them. So in the de Anima 
(see de An. 2. 3) it is through studying the Swaneis of the soul 
successively — to dpeimKdv, to ala-BriTiKov, and so forth — that we obtain 
a real knowledge of the soul. And so again in the History of 
Animals Aristotle's first step is to study the parts of which animals 
are made up, and in the treatise on the Parts of Animals to study 
the homogeneous parts, which are simpler, before the heterogeneous, 
which are more complex. The method of rising from the parts 
to the whole was a tradition from Socrates : see Grote, Plato i. 
384 sq., who refers to Hipp. Maj. 301 B, and notes the objection 
of Isocrates to it (ad Nicocl. § 52). Cp. also ad Nicoclem, § 9, 

irpaTov iiev olv fTKenreov ti tSk ^aaiXtvovTcav epyov itrrlv iav yap iv Ke(f>a- 
Xatoif TTiv Siva/uv oXou tov wpdyiiaTos koXSs irepCKa^mp.iV, ivraiiff airo- 
fiXfTrovres apeivov (tat wtpl riov pxpav epovfiev. In de Anima I. I. 402 b 

9 sqq. we find Aristotle discussing whether it is better to begin 
with f) o\ij yjruxr] or to /xopta or TO epya airmv. His review of the 
parts of the State in the Politics, indeed, quickly reveals to him its 


20 sqq. Kal iroXi>' answers to iv rots aXXoir, 18. By arriving at 
the simple elements of the trSKis, which are, as the State consists of 
households (c. 3. 1253 b 2), the simple elements of the household 
— husband and wife, father and child, master and slave — we shall 
not only come to understand the nature of the 7r6Kis, but shall also 
learn what is the difference between the Sea-iroTiKos, oIkovo/iikos, woXi- 
TiKos, and ^ao-iXiKof, and also how far it is possible to arrive at a 
scientific account of each of these personages. Some take both tovtoiu 
and cKacrrov rav prjdevrav to mean ' the parts of which the n-oXw is 
composed,' but if to Xtydixevov 17 refers, as seems probable, to 7-16, 
we look rather for an inquiry with regard to the SfoTrorwds, oIko- 
vopiKos, etc. than for one respecting the parts of which the ttoKk is 
composed. Besides, eKaarov rav ptfBevTiav reminds us of Tomav 
exaiTTov 10, words clearly referring to the htmrorutis, etc. Sepulveda, 
on the other hand, takes tovtiov to mean ' the parts of which the 
jrciXtr is composed,' though he explains tKa<rTov t&v prjdevTav as 
'quae pertinent ad regem, ad civilem hominem, ad dominum et 
patrem familias.' Gur attention, however, has been specially 

1. 1. 1252 a 20—2. 1252 a 24. 103 

drawn in 7-16 to the question as to the nature of the difference 
existing between the Se<nT<m.K6s, oIkovoiukos, and the rest, and it 
seems likely that bta^fptmai zi takes up 8ia(j>cpeiv 10; perhaps, 
therefore, on the whole it is most probable that both roirav and 

fKaa-Tov tS>v prj6evTcov refer to the Seo-JToTiKor, oixovo/iucdf, ttoKitikos, and 
/SacnXiKor, Cp. I. 7- 1255 b 16, (fiavepbv be Kal cie tovtiov on ov rairou 
icm SeffjroTeia Kcu iraXtriK^, oiSe Traam dXX:^Xais al ap^ai, Zairep TiVfS 

<j)aiTiv. We shall find that the analysis of the irdXti into its simple 
elements (which is described in c. 3. 1253 b i sq. as completed) does 
throw light on the difference between the deoTronicoV, the olitovopiKos, 
and the ruler of a State, and ultimately to some extent also on the 
difference between the itoKitikos and the ^atrCKiKos, for we learn to 
distinguish the rule exercised by the head of the household over 
his wife, which is a ttoXitik^ apxri, from that which he exercises over 
his child, which is a ^aa-CKiKrj apxo. As to TtxviKov, cp. Eth. Nic. 10. 

10. 1 180 b 20, oiSev 8" fjTTov taas rm ye /SovXo/Kcvip rexviKa ytviaBai KOi 
BeapjfnK^ eiri ro RaSoKov /SaStorcov etvai So^cieu av, kokcivo yvapurrlov a>; 
fvSexeTaf cipijroi yhp oft wepi Tov6' ai tVwrtq/iat, and also Pol. I . II. 
1258 b 33 sqq. : 1259 a 8, 20. For e| Sc 20 (not ck rivav), cp. I. 3. 
1253 b I, eVfi be (jiavepiu e| Sv poplav fj nSKts avveanjKtv, and See Jelf, 
Gr. Gr. 2. § 877. a. Obs. 3, 4. 

24. El 81^ Tis K.T.X. Ail introduces the first step in the inquiry c. 
just announced: cp. de An. i. 2. 403b 26: Pol. 6 (4). 12. 1296 b 
14:6 (4). 14. 1297b 37. The first question as to this sentence is, 
does &<rirep ev tow aXKois, Kai ev TovTots form part of the protasis or 
the apodosis ? Bernays connects the words with the protasis. 
Sepulveda,Vict., and Lamb, take them with the apodosis, and, it would 
seem, more naturally: cp. above 18-21. Proposals to transfer 
ovra 26 to before Ka\ 25 are negatived by the usage of Aristotle (see 
Bon. Ind. 546 b 18 sqq., who refers among other passages to Eth. 

Nic. 3. I. mob 9, el 84 m ra ffiea kclL to. KoKa ^air/ /Si'aia elvai 
(fivayxa^eiv yap e^a ovra), ■navra h> etr) ovra /Si'ata), nO lesS than by the 

intrinsic objections to taking this liberty with the MS. text. The 
meaning of ovra seems to be not ' as follows ' (Bern.), but ' by 
watching the process of growth from the beginning.' Andrew 
Schott, in some notes appended to D. Heinsius' Paraphrase of the 
Politics (p. 1042), takes ii apxvs with cfivop^va, and there is, no 
doubt, some strangeness in the expression e^ apxv' ^^^ijreiev : still 
these words are probably to be taken together. 'e| apxvs 
means, ' beginning at the beginning ' : see Waitz on Anal. Post. 
2. 8. 93 a 16. For the genetic method here employed, cp. 
Meteor. 4. 12. 389 b 24 sqq., and Isocr. De Antid. § 180. In 

104 NOTES. 

tracing the growth of the ttoXw from its earliest moments, Aristotle 
follows Plato's example both in the Republic (369 A) and in the 
Laws (678 sqq.). Plato's object, however, is different from AriS' 
totle's. In the Republic his object, or nominal object, is to find 
justice — in the Laws it is to discover rl koKSis fj jirj Kor^Kia-drj k.tX 
(Laws 683 B); whereas Aristotle's object is to distinguish the 
Sea-TTOTKos, olKovofUKos, ^atTiKiKos, and TToKiTiKos, and Still more to prove 
that the irokts is by nature and prior to the individual, and the 
source of airdpieeia to the latter. His substitution of this method 
of watching the growth of the m\is from its smallest elements is 
not a desertion of the method of division (Siaipelv, 19) announced 
just previously ; it is, on the contrary, its best application. The 
same plan is followed in c. 9 to distinguish the sound and the un- 
sound xp')^"'"''''""'^- The growth of xpv^""'''"'""'! both within and 
beyond the limits prescribed by Nature is carefully traced. For to 

irpayiiara, cp. Rhet. I. 7. 1364 b 8. 

26. di'dyKij 8t| k.t.X. Society begins in Necessity (that which is 
necessary always comes first, that which is for well-being after- 
wards, 4 (7). 10. 1329 b 27), and its earliest form is <Tvvhva<Tiws, 
the union in pairs of human beings who are indispensable to each 
other. Aristotle lays stress on the origin of the household in 
Necessity and the needs of every day, partly in order to differentiate 
the olxovofUKos and the ttoXitucm, partly because by tracing the 
household to Necessity, or in other words Nature, he obtains the 
means of proving that its outgrowth the n-oXis is by Nature. He 
finds the origin of the Household and the ttoXw in Necessity and 
Nature, not irpoaipca-is (for this contrast Bonitz, Ind. 837 a 46, 
compares de Part. An. 2. 13. 657 a 37, koI tovto ovk ck wpoaipitreas, 
d\X' f] <j>i(Tis iiroiria-e). Plato had seemed in the Republic (369 B : 
cp- 371) to regard the ttoXii as originating in the exchange of 
products and labour. Even in the Laws, where the household is 
treated as the germ of the noXis (680), no such attempt is made to 
trace its origin and to resolve it into its constituent elements, as is 
here made by Aristotle. In the view of the latter, human society 
originates not in the aWaKTiKti Koivavia (which begins only in the 
Km/tij or Village, c. 9. 1257 a 19 sqq.), but in the relations of 
husband and wife, and master and slave. The starting-point of 
the process that gives birth to the ttoXw is to be sought in a pair of 
powerful instinctive desires — ^that of reproduction, which brings male 
and female together, and that of self-preservation, which draws the 
slave to his master, the master also gaining in completeness by 
having the slave's physical strength placed at his disposal. Else- 

1. 2. 1252 a 26—28. 105 

where, however, we are told that human society originates in the 
aim to live (toO f^i/ eveKev, c. 2. 1252 b 29 : 3. 6. 1278 b 24 : cp. 
Plato, Rep. 369 D) and ultimately to live nobly and well (1252 b 
30: 1278 b 21 sqq.), for which purposes men stand in need 
of ^ Trap' aXX^Xa>i> ^or/deia (1278 b 2o). This account of the origin 
of society is set by the side of that which traces it back to the 
instincts which lead to the formation of the household ; we are not 
taught how to weave them together. There is, besides, a further 
source of human society — simple Spe^is roO av^v (3. 6. 1278 b 
21): man is so endowed by nature — endowed with speech and 
perceptions of the good and bad, the just and unjust, the advan- 
tageous and disadvantageous — as to seek society irrespective of all 
needs of jSo^flna : he is, in fact, a TroXtT-jKOK fyoj/ in an especial 
degree. Without these endowments the instincts of reproduction 
and self-preservation would not suffice to give birth to the house- 
hold and the ttoXis, for these instincts are possessed by the lower 
animals, which nevertheless do not form households or jroXfu. 

Tois aveu dWi^Xuf k.t.X. Cp. de Gen. An. 2. 4. 741 a 3 sq., 2, 
5. 741 b 2 sqq., and Menand. Inc. Fab. Fragm. loi ; 

0«6toi» ovTas avbev iariv, S Ad;(ijr, 
6av (TKvirrj Tis, &>9 avrfp re Koi yvvrj. 

Perhaps t^i yevi(T€as evexcu 27 is intended to qualify not only 

(rvvSvii^eadai, but also roiis Svev aXX^Xoii' fif/ Swa/ievovs €ivai. For this 

purpose they cannot dispense with each other, and for this purpose 
they must pair. 

27. dTJXu (J16I' Kol appev. It would seem from cV rois aXXo« f^oti 
29, that in this passage, as occasionally elsewhere (e. g. i. 13. 
1260 a 10, 13), these words are used of the male and female 
human being. 

Tfjs yeviaeias Ivsksv, the origin, but not, in Aristotle's view, the 
end of wedlock: see Eth. Nic. 8. 14. 1162 a 19 sqq. The house-- 
hold, like the jroXtf , comes into existence for one end, but subsists V 
for another. Tiveais is a wider term than yiwrjaK : ' et ipsum to 
ylyvea-Bai et yevvaadai significat, et universam earn seriem mutatio- 
num complectitur quibus conficitur generatio ' (Bon. Ind. 148 b 4). 

28. dXX' fio-Trep . . . iTepoi-. Cp. Democrit. Fragm. 184 (Mul- 
lach, Fr. Philos. Gr. i. 351 : Stob. Floril. 76. 17), referred to by 
Lasaulx (Ehe, p. 91) : Aristot. de Anima, 2. 4. 415 a 26, (pva-ucarra- 
Tov yap tS)v epyav rots CSxrtv (all things that partake of life, whether 

animals or not — de An. 3. 12.434a 27), Sa-a TfXera koI firi TnjpaiiaTa, 
Tj TTiv yiveiTtti avropAniv «x*') ^ "■"'^o''" efepov oiov avTo, ffflov fiev fraoK, 
<j>vTbp 8i (jyvToVf Iva Toi^aeiKcu. Tov Gtiov fUTe\a(ra> 17 hivavTM' iravra yap 

io6 NOTES. 

tKfivov opeyerm, Kcutelvov evexa nparrei Sara irpdrrei Kara (f>vtriv : and the 

following passages in the de Generatione Animalium — 2. i. 735 a 
17 sq. : 2. I. 731 b 24 sqq. : i. 23. 731 a 24-b 8 : 3. 10. 760 a 
35 sqq. (where Nature is said to design that species shall be 
perpetual). Plato had already pointed to marriage as a mode of 
attaining immortality (Laws 721 B-C: see Lasaulx, Ehe, p. 93), 
and the writer of the so-called First Book of the Oeconomics, 
who is fond of blending the teaching of Aristotle with that of 
Plato's Laws and the writings of Xenophon, reproduces the view 
(c. 3. 1343 b 23 sqq.). Eth. Eud. 2. 6. 1222 b 15 sqq. should 
also be compared with this passage. This impulse of reproduction 
can hardly be an Spelts, for it is shared by plants, and plants have 
not TO opeKTixSv (de An. 2. 3. 414 a 31 sqq.): it may, however, pos- 
sibly be an Spfirj (Pol. i. 2. 1253 a 29). It seems scarcely to find a 
place in the enumeration of to iv rrj ^xv yi'Vopeva (Eth. Nic. 2. 
4. 1105 b 19 sq.) as n-a'tfi; Svi/n'/ifu e^cK, probably because it belongs 
to TO BpenTiKov, with which an ethical treatise has nothing to do. 
Aristotle does not enter into the question why the union of man 
and wife is more than a momentary union, or why it is more 
lasting than that of male and female among other animals; but 
his answer may probably be inferred from Eth. Nic. 8. 14. 1162 a 
1 9 sqq., which may be contrasted with Locke on Civil Government, 
2. §§ 79, 80. 

29. <t>uTois. There is no assertion in this passage (as Schn. thinks) 
of a sex in plants. Aristotle, in fact, holds that though plants 
share in the male and female principle (otherwise they could not 
be said to live) — de Gen. An. 2. i. 732 a 11 — yet these powers 
are mingled in them and not separated the one from the other (de 
Gen. An. i. 23. 731 a i). All he says is that plants, like animals, 
are actuated by an impulse to produce a being like themselves: 
how this is done, is not here noticed. 

30. apx<»' 8^ K.T.X. Sc. avayKt) (TvvSvaCea-6at. Aristotle is pro- 
bably speaking here only of that form of the relation of ruler 

V /and ruled which is exemplified in master and slave. Wherever on 
^ one side there is intelligence and on the other brute force only, it is 
to the interest of both parties to combine, the master supplying 
what the slave needs and the slave what the master needs. Euri- 
pides (Here. Furens 1235) makes his hero refuse to believe that 
one god can ever have made a slave of another, as some assert : 

Acirai yap 6 6e6s, etirep eVr ovrms 6i6s, 
Aristotte's theory of natural slavery is already indicated here. 

1. 2. 1252 a 29—34. 107 

For the thought that it is didvota which makes the master, cp. 
de An. I. 5. 410 b 12 sq., Trjs fie V'"X5* ehain Kpehrov koI 
ap)(ov ahvvaroV aSvvaraiTepov &' ?« tov vov' eiSXoyov yhp rmrov elvai 
vparyevifTTmov Km Kvptov kotci <f)i<nv. In 4 (7). 7. 1328 a 6 
we read — koi t6 Spxov 8i Koi t6 i\€v0epov diro TJjs 8vvap.(a>s tovtijs 
imapxei namv, dpxticbv yap koi d^rnjTov 6 6vp.6s, but yet Svpjos by itself 
and severed from htavota confers freedom rather than the capacity 
to rule others (4 (7). 7. 1327 b 23-33). The slave is throughout 
regarded by Aristotle as in the main a creature of thew and 
sinew and nothing more. His function is the use of his body, 
and this is the best to be got from him, i. 5. 1254 b 17 sq. : 
he shares in reason sufficiently to apprehend it, but has it not 
(i. g. 1254 b 22): he is wholly without the deliberative faculty 
(to ffovKevTiKov, 1. 13. 12 60 a 1 2), and hence is no partaker in 
life according to moral choice or happiness (3. 9. 1280 a 33). 
Plato, on the other hand, had described men possessed of muscular 
strength and little intelligence as born to be hired labourers (Rep, 
371 E). 

32. irpoopai'. Cp. Plato, Laws 690 B, to 8e neyicrrov, as eotKeif, 
d§ia>fia cktov iv yiyvoiro, (TTfadai piv tov dvemaTripova KfXeDoi', tAk 8< 
<f)povovvTa fiyeiaBai re Koi Spxeiv : Isocr. (?) ad Demonicum § 40, neip& 
T^ piiv (rapari clvai ^(XoTrovor, Tjj fie ^v;^,^ <j)iKd(TO(j)os, iva t& piv imrtKeiv 
hivji TO ho^avra, rfj fie Ttpoopav imaTg ra avp^ipovra : the Same 

thought recurs in the undoubtedly authentic de Antidosi of Isocrates 
(§ 180). Cp. also Posidonius ap. Athen. Deipn. 263 c-d, and De- 

mocritUS ap. Stob. Floril. 44. 14, Kpiaaov Spxordai roiaiv dvorjToieiv ^ 

Spxeiv. Aristotle has evidently in view in his account of master and 
slave the contrast commonly drawn between soul and body. 

33. TouTo, ' that which the other has designed.' For a similar 
roughness in the use of the word, cp. roiko, de Gen. An. i. 22. 730 
b II. 

34. 8irf, because the one completes the other. Cp. Stob. Eel. 

Eth. 2. 6. 17 (torn. 2. p. 92 Meineke), vaB^ Si leal Koff iavrbv 
aJbivaTOv BiaCrjv, ^ to SpxeaBm <Tvp(f>epeiv. The sketch of the 

political teaching of the Peripatetics here given (torn. 2. p. 
91 sqq. Meineke) deserves study, as being in the main a r/sum/, 
though a brief one, of the teaching of the Politics. 

toAt^ (ruiJuji^pEi. In the Third Book, on the other hand, the rule of 
the master is said only accidentally to aim at the advantage of the 

slave, ov yap cVfie^eTot if>6ftpopfvov tov Sov\ov va^cdBai ttjv SfOTToreiav 

(3. 6. 1278 b 32). Thus it would seem that even in becoming, 
as the First Book (c. 13. 1260 b 3) requires him to become, a 

io8 NOTES. 

source of ethical virtue to his slave, the master will have his own 
interest in view. We are not told this in the First Book. 

34-b 9. In mentioning two Koivw/im and not one, Aristotle has 
implied that a distinction exists between them, and he now draws 
attention to the fact, in order that he may remove a difficulty in 
the way of the acceptance of his view. By nature, then — ^he in 
effect says — the female is marked off from the slave (for Nature 
designed them to serve different purposes), and if this is not so 
j^mong barbarians, the reason is that among them the element 
'destined by nature for rule is not forthcoming. Mtw olv here, as 
often elsewhere, introduces a renewed reference to a subject on 
which increased precision is desirable. Cp. 1253 a 10, where, 
after the fact has been mentioned that language is peculiar to man, 
^iv olv introduces an admission that this is not true of voice, and 
an explanation of the difference between voice and language. 
The existence of a distinction between women and slaves is 
implied in Poet. 15. 1454 a 20 sqq. (a reference given in Bon. Ind. 
204 b 45). The practice of buying wives, which seems to be 
referred to in Pol. 2. 8. 1268 b 39 sq. as common among the 
barbarians, may have often tended to reduce wives to the level of 
slaves (see Prof. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early 
Arabia, p. 76 sq.). Plato had remarked already on the treatment of 
women as slaves in barbarian communities (Laws 805 D-E). Their 
toils were in some degree compensated by easier child-bearing 
(Aristot. de Gen. An. 4. 6. 775 a 32 sqq.). Even among the poor of 
a Hellenic State the true form of the household cannot be quite 

realized : cp. 8 (6). 8. 1323 a 5, roTr yap mropots ivayKri ^(pfiaOai Koi 
yuxaiji (tal naiaiv axjirtp aKoKovBois 8ta Trjv nhovK'ua). The fact noted 

by Plato and Aristotle as to barbarians has been often remarked 
upon by later writers : so Darwin (Voyage of the Beagle, p. 216) 
says of the Fuegians, ' the husband is to the wife a brutal master 
to a laborious slave ' ; and even as to Montenegro we read — ' How 
can you expect beauty from women who are used as beasts of 
burden by the men ? . . . The well-grown handsome men who 
^re playing at ball before the palace of the Prince are the husbands 
and brothers of the poor creatures who are carrying wood and 
water to their homes' (Letter from Montenegro in the Times, 
Oct. II, 1882). On the other hand, Aristotle elsewhere notes the 
frequency of ywaiKOKparla among barbarians (2. 9. 1269 b 24 sq.). 
Both observations are probably true, however we may choose to 
reconcile them. It should be added that though Aristotle here 
contrasts that which prevails among the barbarians with that which 

1. 2. 1252 a 34— 1252 b 2. 109 

is natural, he is well aware that legislators may learn much from 
them (Rhet. i. 4. 1360 a 33 sqq.); in fact, he occasionally mentions 
with approval in the Politics practices prevailing among them (for 
instance, their way of rearing infants, 4 (7). 17. 1336 a 5 sqq.), and 
often draws attention to their customs (in relation to communism, 
for example, 2. 5. 1263 a 3 sqq.). Plato had spoken in the passage 
of the Laws to which reference has been made (805 D-E) of ' the 
Thracians and many other races,' but Aristotle speaks as if the 
wife were virtually a slave among the barbarians generally. 

1. ouSec yAp K.T.X. The limits within which this holds good 1252 b. 
are more fully expressed in de Part. An. 4. 6. 683 a 22, Srrov yap 

€v8e}(fTat xp?"'^"' 8v(t\v eVi dv tpya xal fifj ifiirobi^fiv irphs irepov, ov- 
Siv ^ <l)v<TK eiaOe Tioieai &<nTep 17 ^''X''^''^'''^ "'P"' evTiktiav o^t\uiKO- 
Xv;(i>(oi'' aXX' OTTOV pfj ivhe\er(U, Karaxp^rai r^ aira eVl TrXeua cpyt. 

Thus Aristotle says of magistracies in small States, Pol. 6 (4). 15. 

1299 b 7> ^'OTEp ovSiv KoaKvei jroWhs cirt/xeXeta; a/ia irpotTTarreiv, ov 
yap fp.jToStovo'iv dXX^Xau, Kai irpbs ttjv oKiyavdpamlav avayKaiov ra dpxcia 

olov offeXuTKoKvxvia Troieiv. For instances in which Nature uses an 
organ designed for one purpose for certain other side-purposes, see 
de Part. An. 2. 16. 659 a 20: 3. i. 662 a 18. There were some 
conspicuous exceptions in the human economy to the rule of ev Trpos 

ev : cp. de Gen. An. 5- 8. 789 b 9, olov yap €Via TroXixpitrrd iart 
tS)V TTtpl Tas t/x"™, &<nrep iv rfl p^aXfceuTticj ^ (rcpipa Kal 6 aKfiav, 
ouTas Ka\ TO nvevpa iv to'is (pvirci, a-vveo-Tatriv, and de Part. An. 4, 
10. 687 a 19, 17 de x^'P ^otKfV eivai ovx I" opyavov afCKd iroXXo' ecrri 
yap ixTTTcpel opyavov rrpo opyavav' Tm ovv liKtiaras Svvapiva be^airBai 
rixvas T0~4m. jrXeioroi' rStv opyavav xp^O'V" "^h" X^P" mrc^ebaKev 
{} (j>v(ris ... V 7°P X^'P ""' ^"^S *"' X^X^ Kal Kepas yiviTai leai Sopv 

Kot $i<f>os Kai aXKo ottoiovovv ottKov koI opyavav. Whether the various 
uses of the hand interfere with each other, must be left to physiolo- 
gists to determine. 

2. -rfic AeX+iK})!' (idxaipoc. See Sus.", Notes 8 and 1353. Vict, 
appears to have been the first to draw attention to de Part. An. 4. 
6. 683 a 22 sqq. (quoted in the last note) and to the important 
passage from the comic poet Theopompus quoted by Julius Pollux 

10. 118, TO Se 6Pe\ia-Ko\vxviov arTpartcDTiKov p,ivT0i (aliter piv ti) xPW"* 
iiptjTai fie iwo OeoTropjrov Tov KapiKov ev 'Elp^vji — 

'Hpas 8" diToKKaxSevras eV dyadah Tvxats 

o^cKuTKoKvxvlov Kal ^i(j>opaxalpas irtKpds. 
Vict, says in his note on 6 (4). 15. 1299 b 9 sq., 'Pollux 
quoque mentionem ipsius fecit, qui narrat militare instrumentum 
id fuisse. Hoc autem, ut opinor, excogitatum fuerat, ne milites 

no NOTES. 

nimis premerentur duobus gravibus instrumentis ferendis, cum 
ex uno ita conformato valerent eundem fnictutn capere.' The 
proverb AAtjuKri naxaipa (Leutsch and Schneidewin, Paroem. Gr. 
1. p. 393) seems to throw no light on the passage before us. We 
see from Athen. Deipn. 173 c sqq. that the Delphians were famous 
for their knives and their turn for sacrificial feasting and cookery, 
and they may very well have used and sold to pilgrims nothing 
loth to avoid expense (683 a 23 sqq.) a knife which might be used 
not only for killing the victim but also for flaying it and cutting it 
up. Contrast Eurip. Electr. 743-769 (Bothe), where Aegisthus 
first kills the victim (a kid) with a tr<j>ayis, and then Orestes after 
flaying it with a Dorian kowIs asks for a large Phthian kottIs to cut 
it up. We need not suppose with GSttling (de Machaera Del- 
phica, p. 10) that the Delphic knife was a combination of a knife 
and a spoon. The passage he quotes from Hesychius — Ae^tpiKij 

fiaxaipa airo KaTaiTKcvTJs Xa/u/Sdvoutra cinrpotrBev pepos friSrjpovv, as 'Apurr 

ToreXiji — deserves notice, but leaves us much in the dark. 

3. -irefixpus. Vict. ' apte ad usus pauperum ' — a rendering pro- 
bably suggested by wpos evTeXnav in the parallel passage from the 
De Partibus Animalium quoted above (note on 1252 b i) — but 
the meaning apparently is ' in a spirit of stint ' (Lamb. ' parce 
tenuiter et anguste '). 

ouTu. , Cp. 1252 a 24 sqq., though here the clause which explains 
it, ^i) TToXXoii epyois dXK' eVc SovKeiiov, follows and does not precede it. 
The use of SovXevov in the passage before us seems to be a some- 
what uncommon one. 

diroTtXoiTo. Vict. ' efiici fabricarique poterit' Cp. 2. ix. 1273 b 

9, iv yap i(j) ivos fpyov apurr airoTtKArai, and 13, Koit'oTfpov re yip, 
KaSdnep clnofuv, Km koXXiov eKaUTOv aTroreXcirai tS>v airwv Koi Bottov. 
6. Ti^w. Cp. Magn. Mor. I. 34. 1194 b 15, orav ijSri Xd|3g (& 

v'As) rfiv Tov avSpbs Ta^iv. Vict, compares Virg. Aen. 2. 102 : 
Si omnes uno ordine habetis Achivos. 
T& <|)(5<rei Spxcf. What this is appears from 1252a 31 sq. and 
4 (7)' 7- 1327b 23-33. According to Aristotle, the relation 
between the barbarian husband and wife assumes an unnatural 
, / form, because that which is naturally the ruling element is wanting. 
^ If the wife is a slave, it is because everybody is so. She is no, 
worse off than her husband. Cp. Eurip. Hel. 246, where Helen 
says — 

Ta fiap^dpap yap fioSXa mvra irKfjV fv6s, 

and see Hug, Studien aus dem classischen Alterthum, p. 60. When 
in 4 (7). 7- 1327b 25 Aristotle speaks of the barbarians of cold 

1. 2. 1252 b 3—9. HI 

climates as tending to be free, he must be referring to political 

7. yii'STai, 'comes to be.' See notes on 1264a 14: 1264b 

■^ Koii'ui'ia adrui' refers probably to the conjugal union among 
the barbarians (so Bern, and Sus.). 

8. 01 iroiTjToi. Euripides, Iph. Aul. 1266: 

Bap^dpwv b' 'EWrivas apxeiv flxos, aX\' ai fiap^dpovs, 
lifjrep, 'EWrjvaV to fuv yap SouXok, ol S' eXtvSepot, 

Lecturers, we are told in Metaph. a. 3. 995 a 7, were often expected 
by their audience to produce a poet as a witness to the truth of 
their statements. 

9. eK fi^v oSc K.T.X. The two Kotvaviai are those of husband and 
wife, master and slave (the latter being here implied to be a Koivta- 
via, though the name Koivavoi is apparently denied to master and 
slave in 4 (7). 8. 1328 a 28 sqq.). That of father and child arises after 
the foundation of the household. Translate : ' from these twO 
unions, then, proceeds first the household.' ' nparti is by no means 
meaningless or pleonastic, for the further societies of the village 
and State consist of men and women, masters and slaves, but only 
mediately (mittelbar), inasmuch as they consist of households and 
households consist of these members. The next paragraph offers 

a striking analogy (1252 b 15, ^ 8' ck TrKftovav oIkiSiv Kowmvia nparri 

j(priaeas eKfRfK iifj e^ripApov Kaixrj) : the State also, it is implied, con- 
sists of a plurality of households, but only mediately, inasmuch as 
it is composed of a number of villages which are themselves made 
up of households' (Dittenberger, Giiii. Gel. Ann., Oct. 28, 1874, 
P- "^373)- Some have been tempted to explain oIkIo nparTj as 'the 
simplest form of the household' (cp. jrpmnj jroXty, 6 (4). 4. 1291 a 
17: 4 (7). 4. 1326 b 7), considering the complete form to be 
realized when children have come into being. But, as Dittenberger 
observes (p. 1373), there is no confirmatory trace elsewhere in Aris- 
totle's treatment of the household of this distinction between the 
olida nparr) and btvripa. An oIkIo riKcios is indeed mentioned in i. 3. 
1253 b 4, but as consisting of slave and free, both of which classes 
find a place in the household from the first. No doubt, in the 
third chapter Aristotle adds to the two KoivavUu spoken of in 1252 b 
I o a third (that which exists between father and child), but the reKeios 
okia does not seem to be connected with the appearance of this re- 
lation. The parallel of 1252 b 15 also points to the other interpret 
tation, and the absence of any 8e to answer to /liv oZv 9 (if indeed 
the second 8e in 15 does not answer both to/iw oSi/ 12 and to fuv 

112 NOTES. 

oSv 9) is not uncommon in the Politics (see Sus.', Ind. Gramm. /lef), 
and affords no ground for the surmise of a lacuna after iarip iz. 

10. Kol 6p6us K.T.X. The word Trpwrrj suggests the quotation 
from Hesiod, which Aristotle seems to interpret as making the wife 
and the ox the elements of the household, and thus supporting his 
own view, for the ox, he says, is the poor man's slave (cp. Aelian, 
Var. Hist. 5. 14). If the line which follows (Has. Op. et Dies 406), 

KrrjTrjV, ov yafUTr\v, ijnr fcai ^ov&iv enoiTO, 

is genuine, the meaning which Aristotle attributes to Hesiod is even 
further from his real meaning than in the contrary case. 

13. CIS Ttaaav i\^ipav auv&rr^Kuia KaT& <|>uo'ii', ' existing by nature 
for the satisfaction of daily recurring needs,' (compare the phrase 
which stands in contrast to this, xpija-eas tvexev nij itj^jficpov, 16). So 
we have Kara re rh avatriria Km tov oKKov ^iov top Kaff fjiupav (2, 6. 
1265 b 41), irpos Tw Kaff fiiupav Svres ('J (5). II. 1313 b 2o) ; and to 

f<j)ripepa are conjoined with ra avayKota Tov piav in Strabo ^. p. 311. 
The Kap.ij (or ycW), on the contrary, exists to satisfy necessities less 
incessantly recurring, and as to the ttcJXij, ep. Eth. Nic. 8. 1 1. 1 160 a 

21, ov yap rov irapovros avpffyepovTos rj ttoKitiktj {icoivavLa^ e^teraij aXX' €is 

airavTa tAv plov. The view implied here of the aim of the household 
seems somewhat to differ from that of 1252 a 26-34, where repro- 
duction and self-preservation are said to bring it into being. 

14. oIkos . . . ous. Cp. 3. 13. 1283 b 33, t6 irXrjdos . . oix as Kaff exa- 

tTTov dXX' uis adpoovs. Aristotle takes up the word oIkos from Hesiod 
in place of the more usual oiKia. As to the ordinary difference in 
meaning between ohcos and oiVia, see Boeckh, Public Economy of 
Athens, E. T. p. 142, note 680, and Shilleto on Demosth. de 
Falsa Legatione, § 279. It is in order to show that the household 
originates in the needs of daily life that Aristotle adduces the names 
given to its members by Charondas and Epimenides. 

6)i.o(riiri5ous. The o-tTTOij was a bread-chest : Vict, refers to 
Aristoph. Plut. 802. 

15. dfioKiiirous. KoTn; is ' a manger.' Gottling's argument that 
as Epimenides belonged to Crete, where syssitia prevailed, he would 
not be likely thus to designate the household, seems of the least 
possible weight. As Dittenberger says {ubt supra, p. 1357), "^^ do 
not know for certain that the work of Epimenides which Aristotle 
here quotes was authentic, or that, if it was, he was speaking of 
Crete. 'OpoKcmovs (with the penult short, at any rate), as Sus.^ 
(Note 1 7) says, would not fit into an hexameter verse, and Epime- 
nides wrote in hexameters, but we learn from Diog. Laert. i. 112 
that a prose treatise on the Cretan Constitution passed under his 

1. 2. 1^52b 10— 16. 113 

name, and the tenn may have occurred in this work. The words 
Ka/tnara, KawTfiv, Ko/i/izaTiSey seem to be old-fashioned words used in 
connexion with the common meals at Sparta (Nicocl. ap. Athen. 
Deipn. 140 d). For Zeis Kawalos, see Meineke, Fr. Com. Gr. 3. p. 58 : 
cp. Zeiis eTtupeioi, ibid. 4. p. 384. ' 'Ojiokuttvovs is more likely to be a 
corruption from the less familiar oiiOKonrovs than d/io(cdjrotis from it,' 
observes Mr. Ridgeway {Trans. Camb. Philol. Soc. vol. 2. p. 125), 
who however suggests oiwKoirovs with the penult long, Dor. for 
ofioKtiiTotis, ' those who have a common plot of ground.' Giphanius, 
who prefers onoKairvovs, explains onoKciirovs in this way (p. 21: 
Schneider, Pol. vol. 2. p. 9). But perhaps ohokottovs with the 
penult short better expresses that community in sustenance and 
in the satisfaction of daily recurring needs to which Aristotle, as 
Dittenberger remarks {ubi supra, p. 1358), points as the characte- 
ristic feature of the household. "OjueVTioj is used in the sense of ' a 
member of the household ' (Polyb. 2. 57. 7, referred to by Vict.), 
but not o/idxan-i/os. The word o/ioKdrrour does not necessarily imply 
that the free and slave members of the household took their meals 
together, but the practice would be quite in harmony with the 
simplicity of early Greek life (cp. Theopomp. fragm. 243 : Mtiller, 
Fr. Hist. Gr. i. 319). 

i\ %' £K K.T.X. UpaTT] agrees with Koivavla : for its position in the 
sentence, cp. Metaph. I. 3. 1054 b I, al ia-m ypafipai cvBelai ai airai 

('are the same'): de Part. An. 2. 14. 658 a 28, Kaff SXov 1-6 o-S/io 
irpavh : Phys. 4. 5. 212 b 19 : Pol. 2. 8. 1269 a 23 : and still nearer, 
Phys. 4. 4. 212 a 20, TO Tov irepiixovTos nepai dKivtjTov Ttpiorov, tout' 

fOTiv 6 ToiTos, where the post-position of the adjectives seems to be 
for emphasis on the point desired to be pressed, and also to secure 
■the juxtaposition of aKivrjTov and irparrov. UpaTq in the passage be- 
fore us qualifies c'k nXeuovav olKiav, and perhaps also XRW^*"^ eveKev 

f<liilpepov. ' The first society to be formed out of more households 
than one, and to exist for the satisfaction of needs not daily 
recurring, is the village.' See note on 1252 b 9. 

16. (mJXiotto k.t.\. Vict. ' nee tamen omnem pagum talem esse 
aflfirmat, usu namque venire potest, et sane contingit aliquando, ut 
e variis locis homines non coniuncti inter se sanguine veniant in 
eandem sedem, atque illic domicilia sibi construant tot numero iam 
ut pagum ex ipsis confidant.' For the relation of the Kapr) to the 
deme, see Poet. 3. 1448 a 35 sq. Perhaps the Kapr/ and the rural 
deme continued to feel as a g^ens, and to obey a gentile authority, 
longer than is often supposed, and hence in part the preference of 
oligarchs and of the Lacedaemonians for village-residence and their 

VOL. 11. I 

114 NOTES. 

dislike of large cities, which had a natural tendency to democracy. 
The purchaser of land in an Athenian deme to which he did not 
belong paid something for eyKTijats (Boeckh, Publ. Econ. of Athens, 
E. T. p. 297 n. : HaussouUier, Vie Municipale en Attique, pp. 
68, 78) : hence the land probably tended, in rural demes at all 
events, to continue in the hands of the members of the deme. 
The villages founded by the Teutonic conquerors of Britain were 
to some extent peopled by kinsmen. ' Harling abode by Harling 
and Billing by Billing, and each " wick " and " ham " and " stead " 
and " tun " took its name from the kinsmen who dwelt together in 
it. In this way the house or " ham " of the Billings was Billing- 
ham, and the " tun " or township of the Harlings was Harlington ' 
(Green, The Making of England, p. 188). 

17. diroiKia oiKias. A similar expression is used by Plato, 
Laws 776 A. Cp. also Laws 680 A sqq., a passage which was 
probably present to Aristotle's mind throughout this part of the 
second chapter (see vol. i. p. 37, note i). Plato appeals to the same 
passage of Homer as is cited in 22, and for the same purpose, to 
prove the early prevalence of Patriarchal Kingship, or, as he terms 
it, Swaareia. Both Plato and Aristotle regard kingly rule as 
characteristic of early society and trace it to the government of the 
household by the father. 

ous . . . iraiSas. Aristotle's object in mentioning these names for 
members of the same village is to show by an appeal to the use of 
language that the village is an extension of the household. He 
V^as proved that the household is necessary and natural, and if he 
can prove that the village is an outgrowth of the household and 
the 'iToXis of the village, then the jrdXis will be shown to be- natural. 
Cp. Photius, Lexicon (quoted by Schn.), 6fioyaKaKTes, ol 7-0O avroii ya- 

XaKror, oils Ka\ yevvrjTas IkoKovv, and see Liddell and Scott, s. V. Plato 

had used the expression tovs irdihas Koi nalSav iralBas b Xeyojjtev in the 

passage of the Laws referred to in the last note (681 B), and 
Homer before him (II. 20. 308). Had Cicero the First Book of 
the Politics in his mind when he wrote (de OfBc. i. 17. 54) — nam 
cum sit hoc natura commune animantium ut habeant lubidinem 
procreandi, prima societas in ipso coniugio est ; proxima in liberis 
(in Aristotle master and slave); deinde una domus, communia 
omnia (cp. i. 9. 1257 a 21). Id autem est principium urbis et 
quasi seminarium reipublicae. Sequuntur fratrum coniunctiones, 
post consobrinorum sobrinorumque, qui cum una domo iam capi 
non possint in alias domos tanquam in colonias exeunt. Se- 
quuntur connubia et aflSnitates, ex quibus etiam plures propinqui. 

1. 2. 1252 b 17 — 20. Il5 

Quae propagatio et soboles origo est rerum publicarum? There 
is no express mention of the village, however, here, though a 
reference to it may be intended in the words ' alias domes.' Com- 
pare Demosth. in Macart. C. 19, koI Traides iyivovro avTois airaiTi Ka\ 
iraihav iraiSes, Koi iyivovro Trivre oixoi ex rov Bouo-eXou oikov ivos ovtos. 

19. txh . . . (dKoui'. The fact that the village is an oflFshoot of / 
the household enables Aristotle to account for the early prevalence j/ 
of Kingship. Compare with the passage before us a quotatioii 
from Theophrastus itepi ^ao-iXeiai in Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. g. 73, 

kot" ap\az fiev yap iiraira TToXts 'EXXas ffSatrtXeuero, ttXi/i' ov^ axnrep 
ra ^p^apa tdvr] deanoTiKas, dXXa Kara vo/iovs nvas Koi iBitrfwiis narpiovs 

(cp. Pol. 3. 14. 1285 a i6-b 12). 

rfii f.dvj] (' opp. oi°eXXi)«j,' Bon. Ind. 216 b gi) are here regarded 
as preserving the traditions of the village (cp. i. 9. 1257 a 24.: 
2. 8. 1268 b 39). The customs of the early Hellenes are thought 
both by Thucydides (i. 5-6) and by Aristotle (Pol. 2. 8. 1268 b 
39) to have had much in common with those of the barbarians of 
their own day. 

20. eK ^ao'iXEuofiEi'ui' yop am'TJXfloi', ' for they were formed of 
persons governed by a king,' i. e. of members of households. Cp. 

Plato, Laws 680 D, fiS>v ovv ovk iK tovtoiv ratv ' Kara p.iav oUrjaiv KaX 
Kara yivos hi,e<rjrapfiiva>v vivo dnoplas T^y iv rais <j>6opats (sc. roiavrai 
TToXirecat yiyvovrai^, iv als to irpfa^vTarov ap^fi 8ia to tt/v cipx^iv airoXs 
ix irarpos Koi iiTjTpbs yeyovivai, ois iiropxvoi KaBaitep opviBes ayekrjv filav 
TToe^o'oua'i, 7raTp0v0iJ.0vfj.ev0t kol ^atriKeiav nao'&v BtKatoTdrrjv ^aaiXevofievot ^ 
If <Tvvrj\6ov is here said of the cdvri as well as the n-dXets, both eBvos and 
jrdXis are implied to owe their origin to the household. ' It is worth 
noting that Aristotle gives us three distinct reasons for the preva- 
lence of kingly rule in early times — here, 3. ig. 1286 b 8 sqq., and 
'7. 13. II ' (is 4 (7). 14. 1332 b 16 sqq. meant ?) — without hinting 
in any one of the passages that he knew of those specified in the 
others ' (Mr. Postgate, Notes, p. i). The second of these passages, 
however, is apparently aporetic; Aristotle is seeing whether the 
argument in favour of Kingship derivable from the prevalence of 
it among the men of a former day (oJ Trpdrepov) may not be met ; 
may they not have rested content with it, because they had no 
choice, not many men of high excellence being then forthcoming ? 
We observe, moreover, that almost every discussion in the Politics 
takes less account of preceding ones, and makes less use of their 
results, than one might have expected, so that we are not much 
surprised if Aristotle seems in this passage of the Third Book to 
forget .that. , he. has. already accounted otherwise for the preva- 

I 2 

116 NOTES. 

lence of Kingship in early times. Locke remarks (Civil Govern- 
ment, 2. § ro6) — ' It is plain that the reason that continued the 
form of government in a single person was not any regard or 
respect to paternal authority, since all petty monarchies — that 
is, almost all monarchies near their original — have been com- 
monly, at least upon occasion, elective.' The etymology of the 
word ' King,' however, appears to make in favour of Aristotle's view. 
' It corresponds with the Sanscrit ganaka. ... It simply meant 
father of a family ' (Prof. Max Mtiller, Lectures on the Science of 
Language, 2. 282, 284, quoted by Dr. Stubbs, Const. Hist, of 
England, i. 140). 

irao-a yip oiKta k.t.X. Camerarius (Politicorum et Oeconomi- 
corum Aristotelis Interpretationes et Explicationes, p. 25) aptly 
quotes Hom. Od. i. 397, where Telemachus says, 

Airrap cya>v oiKoio ava^ tdOfi rj/ieTepoio 

Kui Spaiav, ovs fioi Xi/iairaro bios 'Obvaaevs. 

21. 8icl Ttir <i\>y<fivaav recurs in 2. 10. I2'7ib 24 sq., there also 
in reference to a colony — <^aa\ yap rhv AvKoOpyov , . . totc tok ;rXet- 
OTOU biarplylrai xpovov irepl Kprjrqv dta rijv (rvyyeveiav* airoiKOi yap oi AuK- 

Tioi tS>v AaKwvoiv ritrav. Just as in that passage the relationship of 
the Lyctians to the Laconians is referred to, so here the reference 
probably is to the relationship of the iiroiKlai to the olKla. So Sus. 
(Qu. Crit. p. 333): 'propter propinquitatem, id est quia nihil nisi 
colonia domus sive familia dilatata vicus est.' The words, how- 
ever, are often explained to refer to the mutual relationship of the 
members of the arroiKiat, Kingship being especially in place among 
relatives (cp. i. 12. 1259 b 14 sqq.), and this is a possible inter- 

22. Kai TOUT i(n\v o \iyei 'OjATipos. What is the meaning of 
TovTo ? What is the quotation from Homer held by Aristotle to 
prove ? The commentators are not agreed. Giph. ' Homeri ver- 
siculus eo pertinere videtur, ut doceat Aristoteles domesticum 
imperium esse velut regium' (p. 24); he would seem therefore to 

refer toCto to Traaa yap oiKia fiaaiKeierai fmo toO ^peir&vTarov 20 

exclusively, as does also Susemihl (Qu. Crit. p. 333). But it is not 
altogether easy to refer tovto to this particular clause only, and we 
hardly expect Aristotle to appeal to the practice of the Cyclopes in 
order to justify a general statement respecting the household of all 
times. The explanation of Vict, is — ' utitur etiam auctoritate summi 
poetae, qui idem ostendit, priscos scilicet, ut ipsis commodum erat, 
solitos regere suam familiam,' and perhaps it is in some such way 
as this that we should understand the quotation. Aristotle has been 

1. 2. 1252b 21—22. I17 

saying that w6\eis and ?5wj had their origin in the coming together 
of human beings who had been previously ruled by kings, and he 
uses Homer's account of the Cyclopes to prove the existence in the 
earliest times of a household form of Kingship — a form in which 
the king was the husband and father, and the subjects were the 
wives and children. To Plato (cp. Laws 680 D, to apxalov mnav 

iitiTriv aypioTTjTa Sia [tv6o\oyias iiraveveyKav, and Strabo, p* gg2,TaiTas 
Sfi TOs Sui(jjopas vnoypii(j>€iv <j>r]iTi rov iron/T^n o n^drav, Trjs /liv TrpwTrjs 
ffoXiTf ias TtapaSfiypa TiBevra tov t£i» 'KviiKamaiv ^iov), and probably also 
to Aristotle (Pol. I. 2. 1252 b 23, tmopaSes yap, Ka\ nvTO) to ap-)(CUOv 

^Kovv), the Homeric picture of the Cyclopes is a mythical picture of 
the rude beginnings of human society. Plato had already used the 
same quotation from Homer in Laws 680 A sqq, to prove that 
Patriarchal Kingship (which he terms Swaa-Teta) existed in early 
times, and the fact that the words with which he prefaces his quo- 
tation seem to find an echo in those with which Aristotle prefaces 
his makes it all the more likely that they quote it for a similar 
purpose. The passage in the Laws is as follows — Ae. UoKiTtias 

8e ye ^dr) koi rpojros iarl tis dSros. KA. Tiy ; AS. AoKovtrl px)i, Ttavres 
Trjv iv Toira tm ^povm TroKtrf lav hvvaoTrelav Ka\<lv, fj Kal vvv ert jroX\a;^ou 
lent cv "EXXtjcti Koi Kara ^apPapovt iari' Xcyei 6' oMiv irov Koi 'Oftijpos 
yeyovevai irepl Tr/v tS>v KvK\cmcov oiKqiriv, tlirav 

TOifTiv 8* oijT ayopai jSovXTjt^opot, oi/re 64p.uTTfSy 
nXX' o" y ir^\S>v opeav vaiovat Kapi)va 
iv <nri<r<Ti y\a(jivpoiiTt, 6ep.iaTevei 8e elcaoros 
iraiiav tjS a\6)(a>v, ovS dXXijXmi' oKiyovtriv, 

OefiioTEuEi 8e K.T.X. Odyss. 9. 114. eefwoTCMw implies kingship : 
it is used of Minos in Hom. Odyss. 11. 569, quoted by Plato, 
Gorgias 526 D. The society of the Cyclopes is referred to in Eth. 
Nic. 10. 10. 1 180 a 28, as a typical case of the household standing 
by itself, not supported or directed by a State. It is in order to 
account for the independence of the Cyclopic household and its 
head that Aristotle adds criropahes yap : this would have been clearer, 
if he had quoted the concluding words of the second line, ouS' aXXi}- 
Xffli' SKiyovaiv, but the passage was evidently well-known. Plato 
also mentions the scattered way in which the habitations were 
distributed in these early days of human society, and is bold 
enough to give as the reason for it the difficulty of finding sub- 
sistence just after the deluge (« Toirav tS>v koto. p.lav oiKfia-iv Kol Kara 
yevos — cp. the Kra/ii; of AristOtle — rSieaTrapfievav vtto mropias T^r iv rats 

<i)6opaii. Laws 680 D), but on this Aristotle is judiciously silent. 
This ' sporadic ' existence of primitive man is also recognized- in 

ti8 ' NOTES. 

the myth of Protagoras (Plato, Pro tag. 322 A) and by Philochorus 
(Fr. 4: Muller, Fr. Hist. Gr. i. 384) : cp. also Plutarch, Theseus 
c. 24, and Paus. 2. 15. 5. Some savage races still live thus : ' " the 
Abors, as they themselves say, are like tigers, two cannot dwell in 
one den," writes Mr. Dalton, "and the houses are scattered singly or 
in groups of two or three " ' (Mr. Herbert Spencer, Fortn. Rev. Jan. 

1881, p. 6)- 

24. Kal Tous eeous 8e k.t.X. ' Nay, the fact that men were at the 
outset ruled by kings has led them universally to assert that the 
gods also are so ruled.' Am toCto is explained by on k.t-.X. 

26. d(|)on,oiouo-ii'. Cp. Metaph. B. 2. 997 b 10 : A. 8. 1074b 3 sqq. 
(where it is said that the gods are sometimes assimilated in form 
to men, sometimes to certain of the lower animals): Poet. 25. 
1460 b 35. 

27 sqq. ■q 8' ek . . . eij XJ^v. Bonitz (Ind. 751 b 21) and appa- 
rently Bernays take TeXooy with jrd\«, and a irpaTT) woKis is no 
doubt mentioned in 6 (4). 4. 1291 a 17 and 4 (7). 4. 1326 b 7, but 
not in the First Book, unless indeed the village is to be viewed as 
an imperfect and inchoate noXis, which is nowhere stated. Nor 
would the mere union of more villages than one be enough of 
itself, in Aristotle's view, to constitute a reXews ttoXis. TtXewr 
seems to qualify Koivavia, not ttoXw, and its place in the sen- 
tence is explained (see note on. 1252b 15) by the fact that 
Koiviovia is qualified both by « rrXeiovav Ka>ixS>v and by xeXetor. The 
fern, form is more often reXeia or reXea in Aristode (Bon. Ind. 
751b 56 sqq.). 

On |ji.6>' o3c occurring as it does here in the middle of a sentence, 
see Vahlen's note on Poet. 22. 1458 a 24 (p. 326 sq. of his edition). 
He compares (among other passages) the following from the Politics 
—7 (5). 12. 1316 a 9 : 4 (7). 10. 1329 b 2 sq. : 4 (7). 17. 1336 b 
6 sqq. : to which i. 9. 1257 b 2 sqq. {/liv ovv, n}) may be added. See 
also Bon. Ind. 540 b 42 sqq., 'ixev odv saepe usurpatur,ubi notio modo 
pronunciata amplius explicatur': of this, besides the present passage 
and I. 9. 1257 b 2 sq., Poet. 22. 1458 a 23 sqq. is a good instance. 
MeV ovv thus used seems to introduce a comment on what has just 
been said, whether by way of modification or confirmation or other- 
wise. So here, after attributing to the ttoXie complete avrapKeia, 
Aristotle remembers that there is an epoch in its history at which 
this is not its aim ; he therefore slightly corrects what he had just 
said, but only to confirm it subject to that correction. In de Part, 
An, 4. II. 691 a 28, however, T^ec o3i/ in the middle of a sentence 
seems merely intended (in the sense of ' while,' cp. Pol. 2. 6. 1 265 a 

1.2. 1252 b 24 — 1253 a 1. T19 

1 7) to prepare the way for the sentence introduced by the 8e which 
follows, and to impart greater emphasis to the latter. 

YirofieVt) Tou Jtji' iveKev. Cp. 3. 6. 1278 b 24 : Plato had said the 
same thing (Rep. 369D: 371 B). In Aristotle's view the necessary 
is first sought and then higher things (Pol. 4 (7). 10. 1329b 27). In 
Eth. Nic. 8. II. ii6oa 11 sq., however, the iroXir is said to be 
commonly thought both to be formed and to exist tov (rvn^epovros 
xapiv, and in Pol. 3. 6. 1278b 21 sqq. it seems to be implied that bare 
existence is not always the aim with which men form it. 

irciaris Tr]9 aurapKeias, ' entire self-completeness ' — cp. jras 6 xmrjpi- 
Tijr, I. 4. 1253 b 33, and iracrca/Triv apxnv, 7 (5). II. 1313 a 21— both 
avTcipKeia iv Tois avayKalots, 4 (7). 4. 1326 b 4, and avTiipKeta in respect 

of TO eS Cij", 3. 9. 1280 b 34. Cp. also I. 8. 1256 b 31. 

iqSy], cp. 7 (S)- ^' 13°^ 3- 16, e(Tn yap aairfp t^p-os ^Sr/ 01 o/^otoi: 
Eth. Nic. 6. 10. II42 b 13, ^ 8o'|a ou fijTijcrts aXKa (pda-is ns fiSrj (has, 

as it were, 'reached the level' of assertion): and cp. also Pol. 2. 

2. 1261 b 12, Koi jSouXeTflt y ijhr] T&re ehai TToXiy, orav auTcipKij a-vii^aivri 
Trjv KoivavLav eu/ai tov nkrjBovs. 

For the attainment of the mpas by the iroKis (the third KOi,vavla in 
the order of genesis), cp. de Part. An. 2. i. 646 b 8, ravra yhp rjbr) 
TO Tikos t\ei Kai TO irlpas, iiri tov rpiTov Xaj3d»ra t^v (TvaTaaiv api6p,ov, 
KaBanep eVi ttoXXSi/ irvfi^aivei TeXeiova-dai tcls yevftreis : de Gen. An. 3. 
10. 760 El 34j «" Tw Tp'iTm dpidp.^ nepas eax^v fj yivecris : Probl. 26. 9. 

941 a 24, TeKevTo. 8' iv Tpial TrdvTa : de Caelo, I. I. 268 a I sqq. 

30. 816, ' because it is the completion of societies existing by 

irao-a iroXis. Cp. olxta naa-a, I. 13. 1260 b 13. Aristotle does 
not, however, mean that the deviation-forms of State are by nature : 
they are, indeed, expressly declared to be napa (jivaiv, 3. 17. 1287b 

39-^ ^ 

aX TtpSiTm. Koirbii'iai, i.e. npSiTai yeviaei. 

34. &vdpii-nou iTTirou oiKias. For the asyndeton, cp. 2. 4. 
1262 b 30, aiKias tpaiTas ^ovovs, and see Vahlen's note on Poet. 20. 
1457 a 22. 

In . . . 1253 a 1, P^TicTTOi'. ' Further, that for which things 
exist and the end is best, and self-completeness, the end of the 
State, is both the end and" best' ; hence the State brings that which 
is best ; hence it exists by nature, for nature brings the best. Cp. 

Eth. Eud. I. 7- I2l8b 10, t6 8' oB evexa mr tcKos apicrTov Kixl alrtov tSjv 
w0' aiirh koi TrpSyrov navTOiV' cSore tovt hv en} avTO to dyaOov to reXoy t5v 
dvBpimm npaKrav: 2. I. I219 a 9, (jiavepoti toivvv ck tovtov on ^(XT(0!» 
TO epyov Trjs exeats* to yhp tsKos apicTTov g>s reXos" vnoKetToi yap TeXos to 

130 NOTES. 

^tKrvjrov (cm to e(T\aTOv, oS evexa ToSXa iravra : Phys. 2. 2. 1^4 ^ 3^' 
PovXerai oi nav eiuai to eaxo-Tov TeXos, aWa to ^eKTKTTov. A new prOof 

is here adduced of the naturalness of the State, drawn not from the 
•v /act that it is the completion of natural societies like the household 
and village, but from the fact that its end is the best, the end which 
Nature pursues: cp. da An. Incessu 2. 704b 15, v <^«'("s oiSev ttokI 
fiaTr)v, aXX' dti €K rSv cVSepfofifi/coi' tj ovtritf nepX cKaarov yivo! fmou to 
apuTToV SioTtep el jScXtiov o)Si, ovTcas Kal enet Kara ^v<Tiv. 

1253 a. 3. 6 a-iroXi; 8ia (fiuo'ii' Kal ou Sid tux']!'. Aristotle perhaps has 
in his mind the MuvoTpoiros of the comic poet Phrynichus. ' Nomen 
fabulae inditum ab homine tristi et moroso, qui Timonis instar- 
solitariam vitam sequeretur et lucem adspectumque hominum 
fugeret. . . . Sad quidni ipsum audiamus in loco apud Grammat, 
Seguer. p. 344 haecce dicentem: 

*'Ovopa Se [JU3XJ(TTl MovoTpoTTOS * * 
* * * fco §6 Ti/itoi/or jSiW, 

aTrpocroSov, o^vBvpov, ayafiov, S^vyov, 

dyeXaarrov, dSioKexTov, IStoyvapova,' 
(Meineke, Historia Critica Comicorum Graecorum, p. 156, who 
however emends the third line otherwise in Fr. Com. Gr. z. 
587 sq. : the MSS. have 

ayapov, afuyor, o^vBvpov, airpocroSov.) 

There were, however. Cynics who took for their motto the lines — 

AjToXts, aoiKos, irarplhos ctTTep-rjpevoSj 
7rTa))(6s, TrKavfjTrjs, jSiov f)(tov Tovcj>' rjpipav 
(Diog. Laert. 6. 38 : Bernays, Theophrastos' Schrift iiber From- 
migkeit, p. 162 : compare Athen. Deipn. 611 C) : these men were 
anoKihes by choice, and this saying of Aristotle's would, therefore, 
reflect on them, whether it was intended to do so or not. Aris- 
tippus, again, had said (Xen. Mem. 2. i. 13, referred to by Camer- 

arius, InterpretationeS p. 28) — oXX' eym toi. . . oib' els iroKiTelav ipuiv- 
Toi' KaTaxK^a, aWa ^ivos travTaxov eltii. Philoctetes, on the Other 

hand (Soph. Philoct. 10 18), was an awoXis fim Tvxqv, and so were 
Themistocles, when Adeimantus applied the epithet to him (Hdt. 
8. 61), and Aristotle himself, when Stageira was in ruins. Vict, 
compares with the passage before us Cic. Philipp. 13. i : nam nee 
privates focos nee publicas leges videtur nee libertatis iura cara 
habere, quem discordiae, quem caedes civium, quern bellum civile 
delectat, eumque ex numero hominum eiiciendum, ex finibus 
humanae naturae exterminandum puto . . . Nihil igitur hoc cive, 
nihil hoc homine taetrius, si aut civis aut homo habendus est, 
qui civile bellum concupiscit. 

1. 2. 1253 a 3 — 6. lar 

4. Smrep Kfti k.t.X. II. g. 63 — 

A(j>priT(op, dB^fitaros, dvifrnos eariv iiuivot, 
OS TToXefiov eparai ejridrjfilov oKptoevros, 

The lover of civil war is said" by Homer to be ' clanless, lawless, 
hearthless ' ; Aristotle, however, seems to conceive him to say that 
the 'clanless, lawless, hearthless ' man is a lover of civil war. But 
to say of a man that he is a lover of war for the sake of war was, 
in Aristotle's view, to say that he is either (pav\os or, like Ares, more 
than man: compare Eth. Nic. 10. 7. 1177b 9, oiScis yap aipflrai 

TO TTo\efie'iv rod TroKepftv evcKa ov8f napaaKevd^ei iroKfpov' 8o|ai yap hv 
iravTfKSis fuai<j>6vos rts avaij el rovi <j>i\ovs noXepiovs Trototro, iva fid^ai Koi 

<j)6voi yiymivTo, and the indignant words addressed by Zeus to Ares 
in Horn. II. 5. 890 (cp. Polyb. 12. 26). For Mr. Jackson's view of 
this passage, see/ourn. of Philology, 7. 1877, p. 236 sqq. I translate 
&<nrep k.tX. ' like the clanless, lawless, hearthless man reviled by 
Homer.' It is perfectly true that it is the lover of civil war whom 
Homer reviles, but Aristotle is often inexact in his use of quotations. 
Mr. Jackson's proposal to place aanep — eViflu/iijT^y in a parenthesis 
and to connect are nep k.tX 6 with the words which precede the 
parenthesis seems to me to involve an awkward severance of fire 
irep K.T.X. from the words which this clause is conceived to illustrate, 
and to be also unnecessary (see below on 6). 

6. fijia yAp K.T.X. Sepulv. ' nam simul ac talis quisque natura est, 
bellandi cupidus est ' : Lamb. ' non enim potest quisquam talis 
esse, quin uno eodemque tempore sit et belli cupidus.' Prof. Tyr- 
rell {Hermathena, 12. 26) — 'no sooner is he such (clanless, lawless; 
hearthless) by nature than his hand is against every man': but is not 
<^v(7« TotoiJTor = (/)u(7ft ohoKk ? For the construction, cp. Hyperid. 

Or. Fun. col. 7. 30 (p. 60 Blass), &\t.a yap eh t[oi' Tojiroi/ aSpoiaBif 
trovrai Ka\ t\tIs tovJtcdv dperrls ninjcrdricrovT^aij. 

ore TTcp a£uS &v Sairep iv ireTTois. The term afi/| is used in the 
well-known epigram of Agathias (Anthol. Pal. 9. 482), where the 
game described is evidently that which, the Romans called ' ludus 
duodecim scriptorum ' (resembling our ' backgammon ') : Plato, ac- 
cording to M. Becq de Fouquiferes(Jeux des Anciens, p. 358), refers 
to this game in Rep. 604 C. The epigram has been ingeni- 
ously explained both by Mr. H. Jackson (/eurn. of Philology, loc. 
cit.) and by M. Becq de Fouquibres (p. 372 sqq.), but until more 
light has been thrown on the meaning of line 26, which has been 
variously emended, we cannot be quite sure that we know the mean- 
ing of the term a(v^ even in this game, though it would seem to be 'a 
solitary, tmprotected piece'; it is, however, by no means certain that 

laa NOTES. 

Aristotle here refers to this particular game. The term jreTro/ in its 
wider signification included a variety of games — all games, in fact, 
in which veTToi were used (Becq de Fouquiferes, p. 303, 385) — but 
it was especially applied, in a narrower sense, to a game resembling 
our ' draughts ' (ibid. p. 391), which was played on five lines instead 
of twelve, and in which each player sought to surround and cut off 
his antagonist or to reduce him to inactivity (Polyb. i. 84. 7 : 
Plato, Rep. 487 B — both passages referred to by Becq de Fouqui- 
feres, p. 397-8). In this game the term afu| may well have borne 
a different meaning from that which it bore in backgammon, and 
one more in harmony with its use in the passage before us, but 
what this meaning was, we can only vaguely conjecture from the 
connexion in which it is here used. Is afu| an isolated piece 
pushed by itself far in advance from the 'sacred line' (see Becq de 
Fouquieres, p. 402 sqq.), and therefore alone in the midst of foes? 
There seems to be no reason for supposing with Becq de Fouqui- 
eres (p. 398-9) that some game other than the ordinary TreTTem is 
here referred to. 

7. 8i<5ti. Vict. ' quare,' with many other translators, but as the 
fact that man is a political animal in a fuller sense than bees 
or other gregarious animals has not yet been mentioned, it is 
perhaps better (with Lamb. Bern, and others) to translate it 
here by ' that.' 

8. dyEXaiou Jwou. ' His in verbis Platonis dyeKaioTpocjjtKfi vel 
ayeXaioKo/uKri, quam legimus in Politico, p. 267 B sq., 276 A, signifi- 
cari videtur ' (Engelhardt, Loci Platonici, p. 3). The connexion 
conceived by Plato to exist between this art and jroXmKi) may 
possibly be here glanced at. In Hist. An. i. i. 487 b 34 sqq. man 
is spoken of as both uyeXaiov and hovoSikSv, and we have the following 

account of ttoXitiko f^a in 488 a 7 — noKinKa 8' eariv &v ev ti Koi koivov 
ytverm iravrajK to epyov' oirfp ov Travra jroiei to ayeKaia' tan de toioCtok 
apBpamos, /teXtTTa, a-<j}rj^, fivpfit]^, yipavos' Kot Tovrav ra fiiv ifji' ^ye/ioi/o 
earl tcl 8' avap)(a, otov yipavos piev koi to tS>v jutXirrai' yivos v(j}' f/yepova, 
pvpprjKcs 8e Koi pvpia ak'Ka avap^a. 

p.aXXo>>. For higher faculties are brought by man into the common 
stock — the power of perceiving that which is good and evil, just and 
unjust, advantageous and disadvantageous, and of expressing those 
perceptions — and the higher the faculties brought into the common 
stock, the fuller the union : cp. Eth. Nic. 9. 9. 1 1 70 b 1 1, toCto 8e 71- 

voiT hv iv T^ avCfjv Kal Koivtoveiv Xo'ycai' teal Siavoias' ovra yap &v 8d|e(« to 
irv^v en\ rav avOpinrav XeytaSai, koi ov^ S<riTfp im. t&v ^aiojparatv t<> iv 

T^ air^ vifuaOau On language as special to man, cp. Isocr. de Antid. 

1. 2. 1253 a 7—14. 133 

§§ 253-7 3-nd Nicocl. § 5 sqq., passages which Aristotle perhaps had 
in view here. Socrates had anticipated Isocrates in speaking of lan- 
guage as the condition of political life (Xen. Mem. 4. 3. 12, tA 8e 
Kai ipnTjveiav Sovvm, 81 §s ndvT<ov rav dyaBav ixeraSiSofiev re dXX^Xoi9 
Sidaa-Kovres Kai Koivavov/iev Koi vo/iovs TiBifiiBa mi iroXtrevofieda ; ). Accord- 
ing to Plato, Tim. 47 C, \6yos (which he fails to mark off from 
(fuavrj) is given us cvcKa lipjxovias and to regulate the disorderly move- 
ments of the soul. It may be questioned whether, as Aristotle 
seems to imply, language would be useless to a solitary animal. 

10. ovOpuiros. 'Articulus ubi genus aliquod universum significatur 
non raro omittitur,' Bon. Ind. 109 b 36 : cp. 1253 a 31, aa-irep yap 
Kai reXeadev ^Atiittov tSiii (cftov avdpaitos (so 11^) iaTiv : on the Other 

hand, all MSS. have 6 Svdpams in 1253 a 7, 34. 

■^ (Aei' GUI' <l>aii'T| K.T.X. Language has just been said to be 
peculiar to man, and peu oSv (' it is true ') introduces an admission 
that this does not hold of voice, in order that an account of the 
nature of language may be added. It implies a capacity to form 
households and n-oXetj. As to ^avfj, see de Gen. An. 5. 7- 7^^ ^ 
21, where it is said to be t-oO \6yov vXt], and de An. 2. 8. 420 b 

32, <T7]pavTiK0i yap drj Tis ^jfoipos iarlv fj (jxavfj, Ka\ ov tov dvajTveopevov 

depo!, aa-irep ^ ^t]^ (contrast Plutarch, de Animae Procreatione in 
Timaeo, C. 27, p. 1026 A, its 8c ^x"^ "^ itrTiv akoyos Kcu. d(Ti]tiavT09, 
\6yos 8e Xf'^is iv (jxovij (TrjpavriKrj biavoias) : SO the WOrds arjpelov and 

cripaiveiv are used in 1 1 and 1 3 in contrast to SijXoOi' 1 4 (Vict. ' signa 
dant, haec enim notio est verbi <rripalveiv : homines autem oratione 
declarant aperiuntque, hoc enim valet verbum SrjKovv'). The full 
force of SrjKovv appears in Pol. 3. 8. 1279 b 15 : arjpcia are distin- 
guished from oiioiapara in g (8). 5. 1340 a 33. As to the limitation 
to TO 'Kxmripov Ka\ ijSu, cp. Eth. Nic. 2. 2. 1104 b 30 sqq. and de An. 

2. 9. 421 a 10, (^avkas yap oDBpamos otrparai KaX aiScvos d<r(j)palveTai 
tS>v 6<T(^pavTS>v avev tov Xvnripov 7) toC T/Seos, i>s ovk ovtos axpi^ovs tov 

aladrjTripiov. Ajistotle implies here that animals can only indicate 
to each other feelings of pleasure and pain (cp. Lucr. 5. 1059 sqq., 
referred to by Giph.), but in de Part. An. 2. 17. 660 a 35 — b 2 and 
Hist. An. 9. 1. 608 a 17 sqq. he speaks of some of them as receiving 
lidOrjo-K Koi StSatTKoKla from their likes. See on this subject Dr. 
Ogle's note 5 on Aristotle's Parts of Animals, 2. 17. Not all 
animals possess ^ai'ij (Hist. An. i. i. 488 a 32). 

14. eirl T(o Si)Xoui/. See Bon. Ind. 268 b 13. 

t6 o'u|x<ti^poi' Kol t6 pXa^epdi'. Giph. (p. 31) draws attention to 
the fact that Aristotle denies to the lower animals a sense of the 
advantageous and the harmful. 

124 NOTES. 

15. SffTS Kai TO SiKaioi'. Cp.3. 12. l282bl6,?OTt ^€ TtoKinKhv aya- 
60V TO SiKatov, TovTo 8' eaTi to Koivjj (rvn<j)epov. Epicurus went farther 
and traced the just back to utility : cp. Diog. Laert. lo. 150 and the 
well-known line of Horace (Sat. i. 3. 98) to which Giph. refers: 

Atque ipsa utilitas, iusti prope mater et aequi. 

16. fiocor is pleonastic, as in 4 (7). ir. 1331a 11. For the 
change of number from toIs avBpumois to fiovov, Vahlen (Poet. p. 
103) compares roira bta<j}epov(nv (oJ Svdptimoij tS>v SWav foioii' on 
fup-qTiKaiTaTov i<TTi (sc. T&v faiciii'), Poet. 4. 1448 b 6. ^povrja-is, how- 
ever, is allowed by Aristotle to some animals (Hist. An. 9. i. 608 a 
15 : Gen. An. 3. 2. 753 a 12 : Eth. Nic. 6. 7. 1141 a 26), but in a 
sense other than that in which it is ascribed to man, as appears 
from the last-named passage — 810 koI tS>v 6r)piav tvia ^povipi tpaa-iv 

flvai, oa-d nfpl tov avTwv ^lov ?;(oi/Ta ipalverai hvvapiv npovorjTiKfjv. 

17. oio^TjcTH'. ' Latiore sensu ?x^tv a"adr]<rtv twos idem quod 
usum habere alicuius rei, novisse aliquid ' (Bonitz, Ind. 21 a i, who 
compares Eth. Nic. 6. 12. 1143 b 5 and Pol. 3. 11. 1281 b 35, and 
refers to Zeller, Gr. Ph. 2. 2. 504. 2, ed. 2,= 650. 2, ed. 3). See 
also Zeller, Gr. Ph. 2. 2. 238. 2 (ed. 3), who explains aicrBija-iv in 
the passage before us by the word ' Bewusstsein,' adding that an 
immediate kind of knowledge is meant, in contradistinction to 
iiTi.<rri]p,r). According to Polybius (see above, p. xiii), the ewota toC 

hiKalov Koi TOV abiKOV, TOV KoKov Kai TOV alaxpov is the fruit of human 

sociiety, not that which is prior to human society and makes it 

18. 1^ 8e TouTui' Koifui'ia. Some translate 'the association of 
beings possessing these perceptions,' but it seems more natural to 
take Tovrav here as neuter than as masculine, and besides an 
association of this kind would hardly be said to produce, but rather 
to be, the household and TrdXti. Giph. and Bern, are probably 
right in translating these words ' community in these things ' — i.e. 
in the good and the bad, the just and the unjust — cp. 3. 9. 1280 b 
5, nepi 8 dptTljs ko). xaKias TroXiTtKJjs &ia(TK07rov<Tiv 0001 (ppovri^ovirtv 

evvoplas et sqq. : i. 2. 1253a 37 sq.: Eth. Nic. 5. 10. 1134a 31, 

rj yap hiKtf Kpicris ToC StKalov Kal tov dSiKOV : Plato, Rep. 484 D, to 
evBdSe v6pip,a KoKav t€ irepi Kal SiKaiav Ka\ dyaBSiv: Eth. Nic. 9. 6. 
1167 b 2, .TToXtTWt^ fie (^tXia (fmiverai fj opovoia . . . irtpi to <n)p<l>ipovTa 

yap iaTi kcu. to els Toy ^iov dvfjKovTa. Some societies are formed for 
pleasure (Eth. Nic. 8. ii. ii6oa 19), not so the household or the 
moKis. These are ethical unities. Cp. also Eth. Nic. 9. 9. 1170b 
4 sqq. : Plato, Politicus 309 C-E : and the myth of Protagoras 
(Protag. 322 C), in which in answer to the inquiry of Hermes— koJ 

1. 2. 1253 a 15—18. 125 

SiKrjv 8^ Kai alSSi ovra 6<i cv roi: avBparroK rj im wavras m/ia> ; — ZeuS 
replies — Etti nduTas, Koi Trdvres iiiTf}(6vTCDV oi yap av yevoiirro iroXeis, fi 
d\iyoi airrav ncTexoiiv aa-nep aXKaB rexuSiv, In I. 2. I252 a 26—34 the 

origin of the household, and therefore of the ttoKk, had been traced 
to instincts common to all animals or even to animals and plants, 
but here we learn that household and noKis can only exist for 
human beings, inasmuch as their existence implies endowments 
which Nature has given only to man. In 3. 9. 1280 a 31 sq., el Se 

prjTe Tov ^^v liovov evexev dWa fiaXXov rou fS ^^v (kcu yap &v SavXwv xat 
tSiv aXXcdv ^taajv rjv ^oKis' vvv B ovK ¥(rTi 8ia ro fiij fieTi^fiv ev8aifiouias 

lirjSi TOV (fjv Kara irpoatpea-ivj k.t.X., a somewhat different reason is 
given why animals other than man do not form TrdXeu. 

KOI •irp<5T£poi' Sr). On Ka\ ... 6^ see Bon. Ind. 173 a 12 sqq. : 
conjoined, the two particles seem to indicate a step taken in advance 
from one point to another by way of inference. Cp. for example 
Eth. Nic. 4. I. 1 1 20 a 6 sq. ' Maxime quidem philosophus ilia 
dicendi ratione utitur, si re quadam pertractata significare vult idem 
quod de ea etiam de alia vel in universum valere ' (Eucken, de 
Partic. usu, p. 44): see i. 13. 1259 b 32. Aristotle had pointed 
out that the individual and the household are prior yivia-et to the 
jrdXir ; hence he is naturally careful to add that the ttoXk is prior 
tpva-ei. This is in conformity with the principle — to tj yeuea-ei vo-repov 
Tji (j}v(rei. TTpoTcpov (Phys. 8. 7- 261 a 14). 

The argument in 18-29 seems to be as follows: — The jrdXjy is 
prior to the individual, for the whole is prior to its part. And the 
whole is prior to its part, because, when severed from the whole, the 
part loses its capacity to discharge its function, or (which is the 
same thing) loses its identity. Here Aristotle sums up — we see then, 
that the iroXis exists by nature and is prior to the individual, for if 
the individual is not self-complete when severed from the TrdXtj, he 
will be posterior to it just as any other part is posterior to its whole, 
and the individual, if a man and not a god or a brute, is not self- 
complete when severed from the jrdXu. Aristotle might have 
stopped at the words ' prior to the individual ' without adding the 
words which follow, but he adds these words in order to prove what 
he assumed in 20, that the individual stands to the n-dXtj in the same 
relation of posteriority in which other parts stand to their wholes. 
In strictness, ydp 2 6 only introduces a proof that the ttoXis is prior 
in nature to the individual, not that it is by nature, but of course, if 
it is prior by nature to the individual, it exists by nature itself. No 
proof is given that the noKis is prior to the household, probably 
because the same, reasoning is applicable both to the household 


136 NOTES. 

and to the individual. It is possible that here Aristotle has in his 
mind the verse of Sophocles (Philoct. 1018), in which Philoctetes 
calls himself 

a(piXov epijfiov arroKiv iv ^Snjiv vcKpov, 

■ As to the validity of the argument, the fact that the individual is not 
avrdpKris without the iroXis does not prove that he stands to it in the 
relation of a part to its whole. Man is not aurapKi/r, for example, 
without the aid of other communities besides his own ; yet he is not 
necessarily a part of those other communities. And even if we 
accept the conclusion, it does not follow that all parts of all wholes 
stand in the same relation to those wholes. A limb stands in a far 
more intimate relation to the body of which it is a part than a wheel 
does to a cart, or a portion of a rock does to that rock. The Stoics, 
in fact, recognized this distinction, for they went on to say that the 
individual is a limb (fteXor, not pepos) of the whole to which he 
belongs. This whole they commonly (cp. Cic. de Nat. Deor. 2. 14. 
37 sq.) found in the Universe, but not always, for Epictetus (Arrian 
2. 10) speaks of the individual as part of the irdXis. Plato also 
sometimes found it in the Universe (e. g. in Laws 903). We 
observe that in the Timaeus (68 E : 69 C) he applies to the 
Universe similar epithets to those applied by Aristotle to the iroXw 
(reXetoff, avrdpKrjs, Trdtras Trepuj^ovaa ras aXKas Kotvtoviasj. The Republic, 
on the other hand, recognizes the iroKis as the whole of which the 
individual, or rather perhaps the class, is a part (Rep. 552 A). As 
to the sense in which a human being is a member of a community, 
see a letter of Shelley's (dated August 12, 18 12), which is published 
in the Academy for July 31, 1886. ' A human being,' he says, ' is 
a member of the community, not as a limb is a member of the 
body, or as what is a part of a machine, intended only to con- 
tribute to some general joint result. . . . He is an ultimate being, 
made for his own perfection as his highest end, made to maintain 
an individual existence, and to serve others only as far as consists 
with his own virtue and progress.' Aristotle, however, would say 
that he asks nothing from the individual that would not redound to 
his own perfection and the perfection of his life. 

20. TO yelp oXoi' K.T.X. No notice is here taken of the principle 
laid down in Metaph. z. 10. 1035 b 4 sqq., where some parts — 
parts of the Essence or Form — are said to be prior to to avvoKov 
— a principle which, applied to the ■nokis, might have suggested a 
different theory of the relation of some at all events of the indi- 
viduals composing the n-oXiy to it — but in other respects there is a 
close resemblance between the two passages: cp.especially logs.b 

1. 2. 1253 a 20 — 23, 127 

14-25. See also Metaph. Z. 11. 1036 b sosqq. and 16. 1040 b 
5 sqq. For the account of ro irporepov implied in the passage 

before us, cp. Phys. 8. 7. 260 b 17, Xtyerm Si npoTcpov, 0? Te firi 
ovTOS oiiK eorat TaXXa, fKelvo 8' ai/ev tSv aWtov, Koi t6 to ■)ip6va, km rh 
KUT ova-lav: Metaph. A. 11. 1019 a I, to. /leu Sij ovra Xe'ytrat irporepa 
Kal varepa, to 8e Kara <j)v<nv fcai olialav, oaa eVStp^frai ehai tivev aXXtoe, 
cKeiva Si avev cKeivcov iifj' 3 Suupi(rei e'pfpijeraro nXaTotv. Much the Same 

account is given by Aristotle of the dpxr] (Metaph. K. 1. 1060 a i, 
dpxfl yap TO avvavaipovv) or the ova-la of a thing (de An. 2. I. 412 b 
18 sqq. : cp. Alex. Aphrod. on Metaph. z. ,16. 1040 b 5, ovalas enelvd 

(pafiev oaa Ka6' avra ovra Sivarai to oiKeXov cpyou diroTfXelv' ovala yap 
oiiSiv aXKo e'arlv ^ to d<f)' oS to eKaarov fpyov eKirXripovrai), Severance 

from the Whole, in fact, involves the loss of the Form or oiala, 
and the loss of this involves 'destruction' (cp. bia(^6apiiaa 22, and 
^dapcvra, de Gen. An. 2. i. 734 b 24 sqq. : 735 a 7 sq. : i. 19. 726 b 
22 sqq.), but a hand destroyed is a hand unfitted to discharge the 
functions of a hand, or in other words is not a hand at all. Thus 
we may almost say that in Aristotle's view the n-o'Xis is the ovala 
or dpxri of the individual. In the Topics, however, a question is 

raised (6. 13, 150 a 33), d tm oX^ avp<f)6eipfTai TO jxepri' dmjraXiv yap 
fiei avp,^ivew, tS>v fiepav (jidapevrav, <ji6elpea6ai to oKov' tov 8' oXou 
(pBapevTOS ovK dvayKalov Ka\ to p^pr) i(j)6dpdai. But here the object 

seems merely to be to arm a disputant with a tenable objection. 

22. 8ia(|i6apETa'a yAp earai Toiaurr), ' for a hand when destroyed ' 
(by being severed from the soul, which is its oio-m) ' will be no better 
than a stone hand.' Giph. (' haec enim interiit ') and others make 
8ia(f)dap(laa the predicate, but it is clear that rotairri (= probably 
Xidlurj, not d/ia)TO/ici)s ■ Xex^«o-a) is the predicate, if we compare de 

Gen. An. 2. I. 734 b 24, ou ydp iaTi irpoaaiTov /i^ exov i^x^") "^^^ 
adp^, dXXoi (fiOapevra opavvpMS ^exd^aerai to piv emai jvpoamrrov to be 
irdp^, S>aiT€p k&v el iylyvcTO \Wi,va rj ^v\u/a: cp. also Meteor. 4. 12. 
389 b 31, paWov yhp hrjKov on, 6 vexpbs avSptoiros opavvpas, ovTca 
Tolvvv Koi x^'p Te\€vTriaat)Tos opcovipas, Kadiiircp Kai avXol Xldivoi Xcx^^l"!' 

aav. Dr. R. SchoU (Sus. Qu. Crit. p. 334) has anticipated me in 
calling attention to the above passage of the De Generatione 

23. irdi^ra 8e . . . T(f %uvi,^ei. Cp. Meteor. 4. 12. 390 a 10, uTravTa 
S' iariv &piapcva ra cpya' tci peu yap Svvdpeva iroieXv to avToiv epyov 
dXijdra; iariv fxaoTa, olov 6 6(j>da\p6s el opa, to 8e pfj hvvipevov opcavvpms, 

olov 6 TedvemsrjoXldivos : de Gen. An. I. 2. 716 a 23 : Metaph. z. 10. 

1035b 16, eKao-Tov yovv to pepos iav opi^rjTai koKSis, ovk avev tov epyav 

opieh-ai, 6 oix vTrdp^ei avev alaBrjaeas. Plato had already said much 

laS NOTES ^ 

the same thing, Soph. 247 D, Xeya hi] to kcu motavovv KfKTrincvov 
hvvaiiiv eiT fir to troieZv ertpov otiovv Tre^vKos fiT fls to iraOeiv Kal 
CfiiKpoTaTov VTTO ToO i^avKoTaTov , Kav ft fiovov «(ro7ra^, TrSf tovto ovras 
eivai' TiBefiai yap opov opi^eiv to. ovra, as tuTui ovk SXKo ti TrKrjv Svvafus. 

On the other hand, Aristotle seems in Pol. 3. 3. 1276 b 7 to view 
TO e'Sor TJjs avpdeaeas as constituting the identity of an object, and 
in de Gen. An. i. 18. 722 b 30 we read — ra /leprj to /iev Swaim to 8e 

TrdOeat otapitrTat, Ta fieu dvofiotofieprj tw hvvaaOal ti iroLtivj olov yXarra Koi 

X^l-Pt Ta S OflOlOfUj^ (T/cXlJpOTIJTt KCLi IwKaKOTtjTC KOi Tots oXKoiS Tols TOIOVTOIS 


24. fiT]KETi Toiaura Bvtcl, ' if no longer fit for performing their 
destined work': cp. ddXaTrav Touwrrjv, 'fit for fishing,' i. 8. 1256 a 
37, and ojrms Se yivuivTai toiovtoi, 2. 5. 1263 a 39. 

25. Mev o3i' is here again, as in 1252 b 9, caught up by a second 
fifv oSv before any fit appears. 

27. One would expect here 6 8e airdpKtts x""?"^^^'*! but Aristotle 

substitutes o 8e firj Svvdpevos KOivavelu Tf firj&ev deofievos di aviapKeiav, aS 

the case of the former, who cannot be called auTapKrjs and yet does 
not want the State, occurs to him and, characteristically enough, 
is kept in view at whatever cost of trimness. MijSeK Sfoiuvos, sc, 

Koivayvias Or pOSSibly KOivioveiv. 

29. iv -naaiv, ' in all human beings.' 

30. 6 Be K.T.X. For the turn of the sentence, compare a 
fragment from the Kvacfieis of Antiphanes (Meineke, Fr. Com. 
Gr. 3. 66)— 

Oo"Tts Te)(yr^v KOTehei^e TrpSiTos Twv $eS}V) 
oStos fiJyuTTov cSpev dvdpamois kokov. 

Cp. also ibid. 4. 75. At Argos men looked back to Phoroneus as 
having been the first to found a city (Paus. 2. 15. 5). Cicero (De 
Inventione i. 2) looks back to some 'magnus vir et sapiens.' 
Camerarius (p- 31) quotes these two passages, and adds — ' Epicurus 
hoc fortuito factum, ut alia quoque, censet, quemadmodum Lucre- 
tius exposuit libro quinto.' The comic poet Athenio makes one of 
his characters claim the credit for the art of cookery (Meineke, Fr. 
Com. Gr. 4. 558). 

31. On fio-irep Kal . . . outm koi, see Sus.^, Ind. Gramm. aawep. 
TeKebidiv. Aristotle uses both TeXeadiv and -reXeiaSev (de Gen. 

An. I. I. 715 a 21), and both TeXeos and reXeios (see Bon. Ind.). 
We find both forms together {rcKfaTtpa, TtXtiov) in de Gen. An. 
2. I. 733 b I (Bekker). The meaning of TeXeadiv, which is 
here used in contrast to x'*'P'<''^'>' "op.ov koI Sixtji, may be illustrated 

by Eth. Nic. 2. I. 11 03 a 234 oiV Spa (pvaei oStc Trapa <pv(riv iyylvovrai. 

1. 2. 1253 a 24—34. 129 

a! dperai, aWa itcipvKoin /lev rjiiiv Sf^a(r6at airas, TfXtiovfiei/ots 8e Sici tov 

e&ovs, and Phys. 7. 3. 246 a 13 sqq. For the gender of TeXradcx 

-and x<"P"r6ev, cp. 4 (7). 13. 1332 b 4, avdpamos Se koL Xoya, fiovov yap 
f^" Xoyoc. 

, 33. x«''p""0'' TT'i'^""'- Cp. Hesiod, Op. et Dies 2 75sqq. : Hdt. 

.4. 106, ' hvbpo<^ayoi he dypiaraTa Travrav av6pam<ov c)(Oviti rj6ea, ovre 

biKiiv vopil^ovTes ovTe vop^ oiSevl xp^ap.evoi: Plato, Laws 765 E, 

vvdpairos 8e &s <f)ap.ev ^pepov, Spas prjv muSeias pev opS^s tuxov koX 
<f>va-eios eirrvxovs BeWTarov fjpepatraTov re ^aov yiyvcadai <pi\ct, p.ri iKavms 
fie rj pfj KoXffiS Tpa(j>ev dypiatTarov Sitoaa (fivet yrj : Protag. 327 D— E. 

See also Eth. Nic. 7. 7. 1150 a 1-5. Plutarch demurs to the 
saying in the mouth of the Epicurean Colotes (adv. Colot. c. 30), 
on the ground that in the absence of law men would still be left 
the teaching, of such philosophers as Parmenides, Socrates, Plato, 
and Heraclitus, and that this would save them from living like 

dSiKia Exouo-a oir\a. Cp. Rhet. 2. 5. 1382 a 34, Km aSucia Sivaptv 
e;(OU(ra (is tO be dreaded)* ti3 wpoaipelaBai yap 6 aStKOS afiiKoi. Giph. 

(p. 37) compares Plutarch, Cicero c. 46, oi3ra>s i^eveaov in6 Svpov 
Ka\ Xuo-OTjs t£i» av6pamvav \oyiap.S>v, paKKov 8* djribet^av cos oiiSiv 
dvBpimov 6r)plov eoTiv aypiarepov i^ovalav TrdBei TrpoaKa^ovTos, which 
seems to echo Eth. Nic. 7- 7- 1150^ It pvptonXdma yap av xam 
jTotTjauev a.v6pamos kokos Orjpiov. 

34. 6 8e afdp&nros k.t.X. Vict, with Others explains ^pivrjais and 
dpcTTi as the on\a here referred to, but in that case why have we the 
dat. <f>povr]a-ei Koi dperrj and not the ace. ? and how can it be said of 
tf)p6uria-is and dperfi that they can be used for opposite purposes ? Cp^ 

Kiiet. I. I. 1353 b 2> '' ^' °" pcydKa ^Xdylreuv &v 6 ^papevos dSUas rfj 
Toiairri Svvdpei tS>v \6yiav, rovro ye koivov iari Ktra iravrap rav dya6S>v 
TrXqw dpeTrjS, Koi poKiara Kara rav pfpijo-ifKOTaTcoi', oiov itrp^uor vyieia; ttXovtou 

arpaTriyias, and Pol. 3. lo. 1281 a 19. And if it be said that virtue 
is here used in a lower sense than in these passages, it seems 
strange that in the very next line (36) it should be used in its 
ordinary sense. Besides, as Holm (de ethicis Politicorum Aris- 
totehs principiis, p. 39 n.) remarks, 'usitata apud Aristotelem 
dicendi formula apcrij kcu (f>p6i>ri<Tis virtutes semper significat ipsas, 
ethicas et dianoeticas: exempla haec sint — Pol. 3. ir. i28ib4: 
4 (7). I. 1323 b 22, 33.' The phrase was known even to the 
comic poets as one current among philosophers (Meineke, Fragm. 
Com. Gr. 4. 22). Montecatinus (quoted by Schn.) seems to come 
much nearer to the truth in rendering, these words ' arma homini 
data sunt ad prudentiam et virtutem ' ;. and so Bern. ' geschaffen 

130 NOTES. 

mit einer Riistung zu Einsicht und Tugend,' and Holm (ibid.) ' ad vir- 
tutes exercendas.' There is, however, some strangeness in the use of 
the dative in this sense, and Aristotle does not seem to regard the 
on-Xa as means for the attainment of ^/jdw/o-tj kqI aperri, or as instru- 
ments for their exercise, but rather as powers on which they are to 
impress a right direction (cp. Sveu apeTrjs, 36). May not the words 
mean ' having arms for prudence and virtue to use ' (or ' guide in 
use ') ? We have had just before dSiKia l^w" onXa, and it is not 
surprising to find Prudence and Virtue also spoken of as using 
arms or guiding their use. As to the dative, cp. Plutarch, Reip. 

Gerend. Praec. C. 28, teirepov 8f, Sti Ttpos roi/s ^acKavovs Koi Ttovripovs 
OTrXov ^ irapci tS>v jtoXXSv ct!vo(a rois dyaBots eotjk. 'Opym/ov, which re- 
sembles ottXoi/ in meaning and is sometimes conjoined with it (de 
Part. An. 4. 10. 687 b 2-4), often takes this dative (de Gen. An. 4. 
I- 765 b 36 : Pol. 1. 4. 1253 b 28). Holm refers to Cic. de Orat. 
3. 14. 55 sub fin. as supporting his interpretation, but this passage 
perhaps makes quite as much in favour of that just suggested. The 
next question is, what are the on-Xa referred to ? Bernays (Wirkung 
der Tragodie, note 16) quotes Seneca de Ira, i. 17 (i. 16 Didot): 
Aristoteles ait adfectus quosdam, si quis illis bene utatur, pro 
armis esse, quod verum foret, si, velut bellica instrumenta, sumi 
deponique possent induentis arbitrio. Haec arma, quae Aristoteles 
virtuti dat, ipsa per se pugnant, non exspectant manum, et habent, 
non habentur. Hence he explains the on-Xa here mentioned as 
'die Aflfecte' (the emotions). Aristotle, however, only speaks of 
' adfectus quosdam ' (he is thinking no doubt especially of anger), 
and there is nothing to show that these ' adfectus ' are viewed by 
him as the only osrXa at the disposal of <pp6vt)(TK Km dper^. Lan- 
guage, for instance, may well be another. The words ' haec arma 
quae Aristoteles virtuti dat' (compare those a little lower down, 
' rationem ab iracundia petere praesidium ') seem to support the 
view taken in this note of the dative tppoitfitrei Koi dpeTJj. If, as is 
probable, the ' adfectus quidam ' of the de Ira are among the on-Xa 
referred to in this passage, Aristotle, like Seneca himself (de Ira, i. 
3), would appear to have regarded them as peculiar to man. 

36. irpos d<))po8icria . . . xEipioroi'. Cp. Hist. An. 6. 22. 575 b 30 : 
Plutarch, Gryllus, c. 7. 990 E sqq. : contrast, however, Aristot. de 
Gen. An. i. 4. 717 a 23 sqq. 

37. eSoiSV- Plutarch, ibid. c. 8. Philemon (Fragm. 'Ayipi^s, 
p. 107 Didot) does not go quite so far as Aristotle, and the good 
Pheraulas (Xen. Cyrop. 8. 3. 49) is of the opposite opinion. 

1^ Be SiKoioaiji^ . . . SiKaiou itpio-ts. Here ^ 8c SiKaioainri takes up 

1. 2. 1253 a 36— 3. 1253 b 4. 131 

uvev apetijs, aiid we have the ptobi that whoever first instituted the 
iroXtr conferred great benefits on men. He, in fact, gave them 
Virtue. 'Justice is bound up with the State, for adjudication, which 
is the determination of that which is just, is the ordering of political 
society.' So Bernays, followed by Susemihl, ' ist nichts als die 
Ordnung der staatlichen Gemeinschafl:.' Sus." (Note 28 c) refers 
to 3. 10. 1281 a 11-21. Gp. also 8 (6). 8. 1322 a 5, avaymla 8' 
iarlv, on ovtkv o(fit\bs yivca&ai /lev dtxas jrfpl t&v Sucaiav, tauras Se ftf/ 
Aa/i/Savciv rcXof, &<tt' el firi yiyvofiivtoii Koivavnv ahivarov aXX^Xoir, Kai, 

Wpa^eav ftf) yiyvofiivav. In 4 (7). 8. 1328 b 13 judicial institutions 
are reckoned among those things Which are most necessary in a 
State {Ttavrav dvayKatotaTov). The interpretation just given of the 
words TToKiTtiajs Koivavias Td|ir is perhaps the one which is most 
likely to be correct, yet another may be mentioned as possible. 
These words may mean ' an institution Of political society ' (cp. 4 
(7). 10. 1329 b g, tSk tTVfT&inav fi rd|«). Plato had already said 

(Laws 937 D)-^ — Kai br) KaX Si'ieij iv avBpanroK itas ov Kokov, 6 wdvTa 

^pxpaKt TO avdpamva ; But perhaps Aristotle had a saying of Pindar 
in his mind: cp. Plutarch, Praec. Reip. Gerend. c. 13. 807 C, 

6 Se TToXtTiKos, apuiTore\vds Tis i>v Kara JlitiSap'oV, Kai 8t]piovpy6s tvvopiai 

Kai SiKTis. The words fj 8e fiixij toO SiKaiov Kpi&ts Seem to be a 
necessary link in the reasoning, though some would omit them : 
similar expressions occur in Eth. NiC. 5. 10. 1134 a 31 and Rhet. 
2. I. 1377 b 22 (cp. Menand. Inc. Fab. Fragm. 56). An aia-6rj<rts 
Toi Swaiou Kai tov dSiVoti iS a condition precedent of the noKts (1253 a 
1 5 sqq.), but this is not the same thing as justice. 

2. irpuToi', i.e. before going on to speak of-jroXir«ia. Thus we c. 3. 
are referred back in 3. 6. 1278 b 17 to the TrpSTot Xdyot, iv oU nfpi 1253 b. 
tnxovopiag Sus>plxr6ti Kd\ Searnoreiai, and the First Book itself refers 

fOrwaird at its close to rh mpl ras •ndKirelas (l. 13. 1260 b 1 2). 

3. oiKoi-oiiios K.T.X. ' The departments into which household 
management falls are concerned With' (or possibly 'eortespon'd 
to') 'the parts of which the household is composed.' The 
ellipse is no doubt considerable, but not more so than that in 

I. il. 1258 b 27, Tp'nov he etSds \pripatiafuiris pefa^v TaOTjjs Kai r^r 
irpctTris {efC^t yhp Kai trjS koto <^v(ru> Ti pepos Kai t§s jnera^XjjTtK^S), oad 
cm6 yrjs Kai rSw ajrb yijs yivopevau . . . otoi' vKoropla re Kai iratra pefeA- 

XeuriK^. See as to constructions of this kind Bon. Ind. 533 b 6-13, 
arid Waitz on Anal. Pf. i. 46. 52 a 29, to whom Bonitz refers. 

4. oiKio Be T^eios. LaSaulx (Ehe bei den Griecheuj p. 7 n.)j 
after referring to Sopds ^pere\^s (U. z. 701), quotes Antipater ap. Stob. 
Flor. 67. 25, TfXeios oiKOS Ka\ jSi'os ovK 3X\as SvvaTai yevedSui ^ perii 

K 7, 

13a NOTES. 

yvvaiKosKalTiKva)v,a.nd a similar saying of Hjerocles, Stob. Flor.6^. 21. 
Aristotle holds the household to be incomplete without slaves. 
Contrast Locke, Civil Government, 2. § 86 : 'the family is as much 
a family, and the power of the paterfamilias as great, whether there 
be any slaves in his family or no.' In 3. 4. 1277 a 7 we find the 
gomewhat careless expression — oiKia e| dvSpos Km yvvaiKos kw. kt^ctis « 
Seo-TroTou Km boiiKov — in, it is true, an aporetic passage ; a similar 
looseness of statement is observable in Eth. Nic. i. i. 1094 a 9, 
where wealth is said to be the end of oIkqvoiukti, teaching which rather 
Resembles that of the first book (so-called) of the Oeconomics (cp. 
Pecon. I. I. 1343 a 8) than that of the Politics. 

7. irepl Tpi&v Toiriav, ' de his tribus copulis ' (Vict.). 

8. Ti Ikuo'toi' Kal iroioi' Sei cTi/ai, 'what each is and how each 
ought to be constituted.' 

9. ScoTTOTiKi^, sc. KoLvcovla Of some such word. 

dfcSi/ufiof yip K.T.X. The word avamiios is especially used by 
Aristotle, ' ubi generis alicuius non exstat unum quo contineatur 
nomen' (Bon. Ind. 69 b 3): hence we read in de An. 2. 7. 418 a 27, S 
Xoyo) /iei/ ((TTOi fhreiv, avawfiov 8e Tvyxavei ov. Cp. also lO, Koi yap avTr) 

ovK mi/o/xaorai ISia oi/o/tart, i.e. with a name which exactly fits it : see 
Rhet. 3. 5. 1407 a 31, where to. iSia ovoiuvra are contrasted with tcl 
irepUxovra. The words yaiuKYj and TeKvoiToajTiKri are probably felt by 
Aristotle not to describe the nature of the apxq in the same clear way 
in which the word fieo-jronic^ describes the apxri of the master over his 
slave. We are told in the de Anima (2. 4. 416b 23) that 'every- 
thing should be named in reference to the end it realizes.' The 
words yajUKT) and reKi/oTroiijT-tiei} certainly do not give us this infor- 
mation. HarptKfj is substituted for TfKvononjTK-q in I. 12. 1259 a 38. 
11. lariixrav 8' aurai k.t.X. ' Let the three relations of which we 
spoke ' as needing to be investigated ' be these ' (for the absence of 
ai before T-pfis, see Bon. Ind. 546 a 51 sqq.) ; ' but there is a part 
of Household Management which seems to some to be the whole, 
and to others the most important part of it, and we must inquire 
what is the truth about this.' For the imperative ta-Tma-av, which closes 
the business of naming the three relations and asks content with 
3uch terms as are forthcoming, cp. 3. i. 1275 a 29 : Eth. Nic. 2. 7. 
1 108 a 5 sq. : Metaph. z. 8. 1033 a 25 sq. : Plato, Soph. 231 A. 
Aristotle does not at this early point of the discussion think it 
necessary to mention that the claims of xpij/withttjic^ to be a part of 
oLKovopla are open to much question, but, as is often his practice, 
provisionally adopts a view which he will hereafter reconsider 
and correct. 

1. 3. ■1253 b 7— 18. 1^3 

12. Tois jikv . . . Tois 8^. Who these were, is not known. Xeno- 
phon goes some way in this direction (cp. Oecon. 6. 4, ovkovv, t<^r] 6 

ScaKpaTtjs, imirrriiirfs fxiv nvos eSo^cv ^fiiv ovofia etvai f) olKovo/ila' fj 8e 
tmaTj]iir) avrri eKJjaivero rj oiKovs Svvavrai aH^eiv avdpamoi' oIkos Be ^fiiu 
€(j)aiveTO onep KTrja-is f) avfrnatra: also Oecon. 7. 15 and II. 9); 

He has, however, as great a dislike as Aristotle for most branches 
of Y) KaKovfiivr) y^pr^iwriaTiKr), and he thinks throughout of husbandry 
as the vocation of his o'lKovopiKos. 

14. irpuToi' 8e irepl Seo-iroTou k.t.X. Aristotle investigates the 
relation of master and slave before he examines xp^M"""'"*^) pro- 
bably because he started with the aim of determining whether the 
SeoTToTiKos is the same as the oIkovo/ukSs, ttoKitikos, and ^a<n\iK6s, but 
also perhaps because the slave is a part oi KTrja-is (c. 8. 1256 a 2); 
and the part should be studied before the whole. The two aims 
which he proposes to keep in view in studying this subject reappear 
in C. II. 1258b 9, fVci Sc TO TTpbs Tr/v yvSuriv SiapiKa/iev Ikovos, tA 
wpds rfjv XPV"'^'' ^" SuXdeiv, and in 3. 8. 1279b I2,T^ be irepi eKamrjv 
fiiBohov <ljcKoiro(j)ovvTi kui /xij juokov djrojSXtrroiTJ irpos to jTpdrreiv k.t.\. 
So again in 2. i. 1260 b 32 the aim is Iva t6 t dpBSis ex"" °i>^5 ™' 
TO xpwi/iov : cp. 6 (4). I. 1288 b 35 sqq. The aim of the Politics 
is from the first twofold — partly scientific accuracy, partly utiUty. 
The eleventh chapter of the First Book is intended to be useful, 
not only to the xpw"'""""'* and to the oIkovopj.k6s, but also to the 
iroKiTiKos (1259a 33). 

15. ■ri'ii' AfayKaiai' xpEiaf. Cp. C. 5. 1254 b 29, t^u dvayKoiav 

16. K&y El K.T.X. See Bon. Ind. 4134 sqq. Carry on tSa/xev. 
18. TOIS fiEr yAp K.T.X. Some rate Secmoreia too high, counting 

it as a science, and identifying the rule of the fieo-n-orijs with house- 
hold management and political and kingly rule (for with 7ro\iriKi7 
and /3ao-i\wij — as Bonitz points out, Ind. 614 b 31 — dpxri must be 
supplied, as in i. 7. 1255 b 17) : language to this effect is put into 
the mouth of Socrates both by Xenophon in the Oeconomicus 
and by Plato in the Politicus. This was one extreme. Others go 
to the other extreme, and regard the distinction of master and 
slave as resting only on convention, not on nature, and therefore as 
based on compulsion and consequently unjust. Aristotle here as 
elsewhere first sets before his reader two or more opposite views, 
and then seeks a view which will harmonize their contrariety {Xva-u 
ras ivavTi&aeis) and make either of them seem to possess a basis of 
plausibility [elXoyas Sokovvto) by showing that each is in a sense 
true and in a sense not true: cp. Eth. Eud. 7. 2. 1235 b 13, XijTrr/os 

134 NOTES. 

hrj rpiiTOs q(ms fffiiv d/m to re Sokovvto jrepl Toirav jiaKifrra aTTOoaxrei 

(' plene explicare, explicando exprimere,' Bon. Ind. Sob i8 sqq.), 
Koi Tas aiTopia.! Xvirei Kot Tos emyruiiiTfis' tovtp 6 earat eav tvKoyas 
([yaivriTai ra ivavrla haKovvriV fiaXurTa yap quoXoyqvucvos 6 toiovtos tcrrai 
Xoyos ToTs (jtaivo/ievois' (rvp^aivfi 8e picveiv ray ivaimaxreis, eav i'cm pxv 

i>s a)iri6es § to \ey6iievov, ?<tti S" i>s oiS. Thus we learn, as the dis- 
cussion goes on, that there is a beirrronicfj iTrurrrifiri (c. 7. 1255 b 22- 

39), though it has nothing great or impressive about it (1255 b 33), 
but that the master is not a master by virtue of scieijce but by 
virtue of character (1255b 20); he can, in fact, do without the 
beaironKfj orior^fiij (1255 b 35); it is no part of his essence and 
therefore no part of his definition. So again, the other side are 
only partially right (c. 6. 1255 a 3)5 their objection to slavery 
holds of one kind of slavery only. 

Something has been said already (vol. i. p. 139 sqq.) as to the 
question vpho these objectors to slavery were, wbo stigmatized it as 
not based on nature but only on corxvention, and therefore the off- 
spring of force and consequently unjust. The notions ' conventionalj' 
' based on force,' and ' unjust ' hang together in their contention 
significantly enough. The connexion which Aristotle traces (Phys. 
4. 8. 215 a 3, and often elsewhere) between to ^iaiou and to irapa 
<f>ia-iv is inherited by him from Plato (Tim. 64 D) and from still 
earlier inquirers (cp. Plato, Protag. 337 D, 6 voiios, ripawos i>i/ t&v 

avBpimav, jroXXa Trapa T^w (pvcriv ^id^erai, — the WOrds of the SOphist 

Hippia,si). So Glaucon in his statement (Rep. 359 C) of the view 
of Thrasymachus and others about Justice contrasts ^vo-tj with 

v6fios Kal /3(q (o Traaa ^vtris bianay irf<j>VKfy &s dyaSov, vop,(f hi ^ia napa- 

yerai eV« Trjv rov "(j-ov Tt/tijv). On the Other hand, we trace the 
notion of a connexion between, force and injustice in a well-known 
line of Hesiod, Op. et Dies 275 — 

Kal w fiiKijs iwaKove, ^irjs S iniKaBeo mpinav, 

and in a view referred to by Aristotle, Pol. 4 (7). 2. ;324a 35 

TrT-j/ofiifoutri 8 oi fiev to tS>v ircXat ap^tiv, SftrTroTiKSs ftew yivoiievov jieT 
d^iKias nvis eivai Trjs fieyiimis, TroXtTUtSr 8c t6 fiiv SSkcov ovk e^f"' K.r.X. : 

cp. 3. 3. 1276a 12, where we find tha,t some constitutions (e.g. 
tyra,nny) were popularly contrasted with others (democraej i^ 
probably meant) as founded on force, not on the common a.dvan- 
ta,gei. So again in 3. 16. 1287 a 10 sqq. that which is by nature 
and that which is just are tapitly identified. We hear later on 
(c 6. 125s a 8 sq.) that 'many of those versed in laws' impeached 
enslavement resulting from war, a,\ any rate when based on a bajre 
superiority of Might, b^l; ttie persons referred to in the passage 

1. 3. 1253 b 18—4. 1253 b 23. 135 

before us seem to have regarded slavery of all kinds and under all 
circumstances — even, it would seem, when imposed by Greeks on 
barbarians; — as contrary to nature and unjust. This sweeping 
protest against slavery is certainly remarkable. We see from Plato, 
Laws 777 B sqq., how much difficulty was experienced in the 
practical maintenance and working of the institution. 

23. eirei ouc k.t.\. The object of the long sentence which C. 4. 
begins here, and which, like many other long sentences in Aristotle 
introduced by iiret, is ill-constructed enough, is (as we see from 
1254 a 13) to commence an investigation into the nature and 
function of the slave. It is evident that if Aristotle can show that 
the slave fills a necessary place in the household as an instrument 
of household science, raised above and somewhat dissimilar to in- 
struments commonly so called, yet, like them, an instrument and an 
article of property, he will have gone far to solve the twofold 
question just raised, whether rule over the slave is the same thing 
as olKovofuiaj, iroXtTiKr), and jSao-iXjK^ ^pxVi ^^d whether the slave exists 
by nature, for the naturalness of the slave will result from his neces- 
sity, and rule over the slave will be clearly seen to be a less noble 
thing than rule over those who are not Spyava. Socrates (Xen. 
Mem. 3. 4. 12), in asserting a close similarity between the manage- 
ment of private and public concerns, had used the following argument 

— oil yap oXXois TL(riv dvSpajroK 01 tS>i> Koivav iwifieKo/ievoi )(pavTai § our- 

jrep 01 ra I'Sm oIkovojiovvtcs. Aristotle, on the contrary, holds that to 
rule over slaves is one thing and to rule over freemen is another 
(c. 7), for slaves, unlike freemen, are mere animate instruments. 

■t\ KTTJcris fi^pos rfjs oiKias k.t.X. As often happens at the outset 
of an inquiry, Aristotle accepts propositions which he will after- 
wards correct (see note on 1253 b 11). His definitive view is that 
property is rather a stfie qua non (o5 ovk Svev) of the household 
than a part of it, and that the same is true of the relation of KTr/nKfi 
or xpw»"<^"((ij (of the sound sort) to olKovofiia : cp. c. 10 (which, it 
would seem, must be taken to correct the passage before us and 
also c. 8. 1256 b 26-27), ^nd see 4 (7). 8. 1328 a 21 sqq., where 
property is denied to be part of the jtoKk, though necessary to it 
(1328 a 33 sq.). Not a few translators and commentators — among 
them, one MS. of the Vet. Int. (z, which inserts ' manifestum quod ' 
before its equivalent for koI fi leniriK^) and Leonardus Aretinus — 
make koI 17 K-nrniai k.t.X. an apodosis, but Aristotle often introduces 
with inei a long string of protases, and perhaps it is better to begin 
the apodosis at ovra 30 and to avoid interrupting the continuity of the 
argument, which seems to me to be as follows : — Without necessaries 

136 NOTES. 

men can neither live nor live well, hence property is essential to th^ 
household, and the science of acquiring it is a part of the science of 
household management, the end of which is life or good life ; but 
instruments, whether animate or inanimate, are also essential to this 
X Mscience: hence an article of property is an instrument for the pur- 
pose of living, and property is a mass of instruments, and the slave 
is an animate article of property [and therefore an animate instru- 
ment for the purpose of living]. The proof, however, that articles of 
property are instruments for the purpose of living seems unsatisfac- 
tory, and Aristotle omits to show that the animate instruments of 
which Household Science stands in need must be, if human beings, 
slaves and not free. Sus. brackets the words km fj icnjTiKri /tipos Trjs 
olKovojiias as having no bearing on the conclusion drawn in 30 sqq., 
but Aristotle's object seems to be to show, first the necessity of 
Property, and next the necessity of instruments, to Household 
Science. I am not convinced by Susemihl's arguments (Qu. Crit. 
p. 339 sqq.), that a rearrangement of the paragraph is called for. 

25. TttTs upio-fj.^i'ais T^xfois, * arts with a definite end ' : Bonitz 
(Ind, 524 a 29) compares Metaph. M. 10. 1087 a 16, 17 /lev oZv hvvaius 

i>s vKr) Tov KaBSKov oicra Koi dopiaros tov koBoXov Ka\ aoplcrTOV iarlv, f) 8' 
ivepycia capurnivr) koI apuTfiivov ToSe Tt oicra ToCSe twos, but Metaph. E. 
2. 1027 a g, tS>v (kv yap aXKav iviore Svvdfieis elaXv ai TroiTjTiKm, tSiv 6' 
oibeiila Tf)(vri oiSe Svvajus apurfievri' tS>v yap Kara (TVfi^e^riKBS owoi' § 
yaiojihcov koL to mTi6v iari Kara i7u/i0€/3ij(eos comes Still nearer, and 
here the opposition is between a cause which works for a definite 
end and one which works Kara o-iifi0E/3i;(eo9— cp. Rhet. 1. 10. 1369a 

32, eo'Tt S dno TV)(rjs fisv ra Toiavra yiypofieva, oo'av ij re alria dSpurTos 
Kal fiTj fvexd tou yiyverai kw. p,r)Te del firjTe ms iwi to irokv firfn Terayfiivms] 
and Metaph. E. 2. 1027 a 19, on 8' iirio'Tfifiri ovk cotl tov <7Ufij3e/37)KOTor, 
tfiavepof i'nuTTqp.rj p,iv yap nd(Ta ^ tov del tj tov i>s iirl to noXv' iras yap 
^ p.adrja'CTai fj 8tSa^€t aXKov'j 8eT yap tiyplaBai ^ tco dei rj tw a>s eirt to 
sroXu, oiov on a^eKifiov to /ieXiKpaTOv tm TTvpiTTOVTi i>s iiti to ttoKv. It 

is not clear whether Aristotle regards oUovofUKri as wpto-fiew; : at any 
rate it is hardly a re^ri — rather a irpaKriKq ima-Tfjiirj, or part of one. 
For the thought, cp. Plutarch, An Vitiositas ad infelicitiam sufficiat 

C. 2, 1) KaKia . . . airoreXijr tis oSo-a r^s KaKO&aifWvias &rifUovpy6s' oure 
yap opyavav oCrc vwqperSiv ^peiav. 

26. AmyKaioi' tv eit] . . . el (i^Wei. See Jelf, Gr. Gr. § 853. 2. h. 

27. ouTu Ktti tS)v oiKOfop.iKui'. Not to bc Completed by Texyav, 
nor is tS>v oIkovoiukSiv masc, as Gottling, who supplies to oiiceia Spyara, 
would make it; the word to be supplied is probably opydvav. It 
comes to the surface, ag it were, immediately after in tS>v S opydvav^ 

1. 4. 1253 b 25—32. 137 

and the translation ' the same thing will hold good of the instru- 
ments of household science ' seems to be justified by the use of the 

gen. in Phys. 8. 8. 263 a I, icat rmv Ktvriacav apa ixrairrms : Pol. I. 8. 

1256a 29, oiioias 8e km rSi> avdpamav (' ebenso ist es nun auch bei 
den Menschen," Bern.: cp. 1256b 6, d/iolois 8e xal jrepl tovs oXXous). 
Riddell (Plato, Apology p. 126) apparently interprets the passage 
before us thus, though he does not explain what substantive he 
would supply. 

29. irpupcijs. Cp. Plutarch, Agis l. 3, Kuddirep yap ol irpcfpels ra 
eimpoirSiV npoopaptvoi rau Kv^cpvqr&v acjiopSxn irpo! inelvovs km to npocr- 
racrcFd/xci/ov inr eKeivav noimjiriv, ovras ot Troknevopevoi, Koi irpbs So^av 
DpavTes vTrripeTai piv tS>v iroXKStv fitriv, Svopa Se ap)(6vTiov e)(ov(nv : 

Reipubl. Gerend. Praecepta, c. 15, i>s ol Kv^epvrjTca ri pev i-als x^/jo-i di 

<wtS>v irpdrrova-ij ra 8' opydvois ircpois 81* irepav anaSfV xaBrfpevoi wtpid- 
yova-i Kal (rrpe^ovm, )(pSiVTai 8e (cai vaircus Koi jrpapevcri Koi KeXtvarals . . ; 
euro) ra jtoXitik^ TrpooTjKct k.tX. 

30. iv opyiii'ou eiSei. See Liddell and Scott s. v. etSos. 

xais T£xi'c"S. Vict. ' in omni arte, quaecunque ilia sit,' and so 
Bern. Sus. ' fiir die Kiinste,' but cp. rais SKKais rexvais, 1256b 

ouTu Kol rb K-n\]ia. Here at length begins the apodosis. For 
ouro introducing the apodosis after a protasis introduced by iirel, 
Eucken (de Partic. usu, p. 30) compares 1. 10. 1258 a 31-34. 

31. TO KTYJfia . . . opyiiti'ui' lori. Contrast Xenophon's account of 
KT^(Tis in Oecon. 6. 4, KTrjaip 8e toSto e(j)apev ctvai n eitaara aKpekipjov eii; 
«r TOP ^Lov, axjisXifia 8e ovra evpiinteTO irdura oiroaois t\s imaraiTO XPV~ 

v6ai — SO that friends, for instance (c. 1. 14), come under the head of 
property, and enemies too, if a man knows how to use friends and 
enemies. Xenophon's definition seems far too wide. Aristotle 
avoids this fault by treating property as an appendage of the 
household and as consisting of Spyava, but then there is such a 
thing as State-property, and his final definition of a KTrjpa in 1254a 16 
as an Spyavov irpaitriKov km x<»p«»toj' seems to imply that an Spyavov 
TToofTiKov (a shuttle, for example) is not an article of property, so 
that his definition of K.Tri<ns appears to be as much too narrow as 
Xenophon's is too wide. His definition of wealth, however (c. 8. 
1256 b 27 sqq.), is not open to these objections. 
- 32. (Sairep opyai'ov irpA opY<ii'Mi'. For this term cp. de Part. An. 
4. 10. 687 a 19 sq., Jj 8e xeip eoiKev eivai ov^ Iv Spyavov dWa jroXXa, 

fori yap a(nrepf\ Spyaiiov vpb opydvav (the expression is somewhat 
unusual, and is therefore introduced by itoTrepei, Sumepy ra odv 

^rXei'oras Svvafie'vif de^a(rdai Te)(yas to eVl TtKeiuTov tS>v opydvav ;^ij(ri/ioi' 

138 NOTES. 

rrjv xf'P" anobcSiaKev ij (f>i(ns. Many have taken Spyavav npo opyavav 
in this passage of the De Partibus Animalium as being equivalent in 
meaning to oix f" Spyavov aWa iroK\d, but this is not apparently its 
meaning in the passage before us. In Probl. 30. 5. 955 b 23 sqq. we 

read § on 6 6ebs opyava ex eaurots ij/ilc ScSiokc tio, ev ois ;i^p70-ojttetfa Tots 
fKTOf opydvoK, (rapaTt (xeV x^ipa, ^XB ^^ vovv, and in de An, 3. 8. 432 a 
I sq. the soul is said to be like the hand, ral yap ^ x"P opyavov ia-nv 

opyavav, Koi 6 vovs etSos ddSiv Ka\ r) cS,(T6ri<ns elbos aloBTyrav, where Tren- 
delenburg explains ' manus, qua tanquam instrumento reliqua 
instrumenta adhibentur, instrumentum instrumentorum dici potest ; 
eodem fortasse sensu roCs «fios el&mv, i.e. ea species et forma quae 
reliquas suscipit, iisque, velut manus instrumentis, utitur.' Cp. also 
for the relation of the hand to other Spyava, de Gen. An. 1.22. 
730 b 15 sqq. Bonitz collects the uses of wpo in Aristotle (Ind. 
633 a 34 sqq.), and, like Vict, before him, compares Pol. i. 7- 1255 b 

29, fioCXos irpb 8oi\ov, SeaTrdnjs Trpo derriroTOV, interpreting irpo both here 

and in the De Partibus Animalium as meaning 'praeferri alteri 
alterum.' (So Vict. ' instrumentum quod praestat et antecellit ceteris 
instrumentis ' : Lamb. ' instrumentum instrumenta antecedens.') 
Perhaps, however, something more than this may be meant — ' an 
instrument which is prior to other instruments and without which 
they are useless.' 

33. iras 6 urnip^-nis. Sus. brackets d, following M^ and corr. P*,and 
Tray vTrrjpeTrjs (like was oucor, I. 7. 1255 b 19) is a commoner expres- 
sion, but the meaning is ' the class of assistants as a whole ' — cp. 

Eth. Nic. 7. 9. 1150b 30, oS' aKpar^s peraiieXrynKos iras: Pol. 1.2.125^^ 
a8,ira(rr]STTJs avrapKeias : 7 (5). 1 1. 13138' 21, Tracrav T^v ap^riv. The 

slave is included under the wider term uBTj/jenji (1254 a 8 : Plato, 

Politicus 289 C, TO 8e Sq SovXaiv Kai irdvrav virripeTav XoiTrdv). 

35. T& AaiSdXou . . .^ Tois tou 'H<|>aiaTou rpiiroSas. The article 
is used before 'H^aiWov, but not before AatSoXov. Should we com- 
pare the examples collected by Vahlen (Poet. p. 105) in his note on 
'iXjir KQi fj 'ohieraeia, Poet. 4. 1449a I? As to these works of 
Daedalus, cp. de An. i. 3. 406 b 18 : Plato, Meno 97 D : Euthy- 
phro II B : Eurip. Fragm. 373 (Nauck). The poets of the Old 
Comedy delighted to imagine the utensils of the kitchen and the 
household themselves doing what they were bidden, the fish cook- 
ing himself and so forth, and slaves thus becoming unnecessary. 
See the lively lines of Crates and others, Athen. Deipn. 267 e. 
The Greeks, in fact, as appears from these verses, looked back to 
a golden age when there were ho slaves. 

36. 6 Tta\.r\Tf\%. Homer (II, 18. 376). The term, however, is 

1. 4. 1253 b 33— 1254 a 5. 139 

used by Aristotle of others than Homer — Sophocles (Pol. i. 13. 
1260 a 29): an unknown poet (Phys. 2. 2. 194 a 30). Homer 
refers to them as ' of their own accord entering the assembly of 
the gods.' 

35-37. Strircp . . . oStus at KcpKiSes. For the construction of 
this sentence Rassow (Bemerkungen, p. 5) compares 3. 4. 1277 a 

5, eWi e^ avofioietv f) irdJVtf, aairep ^^ov tvBvt ck yfrvx^s Koi aaixaros kiul 
^xh *Vt Xoyou KM Qp(^€<os . . . rhp aiiTov rpiirqv kou, itSKis i^ iitavray 
Tf TovTutv K.T.X., aud Sus. adds 3. 15. 1286 a 31, ?ri pSKKov a8id(pdqpov 
TO froXf, Kaddirep vBtop ro irKetoVf ovra Koi to frXJjdoff rail' oXiyav d8ia<p- 

Soparrepov. In all these passages, after a similar case or cases have 
been adduced, the original proposition is reverted to and reasserted, 
perhaps in more distinct and vigorous language — the whole forming, 
however cumbrously, an undivided sentence. Neither koI before 
&aiTep nor et before ai KfpxiSes is correct. 

37. auTQi, ' of themselves ' : cp. 2.9. 1270 b 8. 

38. oiUy &v eSei. This is in the main true, but slaves might 
even then be needed as aKoXovBoi (8 (6). 8. 1323 a 5 sq,), a purpose 
for which they were largely used. 

1. Toi fUv oSy K.T.X. Aristotle has been speaking of the slave as 1254 a. 
an Spyavov rrpo opyavav made necessary by the inability of shuttles or 
combs to do their work by themselves, but now he remembers that 
the word opyavou was commonly used of instruments of pro- 
duction; he feels, therefore, that what he has just said may 
be misleading and may suggest the idea that the slave is a mere 
instrument of the textile art, a mere complement of the comb, 
whereas in fact be is a humble auxiliary in life and action, which 
are higher things than weaving ; hence he guards himself by point- 
ing out that the slave is not an op-yai/oK in the usual sense of 
the word — i. e. a jrojijriKp» spyavov (cp. Plato, Polit. 287 E, pw yap 

firi yeuea-tas oIt'u} itrfymra/., KaOdirep opyavov) — but a TrpaKTtKov opyavov, 
for (r) he is a Krrjpa, (2) he is an Spyavov wpos ^anpi, and life is irpa^is, 

not TToitjais. When he has added the further trait that the slave is, 
like any other (ei^fta, wholly another's, we know exactly what the 
slave is, and are prepared to deal with the further question whethe? 
a patural slave exists. The slave is a irpuienKov and f^^x'"' ^pyovtv, 
and, though a human being, wholly another's. As to the use of ni« 
<mv here, see note on 1253 a 10. 

3. Itepdi' Ti irop(i. Cp. 6 (4). 15. 1299 a 18. 

S. en 8* lirtl k.t.X. Aristotle now points out, further, that the 
diiference between cfpyova of n-otijo-w and irpa^i; (and the slave is an 
ipyavov of jrpofw) is a difference of kind. 

140 NOTES. 

8. Kol D SoOXos. Cp. KOI ravra 6 : life (/S/oi) is action, and thfe 
slave is an Spyavov npbs iar)v, 1253 b 31, therefore the slave also (as 
well as life) has to do with action. Mr. Postgate (Notes on the 
Politics, p. i) notices the substitution here of |3ioy for fmv- 

rh 8e KTrtfia k.t.X. Cp. g (8). I. 1337 a 27, ajta he oiSe xf") vofii- 
few aiiTov avTov Tiva eivai rav TroXtTfiw, ciWa trdmas Tijs iroXtas, jxopiov yap 
eKoa-Tos rqs ■TToXf as, and Eth. Nic.5.10. ii34b.iosq. The slave is also 
apart of his master (c. 6. 1255 b 11 sq.: Eth. Eud. 7. 9. 1241 b 23). 

9. T£ Y&p 'apud Aristot. saepe ita usurpatur, ut particula re 
manifesto praeparativam vim habeat, eamque sequatur rai" (Bon. 
Ind. 750 a 2). Here ofiolas Si follows. 

10. oXus, i.e. without the limiting addition of fioptov. ' Opponitur 
cXffls lis formulis, quibus praedicatum aliquod ad angustiorem am- 
bitum restringitur' (Bon. Ind. 506 a 10). 

14. (fjdo-Ei. Vict. ' hoc autem addidit, quia usu venit aliquando 
ingenuum hominem amittere libertatem, nee suae potestatis esse, 
cum scilicet capitur ab hostibus : is enim quoque eo tempore non 
est sui iuris, sed instituto quodam hominum, non natura.' For the 
definition of the slave here given, cp. Metaph. A. 2. 982 b 25, 
acTrep avOpairSs ipapev iXfvdepos 6 avrov evcKa Koi prj aXXov av, ovra Koi 
avTT] fwinj iXevdepa oJ<ra rS>v imtrvqiiSiV novij yap aiiTr] avTrjs evcKfV io'Tiv: 

The popular use of language implied quite a different view of 
freedom and slavery: see Pol. 8 (6). 2. 1317 b 2-13, and contrast 
the well-known passage, Metaph. A. 10. 1075 a 18 sqq. 

15. See critical note. 

C. 5. 17. iroTepoi' 8' eori ti? k.t.X. Aristotle passes from the question 
Ti can to the question fi eo-Tt: cp. Metaph. E. i. 1025b 16 sqq. 
He has discovered that there is a niche in the household needing* 
to be filled, but he has not yet discovered whether there are any 
human beings in existence who are gainers by filling it, and whom 
it is consequently just and in accordance with nature to employ as 

20. ofi x^^^'fo'' 8e K.T.X. It is not easy to disentangle in what 
follows the two modes of inquiry, or to mark .the point at which 
the one closes and the other begins. We see that the relation of 
ruling and being ruled satisfies all tests of that which is natural ; 
it is necessary, and therefore natural (de Gen. An. 1.4. 717 a 15) — 
it is for the common advantage, and therefore natural (Pol. i. 2: 
I252a34: i. 5. 1254b 6, iz : 1.6.1255b 12-14) — ^the distinction 
of ruler and ruled, again, appears in some cases immediately after 
birth (eiSis tV yewr^s), and this is a further evidence of naturalness 
(Eth. Nic. 6. 13. 1144b 4-6 : Pol. i. 8. 1256b 7,sq. :. Eth. Eudj 

1. 4, 1254 a 8— 5, 1254 a 28. 141 

2. 8. 1224b 31 sqq.). Aristotle continues — 'and there are many 
kinds of ruling and ruled elements, and if one kind of rule is better 
than another, this is because one kind of ruled element is better 
);han another, for ruler and ruled unite to discharge a function, 
and the function discharged rises as the level of that which is ruled 
rises.' Aristotle is careful to point out that the lowness of the rule 
exercised by the master over the slave is due to the lowness of the 
person ruled, and that the rule of a natural master over a natural 
slave no more involves an infraction of nature or justice or the 
common advantage than the rule of the soul over the body. 

21. KaTafiadeii' is used of things perceived at a glance without 
any necessity for reasoning : cp. 3. 14. 1285 a i. So 6pav is occa^ 
sionally opposed to \6yog (e.g. in Meteor, i. 6. 343 b 30-33). 

23. ei/io. Soul and body, man and brute, male and female. 

25. del K.T.X. Cp. 7 (5). II. 1315 b 4, « yap TovTav dvaymlov ou 
jtovov Trpi opx/jv elvai koXXiu koi fijXmTOTepaw T^ ^f\Ti6v(ov ap)(eiv Koi prf 
jfTarrfiuaiievav K.T.X. 

26. olov dk6p(Sirou fj Sripiou, ' as for instance over a man than 
over a brute.' 

27. Air<5 is probably used in preference to wd, because its signifi- 
cation is more comprehensive — the ' source' (cp. 6 (4). 6. 1293 a 
19) rather than the 'agency' — and covers the contribution of the 
ruled to the common work as well as that of the ruler. ' In the 
genuine works of Aristotle airo is never found in the sense of iiro 
with the passive, but all cases in which we find it conjoined with a 
passive verb may easily be explained by attaching to it its ordinary 
meaning; in many of the spurious writings, on the other hand, we 
find passages in which ano is used in the sense of ino — e. g. Probl. 
7. 8. 887 a 22: Rhet. ad Alex. 3. 1424a 15, 27' (Eucken, 
Praepositionen, p. 9). See also Bon. Ind. 78 a 9 sqq. 

OTTOU Se K.T.\. Cp. Hist. An, I. I. 488 a 7, jroXtT«a 8" eurt 
(fma), S>v €V Ti Kot KOivov yiverai iravrav to tpyov' ojtep oil iravTa noiei to, 

28. oo-a ydp k.t.X. Camerarius (Interp. p. 35) quotes Cic. De 
Nat. Deor. 2. 11. 29. rap introduces a proof of the statement in 
24 that there are many sorts of ruling elements, and also of ruled, 
and many kinds of rule. Given the fact of the existence of many 
compound wholes, each compounded of many constituents, it is 
not likely that all those constituents will be similarly related to 
each other and will deserve to be ruled in the same way. Sus. 
(following Dittenberger, ubi supra p. 1376) places koI ati^ikrlav. . . 
epyov 28 in a parenthesis, but perhaps 3cra yap k.tX is intended to 

14a NOTES. 

support this assertion as well as that which pfededeS it, and out of 
which it grows. 

29. Ik Ti vLO\.v(tv. See Bon. Ind. 399 a 28 sqq., where Metaph. 
H. 3. 1043 a 31 is referred to, in which passage rh koivov is used as 

equivaleilt to ^ aivBerot oiala e| vKrji Kai eiSour, and SUch a irivBeTOS 

bia-la may be cbttiposed not only of <ruvex*i, but also of Stjiprifieva, like 
TO 3X01/ in 4 (7). 8. 1328 a 21 sqq. For a definition of t& trvvexes 
Bonitz (Ind. 728 a 33) refers to Phys. 5. 3* 227 a lo-b 2. Vict: 
' sive, inquit, ipsae illae partes continentes sunt, ut contingit in 
corpore hominis, quod constituunt membra quae sibi haerent, sive 
seiunctae, partibus non concretis, ut fieri videmus in civitate, quae 
constat e civibus distinctis, cohorte militum,' etc. 

31. Kal TOUT eK Trjs drTrdonjs ^uaeus k.t.X. Bonitz (Ind. 225 b 10) 
seems inclined to explain « in this passage as used ' pro genetivo 
partitivo,' but cp. de Part. An. i. i. 641 b 14, aWia Toiavn) fiv ex"!^^" 

KaOdirep to 6epjiov mi to ■^vxpov ex toC iravros : ' and this (i. e. ruling 
and being ruled) comes to things possessed of life from nature as 
a whole' (« x^s dTrdan^s (^vtrea>s, cp. jrtpi Tr]V oXiji' <j>v(nv, 2. 8. 1 267 b 
28). Cp. also de An. 3. 5. 430 a 10, tVel 8" Aa-wep iv Smaa-ji tfi (j)ia-ei 
tan Ti t6 pev vXij eKaartf yevei (toCto 8e o irdvra Svvdpfi eKeivaj, erepov 
8e rA aiTJ0i» Kw, iroirjTiKov, t^ ttouiv ndvra, oioi/ tj t«x>"! TpoS Tr)V vKrfV 
itiirovBev, dvdyieq Koi iv rji ijfvxfi vJrapxeiv Tairas toi BuKpopas'. PlatOj 

Phileb. 30 A : Phaedrus 270 C : Meno 81 C, are t^s (jyitreas Airda-ris 

avyyevovs ouo'ijs. To S'^x"" is prior yevcirti, though not oitrli}, to To 

^pyjnjxov (Metaph. M. 2. 1077a 19). Inanimate nature shades 
off almost imperceptibly into animate (Hist. An. 8. i. 588 b 

33. otoi' dpfiofias. Bern. 'z. derinusikalischeii Harmoniei'— 
Sus.' ' wie z. B. (die des Grundtons) in einer Tonart ' : the latter 
suggests that iv Appovi^ should be read instead of Appoviac, and 
certainly, if the word is used in this sense, the genitive seems strange 
and in need of confirmation from parallel passages. Bonitz, 
on the other hand (Ind. ro6 b 37 sq.), groups this passage with 
Phys. 1. 5. 188 b 12-16, where appovla appears to be used in 

a sense opposed to dvappoarid — Siia(pipei oiSev eVt dppovlai elneiv 
^ Ta|ea>c ^ avv6f<Tfcos' ^dvep&v yhp Sri 6 oiTos X<iyoi (15—16) — cp. 

Fragm. Aristot. 41. 1481 b 42: the meaning would thus be 'a rule 
as of order and system.' But Aristotle may possibly have in his 
mind the Pythagorean tenet referred to in Metaph. A. 5, 986 a 2, rav 

S\ov oipdviv dppovlav etvai koI dptSpdv. Cp. Strabo 10. p. 468, Ka6' 
dppovlav riv Koapev avvea-rdvai ^airi: Plutarch, Phocion C. 2 Sub fin.'. 

Plato, Tim, 37 A : Philolaus, Fragm. 3 (Mullach, Fr. Philos. Gr. 2. 

1. 5. 1254 a 29— 1254 b 4. 143 

i): Plutarch, de Procreatione Animae in Timaeo c. 7. 1015 E, 
c. 28. 1027 A, c. 33. 1029 E sqq. : Stob. Floril. 103. 26 (p. 555. 
27 sq.). Compare also the famous saying of Heraclitus (Fr. 45, ed. 

Bywater) as to the Ttaklvrpoiros ipfiovitj [Ki!<r/iOu] oKaoTTep rdfou Kai 

\vpris. If the Pythagorean views are present to Aristotle's mind, 
some notion of musical harmony may be included in his meaning. 

d\X& K.T.X. Compare the similar dismissal of a physical parallel 
in Etb. Nic. 8. 10. 1159 b 23. 

34. irpuToi', ' in the first place.' Cp. 1254 b a, tart 8' oSv, &<nTep 
'Xiyofiev, irpSsrov iv (aa Beaprja-M Koi detnroriK^v apx't" ''«' TToXtriir^Kj and 
10, TrdKiv. 

35. &v -A fikv K.T.X. Cp. Plato, Phaedo 80 A, and Isocr. De 
Antid. § 180. 

36. Set Se oKoireif. Sus. (Qu. Crit. p. 342): ' orationem inter- 
rumpendo refellit quae quis de hac re contradicere possit.' For 
the rule here laid down, cp. Eth. Nic. 9. 9. 1170 a 22 sqq. In the 
next line koI before rbv ^ikrurra hiamlpxyoiv seems to assert it not 
only of other things but also of man. 

39. TouTo, the rule of the soul over the body. 

Tuc Y^P ^yi^t\pSiv T] iioxOiipus ty^ivTiav. Cp. de An. 3. 4. 
429 b 13, $ SKKa ^ oXXoif txovn'. de An. 3. 4. 429 b 20 sq. : de 
Gen. An. I. 18. 725 a 8, rots KaKicra SiaKeip4vets 81 rjKiKlau g voa-iiv ^ 
£|ti/ {tj e|w Z : cm. Bekk.) — «|« being a more permanent and Siddea-it 
a less permanent state (see Mr. Wallace on de An. 2. 5. 417b ig, 
who refers to Categ. 8. 8 b 28). MoxOfip&s ex^vratv includes both, 
and relates to individuals who, though not ju>x6r)pol, are, more or 
less temporarily, in an unsatisfactory state. 

3. S' oSi' seems to be especially used by Aristotle when a tran- 1254 h. 
sition is made from a disputable assertion to one which cannot be 
disputed: cp. Eth. Nic. 9. 11. 1171 a 33 (quoted by Vahlen, Beitr. 

ZU AristOt. Poet. I. 46), « fiiv odv Sii raCra ij 8i oXXo « Kov<^i^(ivTm, 
aiptta-da- avp^aiveu/ 8* oSv (fmivtrai to \ex6ev, See also MeteOr. I. Ij. 

350 b 9 : JPoet 4. 1449 a 9, ' Be that as it may, at any rate.' 

4. ^ p.kv Y^P K-T.X, It will be noticed that Aristotle conceives 
the soxil to exercise demromefi apxn over the body even in the case of 
the lower animals, at any rate when they are healthily and naturally 
constituted. Plato (Phaedo 80 A) had already spoken of the soul 
as ruling the body despotically, and Aristotle follows in his track. 
We might ask whether Aristotle holds that the soul rules the body 
primarily for its own advantage, and only accidentally for that of the 
body (cp. 3. 6. 1278 b 32 sqq.), or whether the disparity which he 
conceives as existing between a natural master and a natural slave 

144 NOTES. 

exists between the soul of an insect and its body. Aristotle's mean- 
ing, however, is that the body should be the Spyavov and KTrj/ia of the 
soul. But he does not always draw this sharp line of demarcation 
between the soul and the body: in Eth. Nic. lo. 8. 1178 a 14, for 
instance, he relates the body rather closely to the emotions. 

5. ttoKitikV "al ^atriXiKi^i'. Kai perhaps here means ' or,' as in 
the passages referred to by Bonitz (Ind. 357 b 20). noXtTocij and 
/Soo-iXiKij apxri have this in common, that they are exercised over 
free and willing subjects (cp. 3. 4. 1277 b 1~9 '■ ^^^ ^^^ notes on 
1259 a 39-b 1). Perhaps the word fiaa-CKiKfj is added to enforce the 
inequality of voOs and &pe^i.s, and to exclude the notion that an alterna- 
tion of rule between i/oCs and ope|iy is ever in place, such as is found 
in most TtoKinKal apxai (i. 12. 1259 b 4 : I.I. 1252 a 15). For the 
relation of i'oC9 (i. e. o irpaKTiKos vovs) and opc^is in moral action, see 
Eth. Nic. 6. 2.1139 a 17 sqq. 'Ope^is does not stand to voOs in the 
relation of a mere opyavov — the relation described in Pol. 4 (7). 8. 
,1328 a 28 sqq. — but is to a certain extent akin to it; see Eth. Nic. 
I. 13. 1 102 b 30 sqq., and esp. 1103 a 1, «' St xph t°' toSto (sc. rh 

opcKTiKov) <f>dvai Xoyov ex^^^> StTTOV strrai Koi to \6yov ^xoVj to /lev icvpias 
(cai if avTw, to 8" &a7Tfp tov irarpos aKovariKov ti, where the relation of 
Spells to full reason is conceived as that of a child to its father, and 
a father, we know (Eth. Nic. 8. 13. 1161 a 10 sqq.), is not far from; 
a king. On the other hand, in Eth. Nic. 5. 15. 1138 b 5 sqq., the 
relation of the rational to the irrational part of the soul is apparently 
construed differently, and compared to the relation of a master to 
his slave or to that of a head of a household to his household ; we 
do not learn how it can be comparable to each of these two 
dissimilar relations. When Cicero (de Rep. 3. 25. 37) says — nam 
ut animus corpori dicitur imperare, dicitur etiam libidini, sed cor- 
pori ut rex civibus suis aut parens liberis, libidini autem ut 
servis dominus, quod eam coercet et frangit — he probably means 
by ' libido ' something different from Spelts. His notion of the 
relation of soul and body contrasts, we see, with Aristotle's. 

6. If ots. Cp. 1254a 39, iv a ToiTO StjXov: 1254 b 3, iv faoi 
Beaprja-ai : 1254a 36, a-Koneiv iv tois Kara (pva-iv exovtri : and Plato, 
Soph. 256 C, TTfpi av Kai iv oh npovdipieda crKonetv. 'Ev introduces the 

objects {■^vxfi, cmpa, your, ope^Ls) in which the relations are ex- 
emphfied. 'Ev is sometimes used in the sense of ' as to ' : see 
Vahlen, Poet. p. 188 (note on 17. 1455 b 14), who compares 
(among other passages) Plato, Rep. 2. 376 B, Bappoivres TLBa/uv xat 

iv avBpwtif . . . 0vo-et <j)t\6a-o(jiov avTOV Setv elvai, but this does not 

seem to be its meaning here. 

1. 5. 1254 b 5—16. 145 

8. Tu iraOT|TiK(d (lopiu vtth tou fou Kai toG |ji,opiou tou XcSyo)' exorros.' 

That which is usually called t6 opejcrncdi' is here termed t6 waBrjuKbu 
Itopiov, and the term recurs in 3. 15. 1286a 17, Kpelrrov ^ ^ fifj 

irp6(Tf(m to iTa6i]TiK6v oKas 5 9 avji^vis' rm fiev oiv vofua rovro ov\ 
tmdpxet — cp. 3. 16. 1287 a 32, avev ope^eas vovs 6 viixos iariv. In the 

passage before us to opeieriKov is distinguished from t6 "Koyov e^o", 
though Aristotle is sometimes not unwilling to treat it as part of 
TO XeJyoi' €xoi» (see Eth. Nic. i. 13. 11 03 a i sq., quoted in the last 
note but one), and in the de Anima (3. 9. 432 a 24 sqq.) he speaks 
of the division of the soul into to SKoyov and t6 \6yo» fx"" ^s not 
his own and not satisfactory. He evidently, however, accepts this 
division in the Politics ; this appears still more distinctly in Pol. 
I. 13. 1260 a 6 and 4 (7). 15. 1334 b 17 sq. An accurate treat- 
ment of psychological questions would in fact be out of place in a 
political treatise : see Eth. Nic. 1. 13. 1102 a 23 sq. It is not clear 
whether in the passage before us Aristotle regards vovs as the e^is 
of TO 'Koyov exov, as in Pol. 4 (7). 15. 1334 b 17 sqq. 

10. iv dfOpoSiru Kal rots aXXois £w'ois, ' in man taken in conjunc- 
tion with the other animals.' It is because the relation of ruling 
and being ruled appears elsewhere than itepX avSpawov, that Aristotle 
expressly limits his inquiries in 3. 6. 1278 b 16 to the question, 
T^s dpx^s ttS? jrocra Trjs Trepi ivSpunrov Kal Trfv Koivaviav t^s (arjs. 

11. PeXriV Cp. 4 (7). 13. 1332 b 3 sq.: Probl. 10. 45. 895 b 23 
sqq. : Oecon. i. 3. 1343 b 15. Being better, their example is to 
be studied as illustrating the true relation of animals to man (cp. 

1254 a 37)- 

TouTois Se Train. Vict. ' mansuetis omnibus.' Cp.Theophr. Cans. 
Plant. I. 16. 13 (quoted by Zeller, Gr. Ph. 2. 2. 826. i). 

13. In 8e K.T.X. iuo-ei is added because this is not always the 
case (cp. I. 12. 1259 b i). KpfiTTov is probably not ' stronger' (as 
Sus. and Bern.), but 'better,' as in 3. 15. 1286a 17: compare as 
to the relative excellence of male and female de Gen. An. 2. i. 
732 a 5 sqq. : Metaph. A. 6. 988 a 2-7. Aristotle is apparently 
speaking here, as in 1259b i, 1260a 10, of the male and female 
human being. 

16. em irdi'Tui' AyBpiiitar. Cp. 3. 10. 1281 a 17, ndKiv te navTcov 
'Kjl(j>eivT<ov, where the meaning seems to be 'taking men as a whole, 
irrespective of wealth and poverty'; so here ' in the case of human 
beings as a whole, irrespective of sex.' 

16. 'I'ux^ o-(4f*aTOS Kal acdpuiros 9r\piou. One would expect ■^vx'js 
a-S>pa Koi avBpimov Orjpiov, and Thurot (see Sus.') is inclined to alter 
the text thus, but the inversion is characteristic : cp. 2. 2. 1261 a 27, 


146 NOTES. 

where one would expect Sto/o-ei bk ra toiovtco koI Wvbs n-oXetor, instead 

of C^VOUS TToXtS. 

18. ■q ToO (Tt^fiaTos xp'qo'is. The same criterion of a slave is 
indicated in I. 2. 1252 a 31 sqq.: 1. 11. 1258 b 38: 1254525. The 
slave is here defined by his epyov, and in 21 by his diva/us (like the 
citizen of the best State, 3. 13. 1284 a 2): cp. i. 2. 1253 a 23. 
And the end of a thing is the best to which it can attain (cp. 
4 (7)' 14' 1333 ^ 29, aiei encuTTm Toufl' aipeTaraTov oS Tv\eiv foriv 

19. Miv seems (as Thurot remarks : see Sus. Qu. Crit. p. 343) to 
be followed by no 8e. But this often occurs in the Politics (Sus.^ 
Ind. Gramm. fiev), and here, as Susemihl observes, '/teV praeparat 
quodammodo qua^stionem de ceteris servis, qui non item natura 
sed lege tantum servi sint, sequente demum in capite instituendam.' 
It is taken up by ptv roivvv, 1254 b 39, and then the 8e which intro- 
duces c. 6 answers this fieV, and consequently in effect fiev 1 9 also. 

ois introduces the reason why these are slaves by nature ; they 
are so because it is better for them to be slaves, unlike some who 
will be mentioned presently. For this pregnant use of the relative, 
cp. de Part. An. i. i. 641 b 22. 

20. TauTrji' rfji' Apxitji', SC. 6e<rjroTiK^» apxr/v, for to flpr/fiiva seem to 
be a-afia and Stjplov (mentioned in 16-17). Fo"" (Aristotle in effect 
continues) the natural slave is very near to a brute in capacity, use, 
and bodily make, though there is a certain difference between 

yelp (21) justifies what precedes: the slave has just been 
mentioned as on a level with the brute, and now facts are adduced 
which show how nearly they approach each other. The natural 
slave is a being who can be another's, just as any article of pro- 
perty can, but who differs from brutes in this, that he shares in 
reason to the extent of apprehending it, though he has it not. The 
slave seems to resemble in this t6 opexriKov /lopwv Trjs i/'v;(^s (cp. Eth. 
Nic. 1. 13. 1 103 a I sq.), rather than the body, and we are inclined to 
ask why the rule exercised over him is not to be a kingly rule, like that 
of vovs over 8pf|i5. It is because the slave can apprehend reason 
that he should be addressed with vovBerrjms (i. 13. 1260 b 5), and 
not with commands alone, as Plato suggested. 

23. T& aWa JeJa. Usually usfed where avdptmos has gone before 
(as in 1254 b 10), but here apparently in contradistinction to bovkos, 
as in 3. 9. 1280 a 32. 

atadaf^ixeca. For the part, in place of the finite verb, Cp. 2. 5. 
1263 a 18 and 4 (7). 14. r333 a 18, though it is possible that here 

1. 5. 1254 b 18— 27. 147 

some verb should be supplied from irnipeTeX. Cp. also otroi (jijTe 

irXoia-ioi fii)Te d^ia/ia exovtriv dperrj! fofiiv, 3. 11. 1281 b 24, and see 

Vahlen's note on Poet. 24. 1459 b 1 (p- 243). 

24. iraOiQuaaii'. ' Usus Aristotelicus vocis nddrjiia ita exponetur, 
ut appareat inter TrdOtjiM et TraBos non esse certum significationis 
discrimen, sed eadem fere vi et sensus varietate utrumque nomen, 
saepius alteram, alteram rarius usurpari' (Bon. Ind. 554 a 56 sqq.). 

For the expression iraBrmaa-i.v imrjpeTei, cp. 7 (5). 10. 1312 b 30, Tois 

Bvnois oKoXovdeiv, and for the thought 4 (7). 13. 1332 b 3, ra nev oSu 

SKXa tS>v fffloii' jxaKiaTa fiev rfj (jjvirei. Qi, (UKpa &' ena xai toIs e6f(nv, 
avBpamos Se Kai Xoyiu, jtovov yap ex^'' ^oyov, 

Kol ■f\ xpeia. The use made of the slave, no less than his 
capacity. The use made of tame animals for food is not taken 

into account : cp. I. 8. 1256 b 17, koI dm rrpi xprjtnv xal hia Trpi rpofpiiv. 

-irapaXXdrrEi, 'diverges': cp. de Part. An. 2. 9. 655a 18: de 
Gen. An. 3. 10. 760 a 16 : Probl. 11. 58. 905 b 8. For the thought^ 

cp. ^otjiia Seipdx 30. 24, xopTatrixara kcu pathos Kai (jioprLa ov^, apros Kal 
TTaiSfia Kai epyov oIkItti : Pol. I. 2. 1252 b 12, 6 yhp /3o0s avr oIkctov 
rois irivrjo-lv iarriv: and Aeschyl. Fragm. i88 (Nauck). 

25. TO <r(5(iaTi, ' with the body,' is to be taken with ^orjSeia and 
not made dependent on rdvayKala, as Vict, makes it; cp. i. 2. 
1252 a 33: I. II. 1258b 38. 

27. PoiSXerai fi.€v oiji' k.t.X. Aristotle has implied in what he has 
•just been saying that there is a difference between the souls of the free 
and the slave, and now he continues — ' Nature's wish, indeed, is to 
make the bodies also of freemen and slaves different, no less than 
their souls, but ' etc. He evidently feels that he may be asked why 
the bodies of slaves are not more like those of the domestic animals 
than they are. He hints in 6p6a 29 that the crouching carriage of 
•slaves marks them off from man, and allies them to the horse or 
ox. Aristotle attached much importance to the erect attitude of 
man: cp. de Part. An. 2. 10. 656 a 10, ei6vs yap kcu to cjiiaei popia 
Kara (jnicnv exei tovtm p,6va, Kai to tovtov ava> Tvpos to tov oXov %xh ava' 
fiovov yap op66v eari tS>v ^(gav avOpmsros : 4. 10.^686 a 27, opBov jiiV 
yap etm pdvov tS>v ^mav Bia to t^v <f>iaa> avTov koI tjiv olaiav tivai deiav' 
cpyov 8e TOV BeioTaTov to poftv Kai (ppoveiV tovto 8' ou p^Swv iroXXou 
TOV acmflfv /eiriKeiftivoiv (ra/uiTos' to yap fidpos &u(TKiv>]Tov jroiel rffv .Stapoiai/ 

mil T^v Kaivfjv (uaBrfcnv. As to the failure of nature to give effect t,o 
her purposes, perhaps she was thought by Aristotle to miss her 
mark more often in respect of the body than the soul : cp. de 

Gen. An. 4. lO. 778 a 4, ^ovXerai pip oZy fj (picris Tois tovtcov dpiSpois 
dpidp.elv Tas yeveo'eis Ka\ Tas rekevTas, OVK aKpifidi de Sid ts Tr]v t^s uXi/s 

L 2 

148 NOTES. 

aopuTTtav Koi Sto tA ylvetrBai iroWas apx.a.s, at ras ycvea-eis ras Kara ^v(TiV 
Kol ras (j)dopas iiuroSi^ovaai iTo\KdKis alriai tS>v irapa ^vatv (Tvp.iTmTovra)V 

31. If this parenthesis is more than a marginal remark which 
has crept into the text, it is probably intended to draw out the 
contrast between TroXtriKos /Si'oj and duayKoiai ipyaa'uu: the mere 
mention of all that is implied in the former will suflBce to show the 
unfitness, physical no less than mental, of the slave for it. For 
yiceToi 8ir|pT||j,^i'o9 ('comes to be divided'), seeTop. 7. 5. 154b 11, 
22: 155 a 9: Pol. 7(5). 9. 1310 a 24, and notes on 1252 b 7, 1264 a 
14. The contrast of noKe/uKai and elpjjviKai wpd^ets, as constituting 
the work of the citizen, is familiar enough to us from 4 (7). 14. 
"^333 ^ 30 sq., though TroXefiirai a(TKjj(Tcis are distinguished from 
TToKiTiKai in 5 (8). 6. 1341 a 8. Cp. [Plutarch] De Liberis Educandis 
C, 13. 9 Cj5oTeov ovv Tois iraiaip dvaTTvorjv Twv avve)(S)V iravaVj evOv/iov- 
fievovs ort Tras 6 jStor ^fiav els Sveaiv xai (twov^tjp Sirjprirai, koi dtd tovto 
ov fiovou eyp7}yopa'iSj dWa Kai vttvos evpedrjj ov^e TToXefios, dK\a Koi elprjvrj, 

33. Tous fiei' . . . <|<ux<is. Vict, explains, ' ut servi scilicet natura 
corpora habeant liberorum hominum, liberi autem animos ser- 
vorum.' But we can hardly supply ' of slaves ' after ras ■>|'ux<''> ^.nd 
besides, if a freeman had the soul of a slave, that would be no 
illustration of the failure of Nature to give effect to her purpose in 
respect of the Sodt'es of freemen and slaves, and this alone is in 
question. Nor would such a freeman be a freeman by nature ; 
yet, as Giphanius says (p. 63), ' de natura et servis et liberis 
agimus, non de iis qui lege et instituto.' These two latter objec- 
tions also apply to the translation of roiis fikv — tovs be as 'some 
slaves ' and ' other slaves.' If a slave had the soul of a freeman, 
the failure of Nature would be in respect of his soul, not his body, 
and he would not be a natural slave. Two interpretations seem 
open to us. i. We may refer roii piv to slaves, like to piv 28, and 
TOVS he to freemen, like ra Se 29, and translate, 'but the very con- 
trary often comes to pass' (cp. i. 9. 1257 b 33), 'that (the body 
does not match the soul, but that) slaves have the bodies of 
freemen and freemen the souls.' Aristotle might have said ' and 
freemen the bodies of slaves,' but what he wishes to draw attention 
to is the occasional disjunction of a freeman's body from a free- 
man's soul. This resembles the interpretation of Bernays. Or 
2. we may adopt the rendering of Sepulveda — ' saepe tamen 
accidit oppositum, ut alii corpora, alii animos ingenuorum habeant' 
— that one set of people have the bodies of freemen and another 
the souls, or, in other words, that bodily excellence is parted fi-om 

1. 5. 1254 b 31—39, 149 

excellence of soul. I incline on the whole to the former interpre- 
tation. It should be noted that Antisthenes had said that souls 
are shaped in the likeness of the bodies they dwell in (fr. 33. 

MuUach, Fr. PhiloS. Gr. 2. 279, evrevBev ' AvTiirSevrjs ojiotrxfui-ovas <^r]ai 
ras yjnxas toIs ntpiexovai (rwjiaaiv elvai) : his remark, however, seems 
to have referred, primarily at any rate, to the souls of the dead. 

34. Iirel ... ye justifies what precedes by pointing out what would 
result if the contrary were the case (cp. 1255 a 19: Meteor, i. 4. 342a 
15 — ^if the yivea-is of lightning- bolts were not cKKpia-is but cKKava-it, 
they would ascend instead of descending as they do). So here, to 
prove that Nature sometimes fails to make the bodies of slaves and 
freemen different, the argument is that ' if it were not so — if all 
freemen -were far superior in physical aspect to slaves — no one 
would be found to dispute the justice of slavery.' The argument 
shows how keenly the Greeks appreciated physical excellence and 
beauty : here the same thing is said of physical excellence as is 
said of excellence of body and soul together in 4 (7). 14. 1332 b 
r6 sqq. and Plato, Polit. 301 D-E. We also note that the Greek 
statues of gods were evidently in respect of physical beauty much 
above the Greek average: compare Cic. deNat. Deor. i. 28. 79, 
quotus enim quisque formosus est ? Athenis cum essem, e gregi- 
bus epheborum vix singuli reperiebantur, and see C. F. Hermann, 
Gr. Aniiqq. 3. § 4, who also refers to Die Chrys. Or. 21. 500 R. 

35. Tous uTToXenroixeVous, 'inferiores' : so Bonitz (Ind. 800 a 
35), who traces this signification to the simpler one, ' tardius aliis 
moveri, remanere in via.' 

37. ei S' ittl K.T.X. Aristotle wins an unexpected argument in 
favour of his doctrine of slavery from the appeal which he has just 
made to Greek sentiment. ' But if this holds good of a difference 
of body' — i. e. if a vast physical superiority confers the right to hold 
as slaves those who are less well endowed in this respect — ' with 
much more justice may it be laid down in the case of a difference 
of soul,' on which Aristotle has rested the distinction of master and 

38. For the thought, cp. Eth. Nic. i. 13. 1102 b 21 sq., and (with 
Giph.) Plato, Symp. 216 D-217 A: Cic. de Offic. i. 5. 15. Aris- 
totle hints that as it is not easy to discern superiority of soul, we 
need not wonder that the right of the natural master should be 

39. oTi fikv Toivuv flax ^liaei tike; 01 \ikv cXcijOEpoi 01 Se SoSXoi. 
Cp. C. 6. 1255 b 6, Km on eu T«rt Suopiorai to toiovtov, &v avfujiepei t^ 

fiev TO SovXfieiv, ra 8i to Seam^eiv, a passage which seems to mak? 

150 NOTES. 

in favour of the view according to which oJ fiiv and o\ hi (1255 a i) 
are subdivisions of a class designated hy nues. oh, 1255a 2, is 
carelessly made to refer to oi Se only (cp. ^laa-dcia-i in 1255 b 15). 
C. 6. 3 sqq. The following summary will explain the way in which I 
1255 a. incline to interpret the much-disputed passage which follows. The 
view that slavery is contrary to nature is true rpmov nvd — i. e. if 
limited to the enslavement of those who are slaves only by conven- 
tion. For in fact there are such slaves : the law by which captives 
of war are accounted the slaves of the victors is nothing but a con- 
vention. (Aristotle does not necessarily imply that this was the 
only way in which slaves by convention came into being. They 
might Evidently come into being in other ways — through descent, 
through debt, through sale by parents and the like. Into these 
minutiae he does not enter.) This provision (he proceeds) is 
dealt with by many who concern themselves with the study of laws, 
just as any peccant public adviser might be dealt with — they impeach 
it for unconstitutionality ; they exclaim against the idea that any- 
one who may be overpowered by superior force is to be the slave 
of the person who happens to possess that superior force. Some 
are against the law, others are for it, and even accomplished men 
take different sides. (It appears to me that the iroXXol t&v h rots 
vdiiois who are here represented as objecting to slavery based on a 
mere superiority in might must be distinguished from the authorities 
mentioned ini253b2oas holding that all slavery is conventional 
and contrary to nature. The ttoXXoI tS>v iv tuXs vojiois do not seem 
to have objected to slavery based on a superiority of excellence 
as distinguished from a mere superiority of might. Hence they 
probably did not object to the enslavement of barbarians in war by 
Greeks : we see, indeed, that not all the defenders of the law were 
prepared to defend its application to Greeks. Inc. 2.i252b9 the 
barbarian and the slave, not the conquered person and the slave, 
are said to be identified by the poets.) Now what is it that 
alone makes this conflict of view possible ? It is that the tw6 
contentions ' overlap ' in a common principle accepted by both, 
which affords them a common standing-ground, relates them to each 
"other, and limits their antagonisrri. They both in fact appeal td 
the common principle that ' Force is not without Virtue.' Thus 
they differ only on the question what is just in this matter, not as 
to the relation between Force and Virtue. The one side pleads 
that, as Force implies Virtue, Force has a right to enslave : the 
other side pleads that as Virtue goes with Force and Virtue con- 
ciliates good-will, good-will will exist between those who are right- 

1. 6. 1255 a 3. 151 

fully masters and slaves. Thus the one side rests just slavery on 
good-will between master and slave, and condemns slavery resulting- 
from war, when good-will is absent, while the other side rests just 
slavery simply on the presence of superior Force. (We are not 
told that those who held slavery resulting from war to be unjust 
in the absence of good-will between the enslaver and the enslaved 
also held that good-will must necessarily be absent in all cases of 
enslavement through war. Their contention rather was that it was 
not safe to make Force of one, unaccompanied by good-will, the 
test of just slavery.) 

This conflict of opinion is, as has been said, evidently due to the 
fact that both parties make an appeal to the common principle that 
' Force is not without Virtue,' for suppose that they gave up this 
common standing-ground, ceased to shelter their claims under those 
of Virtue, and thus came to stand apart in unqualified antagonism, 
then the other line of argument (arfpot Xo'yoi) on which they must 
necessarily fall back — the contention that superiority in virtue 
confers no claim to rule — is so wholly devoid of weight and plausi- 
bility, that no conflict would arise. (Those who connect the right 
to enslave with superior force, and those who connect it with the 
existence of mutual good-will between master and slave, are regarded 
as having two lines of argument open to them : either they may 
derive the claims of force and good-will to be the justifying ground 
of slavery from the claims of virtue, and thus shelter themselves 
under the latter, or they may impugn the claims of virtue ; but if 
they impugn them, their own contentions lose all weight and cease 
to produce any serious debate.) 

We see then that the solid element in this pair of contending 
views, if we take them in the form which they assume when they 
possess any weight at all, is to be found in the principle that 
superiority in virtue confers the right to rule and to rule as a 
master rules. We shall arrive at exactly the same result if we 
examine another view on the subject. 

We have hitherto had to do with those who discuss the law in 
question on its merits ; but there are those who support slavery 
arising through war on the broad ground that it is authorized by a 
law and that that which is so authorized is ipso facto just. But a 
law, though a justifying ground, is not everything in this matter^ 
For the war may be an unjust one, and either on this ground or on 
grounds personal to himself, the man enslaved through war may 
be undeserving of his fate : injustices of this kind the law will not 
avail to make just. In fact, these inquirers admit as much them- 

153 NOTES. 

selves, and contradict their own plea. For they say that Greeks 
are not to be enslaved, but only barbarians, since barbarians are 
slaves everywhere (n-aiTaxoC SoCXoi) and Greeks nowhere slaves. 
They make the same distinction in reference to nobility. They 
say that Greek nobility is nobility everywhere and in an absolute 
sense, but barbarian nobility is only local. Thus they hold that 

there are such beings as 7rajn-axo5, htikms SoOXoj — vavraxov, dn-XSr 

iXevdepoi and evyevels : Theodectes, in fact, connects the latter 
quality with descent from the gods. What else then do they do 
but mark off slave and free by a reference to virtue and its oppo- 
site? For descent from the good is, they imply, equivalMit to 
goodness, and so it generally is, though not invariably, since 
Nature sometimes misses her aim. 

3. oi r&vayrla ^iaKovres- For ^da-Keiv used of philosophers or 
others laying down a dogma, cp. c. 13. 1260 b 6. 

6. 6 yAp v6fioi K.T.X. As I understand the passage, it is only 
this particular law that is here said to be an ofioKoyia. The law 
enacting the slavery of captives taken in war, Srav woKefunivnDv ttoXis 
dXffl, is said to be a voims dtSios by Xenophon (Cyrop. 7. 5. 73 : cp. 
Thuc. I. 76. 2, quoted by Camerarius). Aristotle does not notice 
the limits commonly imposed on the exercise of this right in 
wars between Greek States : see as to this C. F. Hermann, Gr. 
Antiqq. 3. § 12, who notes that, as a rule, captives taken in war 
were enslaved only when the cities to which they belonged were 
razed, and that they were commonly reserved by the State which 
captured them for exchange or ransom. The reference of law to 
an o/ioXoyi'a seems to have been a commonplace : see Plato, Rep. 
359 A: Xen. Mem. i. 2. 42 (where it is put in the mouth of 
Pericles) : Xen. Mem. 4. 4. 13 (where Socrates adopts the view). 
Aristotle himself not only reproduces the popular view in Rhet. i. 
15. 1376 b 9, but speaks in Eth. Nic. 8. 14. 1161 b 14 of friend- 
ships which rest on o/xoXoyia (rroXti-iKai, (jivKeTiKai, (ru/iirXotKai) as ap- 
pearing to be of a KoivaviKrj type. In Pol. 3. 9. 1280 b 10, however, 
we find an emphatic assertion that those theories of the 7roX« which 
reduce it to an alliance, and the law to a avvBriKq, are wrong (cp. Rhet, 
I. 13. 1373 b 8, where Kowavia is tacitly distinguished from <rvv6liKt)). 
This does not prevent particular laws being based on convention, 
e. g. that which constitutes a medium of exchange (Eth. Nic. 5. 8. 
1133 a 29). The object, it may be added, with which the law 
enacting enslavement through war is here stated to be an ofwKoyia 
is to justify the assertion eo-n yap ns Ka\ Kara vdpov (convention) 
BovXos Koi Sovkevav, which immediately precedes. For eV m . . , (jjoa-iv. 

1. 6. 1255 a 3—13. 153 

cp. [Plutarch] Sept. Sap. Conv. 13, o-e ydp, w ntrraice, Koi Toi/ trbv eKeivov 
Tov xa^f'rAi' (pofifiTai v6fu>v, iv ip yiypa^as k.tX. 

7. TooTo ... TO SiKaioi', ' this plea,' ' this justifying ground of 
claim': cp. Philip of Macedon's Letter to the Athenians, c. 21 

(Demosth. p. 164), xmapxH l^oi Kal rovTO to Sikoiov, iieiroXiopKijiTas yhp. 
nvs ipas pev iK^oKovras, vtto AaKeBaip^viav Sc KcerouturBivras, eXa/Sov to 
Xoptov: Demosth. adv. Androt. C. 70, ovxi irpoafy^aye Tavri) SUaiov 
TovTo: adv. Conon. C, 27, imartvov T^ SiKa'uo TOjJro), and c. 29, Kal 


8. Twi' iv TOis c^fiois. Cp. Metaph. 0. 8. 1050 b 35, oi iv toIs Xoyo<; 
('dialecticians,' Grote, Aristotle z. 366) : Rhet. 2.. 24. .1401b 32, oi 
iv TOIS noKiTeioK. Camerarius (Interp. p. 40) quotes Eurip. Hippol. 
430, avToi T euriv iv pova-ms d«. We see from Plato, Gorgias 484 
C-D, with how much favour those who studied the laws were 
commonly regarded, and how much was thought to be lost by 
persons who continued to study philosophy after they had attained 
a certain age, and were thus led to neglect the study of the laws. 

&<nrep pi^Topci. Cp. Antiphanes, SoTr^w Fragm. i (Meineke, Fr. 
Com. Gr. 3. 112) — 

TrSs yap yivoiT av, a iraTep, prjTwp * * 
a^avos, Tjv pfi ciKa Tpis 7Tapav6paiv ; 

10. KaT& Suifafiif KpEiTTOCOS. Contrast ro /SeXrtoK Kor opiTrpi, 21. 

Kara hvvapj,v is added because Kpeh-Tav is sometimes (e. g. in c. 5. 
1254 b 14) used in the sense of better. It is, on the other hand, 
distinguished from fieXnav in 3. 13. 1283 a 41. 

11. Kol TBI' cro^iui'. As Sus. points out (Qu. Crit. p. 344), not all of 
those included under the designation oi h row v6pois (8) would deserve 
to be called <ro<f>oL Socjioi are constantly contrasted with 01 ttoXXoi 
by Aristotle : philosophers are not perhaps exclusively referred to 
here, but rather ' accomplished men ' generally ; even poets would 
be (ro0ot, and it is just possible that there is a reference to Pindar 
(see note on 1255 a 18). It is still more likely that Aristotle 
remembers the saying of Heraclitus (Fragm, 44, ed. Bywater) — 

iroKcpos iravrav p,ev iraTtjp itTTi iraVTWV 8e ^curiKivs, xai tovs piv Beoiis 
edei^e Toiis 8e avSpamovs, tovs pev BovKovs eirolrjo'e Toiis Be iXfvSepovs, So 

we learn (Plato, Laws 776 C), that there were those who pro- 
nounced the Helot slavery of the Lacedaemonian State (7 AaxeBai- 
fioviav eJXfflma), which confessedly originated in conquest, to be fv 


13. eiraXXdiTreii'. The following are some of the more promi- 
nent uses of this word in the writings of Aristotle. It is used by 
him (i) of things adjusted to each oth^r,. fitting into each other, 

154 NOTES. 

dove-tailing — e. g. of teeth that fill each other's intervals, de Part.' 

An. 3. I.66lb2I. cvaWa^ ijiirmTova-iv {pi oSovres), Sttcds iit] afi^Xvvav- 

TOA, rpi^o/iepoi Trpbs aK\rj\ovs, br of tvi^o bodies adjusted to one another, 
de Gen. An. i. 14. 720 b 10 : (2) of two things joined so as to be 
one, e.g. of hybrid constitutions, Pol. 8 (6). i. 1317a 2, where 

eTraXKaTTeiv is Used in connexion with a-vvaymym, a-vvSva^ea-dai (sO in 

Plato, Soph. 240 C, €irdKKa§K seems used in a similar sense to 
oDfiTrXoKij) : (3) of two or more things united not by joining, but 
by the possession of a common feature or a common standing- 
ground, and yet different— things which overlap, or shade off into 
each other, ©r are a-iveyyvs to each other. So of a thing which 
unites attributes of two genera, and in which accordingly these 
two genera overlap — e. g. the pig, which is both ttoXvtokov and yet 
TeXuoTOKOvv (de Gen. An. 4. 6. 774 b 17, /lomv 8e ttoKvtokov hv fj 5s 
TcKetoTOKel, Koi eVaXXoTTet tovto fiovov) — or of a thing which possesses 
many of the attributes of a genus to which it does not belong, as 
the seal does of fishes (Hist. An. 2. i. 5oia2i,^ be ^wKt] Kapxa- 
pobovv eoTt Traai rols o^ovtrtv a>s eVaXXaTroucra tw ■yevet riav IxBvoav). So 
here the arguments of those who plead that good-will is a test of 
just rule and of those who plead that Force by itself without the 
presence of good- will confers the right to rule are said eVaXXdn-Eti; 
— i.e. to overlap each other (Mr. Heitland, Notes p. n) and to 
approach each other — because both start from a common principle 
though they draw contrary deductions from it. The antithesis 
to iiraKKoTTeiv comes in hicurravTiov \a>pK tovtodv tEov \6ya>v 19, where 
the Xdyot are supposed to draw apart, and no longer to overlap or 
occupy common ground : cp. Kexi>pi-(rrm in HepX fuiKpo^t&nfros koI 
^paxv^iorrjTos, I. 464 b 27, ? Kep^cipioTai Kal to ^paxv^tov Kal to voaSiSes, 
7} KUT evias pev v6(tovs eTraXXaTTct tcl voaabrj t^v (jjvo'tv trapura tols ^paxy- 
^lois, KOT evias 6' ouSeV KcoXvet voaaSeis ctvai paKpo^lovs ovTas. With 

the use of en-aXXaTTeu/ in the passage before us compare its use 
in Pol. I. 9. 1257 b 35, where differing uses of the same thing are 
said iiraWoTTeiv, or to be avveyyvs, because they differ only in not 
being Kara TavTov, and are otherwise identical and of the same 

xpoiroi' Tii'A is used in opposition to Kvplas in de Gen. et Corr. 
I. 4. 320 a 2 sqq. (Bon. Ind. 772 b 22) and to airKm in Metaph. e. 
6. 1048 a 29. Is the meaning this, that it is the tendency of Virtue 
to win willing compliance (Xen. Mem. i. 2. 10), but that incident- 
ally, when provided with the requisite external means, it has the 
power of using force with surpassing effect ? Cp. Plato, Polit. 294 A, 

TpoTTOv pevToi Tiva S7X0V on t^s Pa<TiKtKris iariv f) vopx>6eTi<Tj' rh 8' apurrov 

1. 6. 1255 a 14—16. i55 

oil Toiiy vojuous ia-riv lirxveiv, d\X avSpa tov /xcri ^povfjaecas ^curiKiKov, 
and Pol. I. 8. 1256 b 23, Sio xai ^ n-oXe/iiKij <j)va-ei KTrfriKfj iras eorai. 
Whatever may be the exact meaning of Tpowov nvh here, it seems, 
like our phrase ' in a way,' to soften and limit the assertion made, 
as m de An. 3. 5. 430 a 16, rpmrov yap nva Koi to 0Ss troui to, 

bwd/iei Svra ^pm^ara ivepye'uj. xp^t"""'''- For the thought conveyed 
in this sentence, cp. Solon, Fragm. 36 (Bergk) — ■ 
ravTa fiev Kpdrei, 

opLov pirjv re koi bliaiv trvvapp,6(Tas, 

epe$a : 

Aeschyl. Fragm. 372 (Nauck) — 

Snov yap iffj^is av^vyoviri Kal Siia], 

■noia ^vvapXs rSivSe Kapreparepa 5 
Aristot. Rhet. 2. 5- 1382 a 35, koi dperrj v^pi^opevr) bivafiiv t^^oucra 
(is to be dreaded)" S^Xov yap on irpoaipAroA. fiev, oTav v^pi^rjTai, del, 

Suvariu 8e mv. Eth. Nic. 10. 8. 1178 a 32 : Pol. 7 (5). 10. 1312 a 

17, ftdXnTTO Se Sia ravrrjv Ttjv alrlav iyxeipovaiv 01 Trjv <j)v(Tiv p^v 6pa- 
o-eir, Tipriv 8e £|(Oi/Tcs no\epiKriv wapa Toty povap^pis' dv&pla yap hvvapiv 
ej(pv(Ta 6pd<ros cotlVj dt as dpiporepas, ms pabias KparrjiTOVTeSj TTOLOvvrai 

Tas imdecrcis. Perhaps also Eth. Nic. 10. 10. iiSoa 21, o Se v6pj>s 

■dvayKaoTiKriv e^^i bvvapiv, Xdyos i>v otto nvos (ftpovfjo-ews Kal vov should 

be compared. Giph. (p. 68) compares Plutarch, Dion c. i, fist 

<f>povt]0-€t Kat diKatocrvvrj dvvafiiv eVi t6 avro kol tvx}]v trvpeXdeiVf iva koKKos 
apa Kca /icyeBos ai TToXirtKat wpd^ets Xd^atriv. 

14. Kal ^id^EO'dai, ' to compel by force as well as to conciliate ' : 

cp. Isocr. Philip. § I5> *"' TrXouTov Kal Svvaptv KeKTrjpivov otrriv ouSft; 
tS>v 'EXX^waii', d p4va rmv ovrav kol itcIBhV koI ^id^cirBai nfipVKei' — a 

passage which exhibits the contrast of weideiv and fiid^ea-dai, and 
one which Aristotle may possibly intend here tacitly, as is his 
wont, to correct. 

15. dyaSou Tii/ds. Cp. I. I. 1252 a 2, and 3. 9. 1280 a 9, where 
Skaiov n is contrasted with to Kvplas biKamv. As the dya66v rt which 
Force implies may be quite other than dpeTrj (cp. Rhet i. 1. 1355 b 
4 sq., where to x/"7<'''/«»™'"<» '■"'' dya6&v, such as physical strength, 
health, etc., are contrasted with dperrj), the inference that Force is 
not without Virtue is incorrect. This appears also from Pol. 3. 10. 
i28ia2i-28, where Force is conceived separate from Virtue : cp. 
3. 12. 1282 b 23 sqq. Eth. Nic. 4. 8. I124 a zo-31, again, throws 
light on the passage before us : men claim respect from others on_ 

the strength of any good, Kar aKl)6ei,av 8' 6 dya66s ftovog Tiprftiot. 

16. (iT| aceu dpErfjs etrai ttji' piaf. It will be observed that the 
inference drawn is that Force is not without Virtue, which does fttjt 

156 NOTES. 

necessarily imply that the possessor of superior force is superior in 

dWi TTspl Tou SiKaiou k.t.X. Cp. Eth. Nic. 5. 10. iiSSb 27, 
tri he ovhf irepi tov yeviadai rj /ifj afi(j>i<rPT]TeiTa(., dWa irtpi tov hiKalnv, 
and 31, oixoKoyovvTfs nepi tou irpdy/taToc, irfpi toC norcptas hUaiov ap,- 
(jjicr^riTovq-iv : also Pol. 6 (4). 16. 1300 b 26, Sa-a opoKoyelrai pev, 
dp(f>ur^riTeiTai 8e jrepl tou Sikolov. Here it IS conceded on both sides 
that ' force is not without virtue,' and the only subject of dispute is, 
■whether it is just for force to enslave not only the willing but also 
the unwilling. 

17. Sicl yctp TouTO K.T.X. Ala tovto appears to refer to on 13 — 
/Slav 16, and especially to more hoKeiv p^ avev dpcrrjs elvm ttiu /SiW. 

One side argues from this, that, force being accompanied by 
virtue, and virtue attracting good-will, slavery is just only where 
there is good-will between master and slave, and that consequently 
the indiscriminate enslavement of those conquered in war is unjust; 
the other side argues that as force implies virtue, wherever there is 
the force to enslave, there is the right to enslave. For the power which 
virtue has of attracting good- will, cp. Eth. Nic. 9. 5. 1167 a 18, oXoir 
5* ff fijvoia di dpeTi]V Koi iiTLeLKeidv Tiua •yti/erat, orav to) <f>avij KoXiis Tts ij av- 
Spelos rjn toiovtov, KoBdrrep kol «rl t&v dyaviaTuv eiTTopev: Eth. Eud. 7- I- 
1234 b 2 2, T^r re yap noKiTiKrjs epyov etvai SoKct paKurra iroiriaat (piKiav, koi 
TTjv dperrjv 8ia tovt6 (patrtv eivai ^pfjo'ipov' oi/ yap €i/6e;^€0"^at ^tXov; eavrois 
elvai Tovs dSiKovpevovs vit dWj)Kav; Xen. Mem. 3. 3. 9, iv iravri irpdy- 
pan ol avBpamoi rovrots pdXiiTTa iOeKovo'i ireiBeaBm., oils hv ijyaivTai jSeX- 

Tio-Tovr elvai. Those who argued against slavery unaccompanied 
by good-will between master and slave were probably among those 
who glorified rule over willing subjects, in contradistinction to rule 
over unwilling subjects. We trace the idea in Gorgias' praise of 

rhetoric as the best of all arts — irdvra yap v0' airg bovKa hC eKovTov 

dXX' oi Sia jSias itoioito (Plato, Phileb. 58 A-B). The doctrine was 
perhaps originally Pythagorean: cp. Aristox. Fragm. 18 (Miiller, 

Fr. Hist. Gr. 3, 278), wepl 8e dp)(6vTa>v Kat dp)(opcva>v ovras i<jip6vovv' 
Tois pev yap apxpiiras e(j>aiTK0v oi pdvov imaTrjpovas, dXKa Ka\ (j>iKav6pa- 
jrour &e1v eivai, Kal tovs dpxopivovs oi pdvov TreiBrjviovs, dtKKd Koi (jiiXdp- 

xovras, and Cic. de Legibus 3. 2. 5, nee vero solum ut obtem- 
perent oboediantque magistratibus, sed etiam ut eos colant dili- 
gantque praescribimus, ut Charondas in suis facit legibus (which 
shows that what passed for the laws of Charondas in Cicero's day 
' or in that of the authority he here follows had a Pythagorean tinge). 
Compare also an oracle quoted by Porphyry, de Abstinentia 2. 9 
(Bernays, Theophrastos tiber Frommigkeit, p. 59) : — 

1. 6. 1255 a 17—18. 157 

uS a-e 6enK KTelveiv oiav yivos i<n\ ^i^aiov [piaias Valentinusji 
tyyove Beioirp&itaV S 8' iiuwaiov &v Karavevcrti 
X^pvtff «r«, 6vfW Tofi', 'Eiria-Kove, ^i;/it StxaiW. 

Xenophon is especially full of the idea that a ruler should rule so 
as to win willing obedience from the ruled and so as to make them 
fvvovs to him (see e.g. Mem. i. 2. 10: Cyrop. 3. i. 28 : 8. 2. 4). 
One of the yvStfuu. iiovotmxoi ascribed to Menander (116) runs — ■ 
AovXo; ire0vKo>f tvvoei ra SeorTTori; : cp. also the words of the attendant 
in Eurip. Androm. 58 (quoted by Camerarius, p. 42) — 

evvovs fie xat cot ^mvri r* ^v rra aa TTtSo'ci, 

and Plutarch, Cato Censor, c. 20, where we read of Cato's wife — 

iroXXaxtf Se Koi to tS>v SovXcav TratSapta rm fuurr^ Trpoo-ie/UEVi; Karecrxcva^Cf 

fvvouiv (K T^s a-vvrpotftias wphs top vlov. But the ruler, it would 
seem, should also feel eSvoia for the ruled : cp. Democrit. Fragm, 
Mor. 246 (Mullach, Fragm. Philos. Gr. 1. 356), rov apxom-a 8ei 

cj^eti' jrpos ftev Tovs Kaipoirs XoyKTfwv, ^pos 3e Toiis evavrlovs rdX/xaj/, 
TTpos 8c TOVS xnTOTeTayiiivovs eSvoiav : Plutarch, Reip. Gerend. Prae- 
cepta, c. 28. 820 F-821 B (where eSvoia is used both of the 
ruler and the ruled) : and Dio Chrysost. Or. 2. 97 R, where it 
is implied that the king, unlike the rvpavvos, ap^ei rSiv opxxpvKav 
fiET eivoiat Km iajheyx>vias. Aristotle holds that not merely good-will 
but friendship (c. 6. 1255 b 13) will exist between the natural 
slave and his natural master, but, unlike these inquirers, he rests 
natural slavery, not on the existence of mutual good-will, but on 
the existence of a certain immense disparity of excellence between 
master and slave. (It is some years since, in writing this commen- 
tary, I was led to take the view I have here taken of the meaning 
of eiii/oio in this passage, and I am glad to find from a note of 
Mr. Jackson's {Trans. Camb. Philol. Soc. vol. ii. p. 115) that he 
has independently arrived at a nearly similar conclusion. Sepul- 
veda, in his note on ' Quibusdam benevolentia ius esse videtur ' 
(p. 12 b), long ago explained tvvoui of the good-will of the ruled 
to their rulers and their willing consent to be ruled, but this 
escaped my notice till recently. See also Giphanius' note, p. 68 sq.). 
18. ouT^, 'by itself,' without any addition of good-will; cp. 3. 6. 

1278 b 24, ovvepxovTai 8e icai tov ^tjv eveKfv airov (as contrasted with 
TO Cv" '"'5^6's) : !• 9- 1257 a 25, aira yap ra xpfjo'tpa wpos aira KaroK- 

JiaTTovraj, ewi ttXeow 8' ovSiv. Pindar had implied that the rule of the 
stronger (Plato, Laws 690 B) and of /3ia (ibid. 714 E : cp. Gorgi 
484 B) is in accordance with nature, but is reproved for this by 
Plato (Laws 690 C). A confusion or identification of the stronger 
and the better, as Socrates remarks (Gorg. 488 B-D), pervades 

158 NOTES. 

the address of Callicles in that dialogue (see esp. Gorg. 483 D). 
It is, in Aristotle's view, from a confusion of this very kind that the 
doctrines of the advocates of Force derive whatever plausibility they 
possess. Athens had already, according to Isocrates, learnt that 
Might is not Right : cp. Isocr. De Pace, § 69, qti \ oSv oi SUawv 

eari tovs KpeiTTovs t&v tjttSviov Sp^eiVj iv eKcivois tc to'is xp°vois Tvyxauo- 
jnev eyvaKOTfs, Koi vvv eVi t^s TroKiTflas t^s Trap' rjijuv Ka6€(TTj]Kvlas, 

19. €irel . , . Y=; a-s in 1254 b 34 (see note), confirms what has 
been said by introducing a supposition of the contrary: here it 
confirms fim toCto : ' it is owing to the fact that the disputants start 
from a common principle — the principle that Force is conjoined 
•with Virtue — that a contention between them is possible ; for 
suppose Force and Good-will claimed respectively to be the basis 
of just slavery, without resting their claims on Virtue, no conflict 
of opinion would arise ; the two claimants would neither of them 
have a case.' "ATtpoi \oyoi, 20, I take to be the line of argument 
which the two contending parties would have to adopt, if they ceased 
to shelter their claims under the claims of virtue, and argued in effect 
that not superiority in virtue, but something else (force or good-will) 
confers the right to rule. If these words meant ' the one of the 
two views,' one would rather expect Srepos \6yos. 

Siaordrrui' . . . x^pls toutuc tSi' X<5y<i)i', ' severed from the ground 
which they occupy in common and set opposite the one to the other' 
(for x<»P'r seems to mean ' apart from each other,' not ' apart froni 
other arguments '), or, in other words, no longer ' overlapping ' 

^ejraXXaTrdvTffli') : cp. irep\ imKpo^iomjTOs, I. 464 b 27, where (cep^mpwrroi 

is used in opposition to en-aXXarrfi, and Pol. 8 (6). 7. 1321 a 15, 
where SiaorSo-t is opposed to o-wSudfeo-^at, a word used to explain 
iiraKKaTTfoi in Pol. 8 (6). .1. 1317 a I. 

21. oKus seems to qualify Sixalav in contrast to dixalov twos : cp. 

3. 9. 1280 a 21, eW-fiTo fie Koi 81a to Xtyeiv pixpi nvos eKorepovs Sixaiov 
n vop,l^ov(Ti b'lKaioy 'Kiyeiv 6,iii\.ais' 01 p,hi yap, hv Kara ti avuroi Sxriv, olo;' 
^(prjiMuriv, okas o'lovrai olvktoi eivai, and 3. 9. 1 2 80 a 9, where SUawv ti 
is contrasted with to icvpias bUamv. Resting on a ground of right 
(for such the law in question is: cp. Eth. Nic. 5. 3. 1129b 12, 
and Pindar, Fragm. 146 (Bergk), quoted by Plato, Gorg. 484 B, 
Laws 714 E), not on t6 oXms SUaiov, they argue that slavery in war 
is universally just, but they contradict themselves in the same breath. 
"oXms seems to be placed where it is for the sake of emphasis : for 
the distance at which it stands from $iKaiav, cp. 2. 2. 1261 a 15, 
where Tijv jrtiXo' is similarly severed from nacrav, if we adopt the 
reading of n\ and see below on 1265 b 15. 

1. 6. 1255 a 19—39. 159 

26. ToOs euyEKeoTdTous. Elye'veia was commonly viewed as akin to 
iKevBepla and a kind of superlative degree of it (3. 13. 1283 a 
33 sq.). Hence the transition here and in 32 from the one to the 

28. ouTous, i.e. Greeks. It is the way with people to do to 
others what they would not think of allowing to be done to them- 
selves(4 (7). 2. 1324 b 32 sqq.). 

32. Tov adrbv 81 rpoiroi' k.t.X. It is interesting to learn from 
Aristot. Fragm. 82. 1490 a 10 sqq., that the sophist Lycophron 
had challenged the reality of the distinction between the noble and 
the ill-born, for the ideas of freedom and nobility lay so close 
together in the Greek mind, that he or some other sophist may 
well have gone on to challenge the justifiability of slavery. 

34. Tous Se ^ap^dpous oikoi fxtifof. Cp. Theophrast. Charact. 31 

(Tauchnitz), fi fievroi firjrrjp evyevris Bparra ctrri' tos 8e Toiavras (paalu 

iv TTj sroTpiSt evyeveis eivai, and contrast the saying which Menander 
puts in the mouth of one of his characters (Inc. Fab. Fragm. 
4 : Meineke, Fragm. Com. Gr. 4. 229); — 

OS &v eS yeyovas ij rfj (jtiirei irpos rayaOa, 
Kai/ AlBioyjf fj, /i^Tep, eartv tiyev^s' 
, SKvSrjs Tts oKcBpos j o 5' 'Avaxapcis oil Skv6tis ', 

See also Dio Chrysost. Or. 15. 451 R. Isocrates, on the other 
hand, bluntly refers to the bvayivem of the Triballi (De Pace, § 50). 
The contrast between to &ii\S>s evyevis and to iv toIs ^ap^apoK 
which the view mentioned by Aristotle implies reminds us of 
the contrast between natural society and society among the bar- 
barians, which is implied in i. 2. 1252 a 34-b 6. In 3. 13. 

1283 a 35, however, we have ^ 8" fvyeveia Trap' iKaorois oocoi rt/itosj 

where no difference is made between barbarians and Greeks. 
36. Kai is commonly used when an example is adduced : cp. 

I. 12. 1259 b 8, aanep Koi'AfiaiTis. 

39. Ap«Tn !"*i KOKia. A remark of the great Eratosthenes is 
referred to by Strabo (p. 66) tfeus : eVl t«A« 8e tov mropvtipaTos (6 
'EpaToaBevfjs) ovk errawiiras Toiis S'X" Suupovvras Sirav to tSiv dvBpamav 
TrX^dos f'is re 'EXXijvas <cu ^apfidpovs, (cat roiis 'A\e^dv8pa iraptuvoiivras 
rots pev "E\Kn<riv &s (filXois xfiW^^h ''"•^ ^^ ^ap^dpois i)S jroXcpiois, /SeX- 
Tiov elvai (jjrjo-iv dperfj kcu KOKia Biaipeiv ravTa. This may poSSibly be a 

comment on some communication of Aristotle's to Alexander (cp. 
Plutarch, de Fort. Alexandri i. 6); but Isocrates had said much the 
same thing in his address to Philip (§ 154 : cp. Panath. § 163). Plato 
had already (Polit. 262 D) found fault with the division of man- 
kind into Greeks and barbarians, and the passage of the Politics 

i6o NOTES. 

before us shows that Aristotle is really quite at one with Erato- 
sthenes. The fragment of Menander quoted above is in the same 
spirit. Cp. also Menand. "^pas, Fragm. 2 (Meineke, Fragm. Com. 
Gr. 4. 128), 

Ejfp^i/ yap iwai to koXoi' eiiycvforaTov, 
TovKevdfpov Sc navTa)(ov <l)pov€lv p-eya, 
1255 b. 2. i\ 8e (ftuiris k.t.X. HoKKukk appears to qualify ^ovkcrai, oi pivrot 
timrai, which words hang together and mean ' wishes without 
succeeding.' See Dittenberger, GoU. Gel. Am. Oct. 28, 1874, 
p. 1371. We 'find jroWoKis, however, out of its place in 5 (8). 2. 
1337 b 20, if we adopt the reading of n', which is probably the 
correct one, and it may possibly be simply out of its place here. 
For the thought, cp. de Gen. An. 4. 4. 770 b 3 sqq. : 4. 3. 
767 b 5 sq. : Rhet. 2. 15. 1390 b 22-31: Pol. i. 2. 1252 a 28 
sqq.: 2. 3. 1262a 21 sqq.: 7 {5). 7. 1306b 28-30: also Eurip. 
Fragm. 76, 166, 167 (Nauck), and Plato, Rep. 415 A, are ovi' 

^vyyeveis Svres names to pev ttoXu 6polovs av vpiv avrdts yew^n. 

4. y\ &.y^\,a^i\T<\<Ti.%. Cp. 1255 a 12, 17. 

5. KOI ouK tlaXv K.T.X. These words have been interpreted in 
many different ways. Bern, (followed by Sus. and others) takes 
the meaning to be that ' not all actual slaves and freemen are so 
by nature ' ; Mr. Congreve translates — ' it is true that some are not 
by nature slaves, others by nature free, if you interpret aright the 
some and ihe others (01 piv, oj hk).' But does not 01 ;iej» mean ' oi 
ifTTOvs, as such' {rh ^laaBiv, 1255a li: cp. 1255b 15, Tolt lurta 
v6pov Ka\ /SiaffdcTo-t), and oi Se ' oi Kptirrovs, as such ' (cp. tou ^laaafrBai 
Svvapevov Kal Kara hivapiv Kpeirrovos, 1255a 9) — unless indeed we 

prefer to explain 01 piv as meaning ' those who are enslaved by 
force without deserving it,' and oi 8e 'those who enslave others 
without possessing the superiority of virtue which makes the 
natural master ' ? 

6. Tu [lev . . . T(o 8e', neut. (as appears from ro pev ... to 8e, 7-8). 
9. t6 8e kukus, sc. 86(r;r<{f«v : ' but a wrongful exercise of this 

form of rule is disadvantageous to both,' and then follows (t6 yip 
avrb (c.T.X.) the reason why both suffer together from a wrongful 
exercise of it. This is that master and slave stand to each other 
as whole and part. 

11. (i^pos Ti TOU StoTTOTou, cp. Eth. Nic. 5. lo. 1134b 10 sq. 

12. 816 Kol crufji(|>^poi' K.T.X. ' There is something advantageous 
to both in common,' ' there is a community of interest' : " cp. i. 2. 

1252 a 34, 810 8eo-jroTi7 leal SovX^ Tavro avp^ipti, and Isocr. Epist. 

6. 3, pi) KOIVOV Se TOV ITVpXJicpOVTOS SvTOS, OVK 0(8' OTTCUS &u dp(j)0TepoK 

1. 6. 1255 b 2— 7. 1255 b 19. l6l 

apiuKeiv &vvr]6eii]v. The test of to Koivfj trvfi^fpov (= tA Sikcuov, 3. 12. 

1282 b 17), which is here applied to slavery, is the proper test to 
apply to any political institution, for to Koivfj o-ufi^epov is a condition 
of jTokiTiKtj (pikia (Eth. Nic. 9. 6. 1167b 2 sqq.), and the end of 
the political union (Eth. Nic. 8. 11. 11 60 a 11). Cp. Plato, Rep. 

412 D, KOI fiTiv ToiiTo y hv fioKuTTa (j)i\oi, a ^fUpepeiv ^yoiro to aira km 
eavroj, Koi orav pakujTa ckclvov pkv ev TrpdrrovTos oirjTai ^vp^alveiv ical 

iavTa eS Ttpdrreiv, pfj 8c, tovvovtiov. Plato is perhaps thinking of 
political rule of a despotic- kind, rather than of the private relation 
of master and slave, when he says (Laws 756 E), SoCXoi yhp &v kqI 
SeajTorai. ovk av jroTe yivoairo <j>tKoi, Aristotle himself, however, finds 
some diflSculty in explaining in Eth. Nic. 8. 13. 1161 a 32 sqq., 
how friendship is possible between an animate instrument like the 
slave and his master, there being no Koivavia between them (cp. 
Pol. 4 (7). 8. 1328a 28 sqq.), but here, in the First Book of the 
Politics, no notice is taken of this difficulty : on the contrary, in 
Pol. I. 13. 1260 a 39 the slave is termed Koivavhs fco^r (where per- 
haps f<B^ and ^I'oi should be distinguished). Compare with the 
passage before us Xen. Cyrop. 8. 7. 13, tous mo-Toirj ridecrOai Set 
fKaarov eavrm' ^ 8e kt^cis airav tanv ovSapas avv Tjj ^ia, aKXa pSKKov 
avv rfi cvepyetTiq. 

14. TouTui', i. e. SeffTTOTfi'as Koi SovXeias. Busse (De praesidiis 
Aristotelis Politica emendandi, p. 42) compares such phrases as 
a^tovaBat tS>v opoiav, t&v taav (2. 9- 1269 b 9, etc.). 

15. Piaadeiai. Aristode has by this time forgotten that his 
dative plural agrees with SoiX^ koi beanmri, and that fiiaa-Beia-i, which 
suits only with SouXotr, should have been replaced by a word which 
would have applied to Sfcrirorj] also. 

16. Kal EK Tourui'. The fact had been already proved (cp. 1252 a C. 7. 
17) by tracing the development of Koivavia: it had already been 
shown that 8eo-7roTeio and ■noKiTiKq dpxfi belong to different Koivariai : 

now it is shown that both the ruled and the mode of rule differ in 
the two cases. 

17. dXXi^Xois, sc. TavTov. With his usual economy of words, 
Aristotle makes tqutoV do here, though it fits in somewhat 

19. r{ fiev oiKOMOftiKi^, sc. apxTj. The household seems to be here 
viewed as under a povapxia (the three forms of which are ^aa-iXeta, 

rvpavvls, alavpvrfreia, 3. 14. 1285 a I7> 3°- 6 (4). 4. 1292 a 18), 

because, though the rule of the husband over the wife is a jtoXitik^ 
apxri (i. 12. 1259b i), the rule of the father over the child is 
a ^aa-iXiKtj apxTj (ibid.), and that of the- master over the slave is 

i62 NOTES. 

Sea-TTOTiKYj. Perhaps, however (cp. 3. 6. 1278 b 37 sq., where 
oiKovoiuioi dpxfi is distinguished from dea-irorela), the relation of 
master and slave may not be included under olKopofUK^ ^pxv- In 
that case oIkovoiukxj apxij will be a rule over free persons, but not 
over free and equal persons, like ttoKitikti apxh- It must be 
remembered that the equals over whom iroKiTuctj dpxfi is said to be 
exercised are not necessarily lo-oi kot dpidpiov, for they may be only 

I'o-oi Kar dvoKoyiav (Eth. Nic. 5- lO- 1 1 34 a 27). 

20. 6 fiei' GUI' K.T.X. iavfpov 8f, 16 . . . dpx^, 20, is parenthetical, 
and p.€v ovv introduces a reaffirmation of what had been already 
implied in the definition of master and slave (1255 b 6 sqq.) 
— that a master is a master by virtue of his nature — in order that 
a transition may be made to SeoTroToc^ iininijp.r) and bovkiKt] iTriarripri, 
and that these sciences, and especially the former, which Plato and 
Xenophon and Socrates had set on the level of ^oa-iKixfi, woXtTtic^, 
and oiKovop^Kr), may be replaced on the humble level which is really 
theirs. Xenophon had said (Oecon. c. 13. 5), ooru yap rot apx^Kovs 

dvBp6)7T(OV biivarai noieiVj dri\ov on ovTos fcol ^etriroTiKovs dvQpoiirtov dvvaTOi 
8iSd(TKei.v' ocTU be SeajroTiKovs, Sivarai, jroieiv xai /SacriXiKovs, and again 
(Oecon. C. 21. 10), ov &.v l&ovrcs [oJ ipydrai^ >u,vr)dSicri, koJ pevos eKatrrco 
€p7T€tTT] TOiV ipyaTav Koi iptKovetKia irpos dXKrjKcfvs Koi ^iKoripia KpaTLorrj 
ova-a iKdarm, tovtou eya <j)air)v &v cx"" '"' V^ovs fiaa-iKiKov. This is just 

what Aristotle wishes to contest here and elsewhere in the First 
Book of the Politics. His way is to trace everywhere in Nature 
the contrast of the conditionally necessary (t6 i^ vTroBca-eas dvay- 
Koiov) and the noble (t6 koXov), and he makes it his business to 
distinguish carefully between the two. His work on the Parts of 
Animals is largely taken up with the inquiry, ' what share Necessity 
and the Final Cause respectively have in their formation' (see 
Dr. Ogle's translation, p. xxxv). To mix up the SeimoTiKri inuTTijpxi 
with TToXiTiKTj or ^aaiKiKTi is to lose sight of this contrast. The 
management of slaves has for him nothing of t6 koXoV (4 (7). 3. 

1325 a 25, oiSiv yap to ye SovXa, 5 tovKos, xp^o'Sai (Tepv6v 17 ■yap 
tmra^is rj nepl twv dvayKaiav ovSfVos peTe\n tS>v KoKav). As to Tu 
TOioaSE etcat, cp. Eth. Nic. 4. 13. 1127b 15, KaTo. rrjv e^iv yap Ka\ 
T^ T0i6ir8e thai dXa^av eariv, and 6. 13. 1143 b 24—28. Aristotle's 

object is to correct Plato, who had said (Polit. 259 B), Taimiv Se 

(SC. T^v fiaaikiK^v ein(TTripi]v) 6 KeKTr)p,cvos oi/c, av re apxonv av re 
IBiMTtjs i>v rvyxdv}!, jravras Kara ye Trjv Texvrjv aiirfiv /SaaiXtK^r dpBSis 
npo(Tpri6i](reTai ; AiKaiov ■yoCi'. Kai p,fiv olKov6fios ye Kai SeoTrdnjr tovtov. 

The possession of the science of directing slaves in their work 
is not of the essence of the master (cp. c. 13. 1260 b 3 sq.), and 

1. 7. 1255 b 20—25. 163 

therefore he is not defined by it. The master may dispense with 
such knowledge by employing a steward (35). 

25. Tois TraiBas, ' the slaves.' Camerarius (Interp. p. 45) aptly 
refers to the AovKoSMa-xaKos of the comic poet Pherecrates. ' Ex 
ea fabulae parte, in qua ministrandi praecepta servo dabantur, petita 
Buspicor quae leguntur apud Athenaeum, xi. p. 408 b — 

wvl 8' drrovi^aiv Trjv kCXiku dos iiiivmv 
€y)(ei r eiriSeig tov r/diiov, 
et'XV. p. 699 f — 

avvaov jtot' e^e\6a)v, (tk&tos yap yiyverai, 
Koi Tov \v)(yov\ov eKKJjfp' ivBin tov \v)(iiov ' 

(Meineke, Hist. Crit. Com. Graec. p. 82). 
€111 S' ^^ K.T.X. We rather expect oi^ottouk^s kcu. tS>v SWav tS>v 
Towvrav yevSiv Trjs tuiKovias, but this slight looseness is characteristic. 
Perhaps with o\//'07rou/e^ we should supply ' might be taught.' The 
example introduced by otov is sometimes put in the nom. — e. g. in 
7 (5). II. 1313 b 12, oXX' fivai Karaa-Koirovs, olov irepl "Svpaxova-as ai 
TTorayayiSes KoKoviievai. It would seem that the teacher at Syra- 
cuse confined his instructions to a portion only of the services 
needful to the household ; Aristotle suggests that other and higher 
kinds of service should also be taught, such as cooking. For 
eVl TrXf loj', see Ast, Lexicon Platon. 3. 113: ' cum v. elvai et Sivaa-Bai 
est plus valere vel latius patere' — the latter here. Socrates had 
recognized a right and a wrong in oyjfotroua (Xen. Mem. 3. 14. 
5), but Plato counts oyjftmoiol koI pdyetpoi among the accompani- 
ments of a (j^Xeypaivova-a iroKis (Rep. 373 C) : Aristotle's not un- 
friendly reference to the art in the passage before us illustrates 
his substitution (4 (7). 5. 1326 b 31: 2. 6. 1265 a 31 sqq.) of 
fraxppovas km iXevdcpims as the ideal standard of living for the 
Platonic aatppovas. He was himself charged by Timaeus the 
historian and others with being an epicure (see Polyb. 12. 24. 2, 
where Timaeus is quoted as saying that writers disclose by the 
matters on which they dwell frequently, what their favourite in- 
clinations are — toi/ 8' 'ApKTTOTiXrjv, on^aprriovra likeovaKis iv Tois trvy- 
ypapputriv, o-^oipayov elvai Koi 'Kl-)(yov : see also Grote's note, Aristotle 
I. 24). Rational ways of living needed to be upheld against the 
savagery of the Cynics and the asceticism of some other schools. 
Besides, if the household slave could be taught to cook better, 
there would be all the less need to have recourse, in accordance 
with a common Greek practice, to the services of outside pro- 
fessionals.. ' With the Macedonian times came in the fashion, con- 
tinued by the Romans, of having cooks among the slaves of their 

1 64 NOTES. 

household, a custom apparently unknown to the earlier Athenians. 
. . . The reader will here again notice the curious analogy to the 
history of medicine, for among the late Greeks, and among the 
Romans, the household physician was always a slave attached to 
the family' (Mahaify, Social Life in Greece, p. 287, ed. i). 

27. Y^ip introduces the reason why instruction on these subjects 
should be extended, as Aristotle suggests. 

29. irpd, according to Suidas (Meineke, Fr. Com. Gr. 4. 17) 
properly meant avn in this proverb, but Aristotle quotes it in 
a different sense. Another proverb may be compared (Strabo 8. 


%an HvKos wpo IlvXoia' IluXa; ye fiev citti (cat aXXor, 

or in a slightly varied form (Leutsch and Schneidewin, Paroemiogr. 
Gr. 2. 423) :— 


32. Tois SouXous, yet in 33 SouXois: see below on 1259b 21. 

33. ouSei' (A^Y" °"^^ (Ti^v&v. Cp. 4 (7). 3. 1325 a 25 sqq. : 3. 4. 
1277a 33 sqq.: and contrast the tone of the Oeconomicus of 
Xenophon, who, as we have already seen (above on 1255 b 20), 
finds in the direction of farm-work, and the winning of cheerful and 
vigorous service from slaves, a good school of political and even 
kingly rule (cc. 13, 21). 

36. eiriTpoTTos. For the absence of the article, see Bon. Ind. 
jogb 36, and cp. Eth. Nic. I. 4. 1097 a 8, anopov &k mi ri ixjjeXri- 
Sria-fTM v<f>dvTiis ^ TtKToiv k.tX. Vict, compares Magn. Mor. i. 35. 
1198 b 12 sqq., where ^povqtns is described as lirirponos ns r^r o-o- 
</)iaE, for the cmrpowos, though managing everything, ofcm Spxei wdvrav, 

aXXa JTapa<rKeva(fi Tm hetTTrOTr) (r)(oKj]V, mras av eKetvos fiij Kokvofievos imo 
tS>v avayKaiav iKicKeiriTai tov tSiv koXuk n xal jrpomjKovrav TrpoTTeiv : cp. 
also the story of Pheraulas and Sacas (Xen. Cyrop. 8. 3. 39-50). 
The imTponos would be himself a slave ([Aristot.] Oecon. i. 5. 
1344 a 25 sq.), though one would think that it would not be easy 
•to find a <j>ia-(i SovXos fit for the position. Contrast the tone of this 
passage with that of Oecon. i. 6. 1345 a 5) imaKiuriov oSv to iiev 

aiiT^v {tov SeoTroTijv), to 8e Trju yvva'iKa, las cKaTepois SuupelToi ra fpya 
T^s olKovofilas' Kal tovto iroayriov iv jUKpais olKovop.iais oXiyaicir, iv 8' 
frnTpowevofievats TroXXdicts (f.r.X. This is more in Xenophon's tone. 
For a similar contrast between the teaching of this book of the 
Politics and the so-called First Book of the Oeconomics, see note 
on 1256 a II. 

37. r[ 8« KTriTiKi^, SC. Soi\av, takes up iv T^ KTa<rdai, 32. 

£|i,ijioT^p(i)i> TouTui', i.e. Sfo-iroTtKt] and SovKikj) tVior^/iMj. 

1. 7. 1255 b 27— 8. 1256 a 2. 165 

38. oioi' here, as Bonitz points out (Ind. 602 a 7 sqq.),'is ex- 
planatory (='nempe, nimirum, scilicet'), as in 3. 13. 1283 b i and 
other passages, rather than illustrative by instance or comparison. 

■^ SiKuia. Cp. I. 8. 1256 b 23 sq. and Isocr. Panath. § 163: 
also 4 (7). 14. 1333 b 38-1334 a 2. The just and natural way of 
acquiring slaves is by raids of a hunting or campaigning type on 
<j)v(Tei SoOXoi. UoKeiuKrj Tis ovcra fj Brjpevrtiai is added in explanation 
of irepa a/ujioTepav tovtcov, and to show that this science is neither 
identical with fiouXixij nor with Sfo-n-onic^ iTTKn^fir). Being allied to 
war and the chase, it is more worthy of a freeman than the other 

1. xP^fiaTioTiKT);. This word is of frequent occurrence in cc. C. 8. 
8-10, and also in c. 11, and the sense in which it is used varies 1256 a. 
greatly. Taking cc. 8-10 first, we shall find that, apart from 
passages in which the word is used in an indeterminate sense (such 

as 1256 a I, 1257 b 5, 9, 18), it is used 

(i) like KTtinKrj (1256 b 27, 40), in a sense inclusive of both the 
sound and the unsound form (1257 a 17, b 2, 36, 1258 a 6, 37): 

(2) of the unsound form (1257 a 29, 1258 a 8), which is also 
designated fj /ioXiora xpw'"'''"*^ (1256 b 40 sq.), ^ KmrriXiK^ XPW" 
Tianiai (1257 b 2o), ^ fifi avayKaia ■}(^pr)jiaTi.(TTiKr] (1258 a 14), r] /iera- 
/SXijTJK^ }(priiiaTUTTiK.r] (1258 b l) : 

(3) of the sound form (1258 a 20, 28), which is also designated 
XprilMTiaTuaj Kara ^uo-tK (1257 b 19), oiKowofUK^ ;)(p>;fia7-«(rTtK^ (1257 b 
20), r) avayKaia jifpT/^aTJOTUciy ( 1 258 a 16). 

In c. II, on the other hand, ^ xPW^"'"''"'! is made to include 
not two forms, but three (1258 b 12 sqq.), and these three forms 
are — A. 17 olKeiorart] xpw"''''""'^ (1258 b 2o), referred to as fj Kara 

ipva-iv in 1258b 28: B. f) pcTaPXrjTuai xP^I""urriKr) (1258b 2l): 

C. a kind midway between the two (1258b 27 sq.). In toIs niiaa-i 
Tijv xpWTio-TiKiJi' (c. II. 1259 a 5) the word seems to be used in an 
unfavourable sense. 

2. Karit rbv u<J>t)Y1J(J,^1'0I' Tp6nrov, Cp. C. I. 1252 a I'jyTrjv i(j)riyr]iievt]v 
fUeoSov. Either the transition from the slave (the part) to lerrjins 
(the whole) is here said to be in conformity with Aristotle's accus-. 
tomed mode of inquiry, or the plan is foreshadowed by which the 
nature of kt^o-k and XPW'^''"'"'^ is ascertained through an analysis 
of them into their parts (cp. 1256 a 16, fj Be kt^o-h noWa 7repKiX7j06 
fiepri Km 6 nXovros), or again the meaning may be that Aristotle will 
continue to follow to irpayfiara (pvojitva, as he in fact does in the 
sequel. Probably the first of these interpretations is the correct 

l66 NOTES. 

e. dcSpiacToiroiia, The avSprnvTmoios would appear to be properly 
a worker in bronze: cp. Eth. Nic. 6. 7. 1141 a 10, *e»Si'ai/ \i6ovpy6v 
cocftov Kai XioXvKKeLTov aphpiaVToiroiov. 

8. t6 uiroKEifji.Ei'oi'. Cp. de Gen. An. i. 18. 724 b 3, irepov n. Sei 
vnoKfurBai i^ oi earai nparrov ivvirdpxovros (thus it IS explained by jrao-- 
Xov in 724 b 6): de Gen. et Corr. I. 4. 320 a 2, ean Se vXi; ;iaX«rTa 
/iev KOI Kvplas ro imoKeipevov yfvcaeas Kai (j)6opas dexTiKov, rpoirov 8c riva 
Kol TO Toii aXXaif peTa^oXais, on Trdvra SeKTiKa ra vjroKelpiva ivavriatremv 
Tivtov. But the term is not confined in its application to Matter : 
cp. Metaph. Z. 13. 1038 b 4, irepX toC vTTOKetpevov, on Sip^Sr UTrdfCftTai, 
Tj ToSc Tt ov, &(TiTep TO ^wov TOLS TTudeo'iVy 7] ots T} vkrj Trj evTeXe^eia, 

10. x<*'^''6i'. Some MSS. have xa^^df (for the nom. in sentences 
introduced by olov, see above on 1255 b 25). 

11. Tijs fiey yelp k.t.X. Contrast Oecon. i. i. 1343 a 8, wore 8^\ov 

on KoX T^? OLKOvopLKris &v c'irj Ka\ KTrjtracrdaL oiKov Kai \pr\tratT6aL avT^ I 

Eth. Nic. I. I. 1094a 9, olKovopiKjjs Se (teXos) ttXoCt-os: and indeed 

Pol. 3. 4. 1277 b 24, eVet KaX oiKovopla irepa dvSpos Koi yvvaiKos' Tov piv 
yap KTairBai, rrjs Se tpyXdrreiv epyov eariv, which agrees with OeCOn. 

I. 3. 1344 a 2. Probably in these passages of the Nicomachean 
Ethics and the Politics olKovopia as it actually is, not as it ought to 
be, is in view. For Aristotle seems not only here but elsewhere to 
make 'using' the proper business of o'lKovopla (see c. 7. 1255b 31 
sq. : c. 10. 1258 a 21 sq. : 3. 4. 1277 a 35: Sus.'*, Note 68). 

13. T0T9 KttTct TT)!' oiKiai', ' household things ' (Mr. Welldon) : cp. 

5 (8j. 6. 1340 b 2'Jj rju StSoaa-L Tots watSiotf, onas ;^poi^6i'ot Tavrrj pr)Sev 
Karayvioxn tS>v Kara tt/v olxiav: I. 10. 1258 a 29, roiis Kara rrjv olniav. 

14. eoTi, sc. V x/'W"o'"*^- The change of subject strikes us as 
strange, but a similar one occurs in Metaph. r. 2. 1004 b 22-25, "'^P' 
jiev yap to avTo yevos arpe^erai r) iroi^KrrtKij /cat r] SiaKeKTiKr) Tfi (f>iKo(To(f)ia, 
dWd Sta^epei ttjs pev rw Tpdirta ttjs SvvapemSf T^s Se tov ^iov ttj 

npoaipea-ei. Aristotle reverts to the nominative with which he 
started (3-4) on his inquiry. 

15. «i yotp K.T.X. Vahlen, in his note on Poet. 6. 1450 b 18, holds 
that el yap is here used in the same sense as in Rhet. 3. 17. 1418 a 
35, where he reads with the best MS. Xeywi' (not Xeyet, as Bekker). 
The meaning will then be — 'for this is so' (i.e. 'a dispute may 
arise on this subject '), ' if, for example,' etc. He therefore places 
a comma only after SiapcpuT^tjTqcnv. (For Susemihl's view see Sus.' 
and Qu. Crit. p. 350 sq.) But the passage resembles so closely other 
passages in Aristotle introduced by el, in which a kind of apodosis be- 
gins with fflo-7-6, that it seems better to interpret el yip as commencing 
a new sentence, and to place a colon or full stop after Siap<^itr^riTrf(nv. 

1. 8. 1256 a 6—23. 167 

The following passages • will serve as illustrations — Metaph. I. 4. 

1055 ^ 22, oKas T€ €1 fcmu f/ ivavnoTris 8ia(f)opd, fj fit 8ta(j&opa Svoiv, 
&ITTC Koi 7) TeXfior: Phys. 6. I. 232 a 12, « olv avayio) fj rjpefieiv 
Tj KiveitrSai irav, rjpefiel 8e Ka6' exaiTTov tS>v ABF, Sot' etrrai ti avvc)(S>t 

rfpefiovv afia Koi Kivovjifvov. (See Vahlen's note on Poet. 9. 1452 a 
10: Bon. Ind. 873 a 3isqq. : Bonitz, Aristotel. Studien, 3. 106- 
124. This use of more may have been common in conversational 
Greek.) Whichever view we take of the passage, the doubt whether 
Xprip-ana-TiKri is a part of o'cKovofuKfj, or something quite different, will 
be said to arise from the multifariousness of the forms of acquisi- 
tion falling under xP'?/*""""""^- (This is no doubt more neatly 
expressed, if with Vahlen we take d yap as = cmip.) It is implied 
to be easier to imagine p^pij/ianortK^ a part of oikovo/xik^, if it com- 
prises agriculture and sound modes of acquisition of the same kind, 
than if it has to do with less natural modes, exclusively or other- 
wise. This is quite in harmony with the subsequent course of the 
inquiry, which results in the two-fold conclusion that agriculture 
and other similar ways of acquiring necessaries do form a part of 
XprjixaruTTiKr], and that this part of ^^pij^ioTiortK^ is a part of olK.ovop.iKri 
(cp. c. 8. 1256 b 26 and 37). To mark oif the sound section of 
Xpr]p.aTi(TTi.Kf\ from the unsound is, in fact, the first step towards 
relating xP^i'^o^iiTTiKr] to olKovopiKij. 

17. TrpuToy. ^KeiTTfov, Or some such word, is dropped. The 
omission of words which will readily be supplied is characteristic 
of Aristotle's style. 

19. Kai KTTJo-is is added, it would seem, because impiXeia does 
not clearly convey what is meant by kt^o-is Tpotjirjs. What this is, 
appears from Eth. Nic. 4. i. 1120a 8, XPW^' ^ *'""' ?°*" XPW^- 

TCDV Sandvi] (cai boats' fj 8e X^i^u Koi ^ (pvKaKrj Kr^crtr paXKov, We find 

Xpripdriov KTrjiris mentioned in Pol. i. 9. 1257 b 30. 

aWA fi-qy, 'but further there are many kinds of nutriment '—not 
only many kinds of property (16), but many kinds of nutriment, 
and articles of subsistence are only one sort of property. 

21. ScTTe K.T.\. Cp. Hist. An. 8. 1. 588 a 17 (referred to by Giph.), 

ai be Trpujets koi 01 |3ioi (tS>v fma"') Kara ra ^6r) Kal ras rpo^hs diaipepov- 

triv, and 8. 2. 590 a 13 sqq. 

23. T£ yAp is here taken up by opoias 8c mi, 29, as in 1254 a 9, 2. 
9. 1269 a 36 sqq., Hist. An. 8. i. 588 b 24, etc. See Eucken de 
Partic. usu, 17-20. The classification here adopted (io>o(^dya, Kap- 
7ro<j)aya, jra/K^dya) is not probably offered as absolutely exhaustive, 
for in Hist. An. 8. 6. 595 a 13-17 we find 7roi)0dya and pt^o^aya ^aa 
distinguished in addition to Kapirocjiciya, and in Hist. An. i. i. 488 a 

]68 NOTES. 

14, in addition to <rapK0^dya, Kapiro(j)dya, and iraii(j>aya, we hear of 
fdiorpo(^a, olov to t&v ixeKiTTav ycvos Koi to tS>v apa)(ya>v. Bernays 

understands Aristotle to connect gregariousness with an exclu- 
sively vegetable diet, and it certainly is not quite clear how he 
intends to class omnivorous animals. So far as they are carnivorous, 
we must suppose that they will be solitary. As to carnivorous 

animals, cp. Hist. An. I. I. 488 a 5, yaii-i^avvxpv 8' oiSsv ayeXatov. 

Vict, remarks — ' nam aquilae, si gregatim volarent, longe viserentur, 
quare aves quibus aluntur se abderent ; nunc autem solae, ideoque 
non conspectae, inopinantes illas capiunt: neque etiam invenirent 
simul tantos ipsarum greges, ut possent ipsis vesci.' I am informed 
that ' true as what Aristotle says is upon the whole, still there are 
many exceptions : e.g. nearly all Canidae, some seals, sand-martins, 
and some vultures are gregarious and yet carnivorous. Hares and 
some other rodents are grain-eating but not gregarious.' Fish are 
often gregarious, yet piscivorous. The carrion-eating condor 
is ' in a certain degree gregarious ' (Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle, 
p. 183). As to the bearing of the food of animals on the duration 
of pairing, see Locke, Civil Government, 2. § 79. 

28. irpSs Tcls paoTcicas, ' ad commoditatem victuS ' (Bon. Ind , 
s. v.). 

alpetriv is perhaps used here and nowhere else by Aristotle in 
its simplest sense of ' taking ' or ' getting ' ; it is thus that Bonitz 
would seem to interpret the word here (Ind. 18 b 38), for he marks 
off this passage from others in which it bears its usual meaning of 
' choice.' Aristotle needed a word applicable at once to faa, Kapirol, 
etc., and he finds it in aipea-K. So Vict. : ' Natura tribuit singulis 
rationem earn, qua commode copioseque vivant, et sumant non 
magno labore quibus pascantur.' Sepulveda, however, translates — 
'itaque Natura, prout ratio postulat facile parandi cibum quem 
genus quodque animantium consectatur, vitas eorum distinxit,' and 
I do not feel certain that he is wrong (Lamb. ' harum rerum electi- 
onem ' : Giph. ' delectu earum '). 

TouToii', ' the different kinds of food.' 

27. cKdoTu, not ' each individual member of the three classes of 
animals,' but ' each of the species contained in a class ' is probably 

28. Kal auTUK Twi' lI,ao^iiyiiiv. Cp. de Part. An. 3. 12. 673 b 16, TO 

re yap Tjjrap Tois piv n6Kv(r)(ihh iari, Tois 8e povo(j)ve<mpov, npS>Tov 
avTav tS>v ivalp,av km ^moTOKcoV (n 8c pSKKov Koi jrpos raSra Koi npor 
SKKr/Ka Siasjiepei to. re tS>v l^Bvav Kai rcrpmroSav Km moT6Kcav. 

29. ofioius 8e Kal tui' &vdpiiiv<av. These words apparently answer 

1. 8. 1256 a 26—32. 169 

to tS>v Te'yap flijp/mi/ (see above on 23). If so, we have here a further 
illustration of the remark made in 21-22, at diatjiopa). Trjs rpo^rfs rovs 
p'lovi nenoi^Kaa-i SiarfiepovTas rwv (^av. It would indeed be easy to 
supply 01 ^loi npos aXXijXous Sifo-raa-iv from the previous sentence, and 
the tautology of TroXi yap Siaipepova-tv k.tX. is not decisive against 
this, but there are other cases (as has been pointed out above) 
in which te ydp is answered by oiioias Se koI, and irrespectively of 
this it seems likely that the genitive is of the same kind as in 

1253 b 27, or in 6 (4). 13. 1297 b 30, fiij/ioKpaxm re yap ov ftia toi» 
dpiBfiov ea-n Ka\ rmv aXXcav d/ioimr, or in Phys. 8. 8. 263 a I, Koi 
rS>v KiVTiareav Spa oxraurmj : cp. 1256 b 6, ojioias Se kcu, irepl rovs 

oXXous. The translation will then be, 'the same thing holds 
good of men too ' — i. e. their mode of life also differs according to 
the food on which they live. Pastoral nomads live on tame animals 
(31), hunters on fish or wild birds or beasts, brigands on their booty, 
whatever it may be, husbandmen on the produce of the soil and 
the fruits of domesticated plants and trees. 

31. 01 fikv oSv ApY^TaToi. Mcv odv (which is taken up by ol 8* 35) 
introduces a confirmation in detail of what has just been said 
(' saepe usurpatur, ubi notio modo pronunciata amplius explicatur,' 
Bon. Ind. 540 b 42). For dpyoraroi, cp. paa-T&vas 26, and Herodo- 
tus' account of the Thracians (5. 6, dpyov clvai koKKuttov [KeicpH-ai], 
Yqs fie ipyaTj]v anpAraTuv' to ^r)v ano TroXipov Koi XijtffTuos KaXKuTrov). The 

remark illustrates the effect of men's food on their mode of life. Is 
there a hint that the nomads live most like the golden race, who 
are described by Hesiod (Op. et Dies 112 sqq.) as living v6a(j>iv Srep 

re ■novav kol oifuoy and diafiia dvpov exovres (compare the ' table of 

the sun' among the Ethiopians, Hdt. 3. 18) — most like the infant 
who simply draws on the stores of nature ? It is possible, but it 
would be rash to assert this. For races are apparently held by 
Aristotle to take a step in advance, when they exchange the wan- 
dering pastoral life for the hard-working life of tillers of the soil (4 
(7). 10. 1329 b 14). The leisure of nomad life may be too dearly 
purchased. On the merits of a pastoral (not nomad) population, see 
Pol. 8 (6). 4. 1319 a 19 sqq. For the contrast of Aristotle's views 
as to the natural mode of life with those of Dicaearchus, see vol. i. 
p. 128, note 2. 

32. drayKaiou 8e k.t.X. Cp. de Part. An. 4. 6. 682 b 6, avrav 8e 
TOiv irrrjvSiv hv pev iariv 6 ^ios vapabtKos kol 8ia rfjv Tpo<l>r]v dvayKoiov 

iKTom^eiv k.t.}^. Their way of moving about is enforced on them ; 
their mode of life is none the less on the whole lazy and effortless, 
because they cannot avoid changing pastures from time to time. 

170 NOTES. 

36, XrjaTeias. In treating ^a-rcla as a form of hunting (like 
Plato, Laws 823 B) and a natural way of acquiring food, Aristotle is 
not thinking of the pickpocket or highwayman of civilized societies 
-. — this kind of Xgorijs is called by him altTxpo<fp^s and avekei6fpos 
(Eth. Nic. 4. 3. 1122 a 7) and abiKos (Eth. Nic. 5. 10. 1134 a 19) — 
but of \ri(TTeia as he meets with it in the pages of Homer, or of 
the wild \rja-TiKa edvri mentioned by him iij Pol. 5 (8). 4. 1338 b 23. 
The Etruscans were ' even more pirates than traders ' (Meltzer, 
Gesch. der Karthager, i. 169), and practised piracy not only in the 
Western Mediterranean but even in the Adriatic (see Dittenberger, 
Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, vol. i. p. 184) at the very time at 
which Aristotle was writing. Mr. C. T. Newton (Contemp. Rev. 
Dec. 1876) mentions a bronze plate recording a treaty between two 
cities of Locris, Oianthe and Chalion, which stipulates that it shall 
be lawful for the citizens of both States to commit piracy anywhere 
except within their own or their ally's harbours. ' The date of 
this inscription,' he adds, 'is probably not earlier than b.c. 431.' 
Cp. also Cic. de Rep. 3. 9. 15: vitae vero instituta sic distant, ut 
Cretes et Aetoli latrocinari honestum putent. The Western Medi- 
terranean was a scene of piracy down, probably, even to the time 
of Aristotle and later (Meltzer, Gesch. der Karthager, i. 342 sqq.). 
The Greeks, after all, felt that the robber had something of the 
warrior about him. Both Plato (Laws 845 C) and Xenophon (de 
Rep. Lac. 2. 6 sq.) approve the Spartan tolerance of adroit theft of 
necessaries. Aristotle makes Xna-Tcia a kind of hunting, and 
hunting a kind of war (1256 b 23). We ourselves look back on 
the Vikings with admiration ; yet, as Mr. Burton says (History of 
Scotland, 3. 232), the Vikings 'got their capital by force.' It 
should be noticed, however, that in c. 11 Xjia-Teia is passed over in 
silence, and indeed SripevnKri in general. Aristotle apparently re- 
gards Xijorai as plunderers for the sake of subsistence, for in 1256 a 
1 9-b 7 he seems to be concerned with the provision of Tpo^jtfj : he 
may perhaps also regard them as in the main appropriators of 
articles of food — grain, cattle, and the like. He does not explain 
how a brigand or pirate's mode of life is marked off from others 
by a difference of nutriment, and it is not clear how it can be 
called avToKJjvTos. 

37. ToiaiJTrii', 'suitable for fishing': cp. roiavra 1253a 24, where 
the sense is ' possessed of the power of performing their appointed 
work ' — so here ' possessed of the power of supplying fish.' See on 
ToiovTos Riddell, Plato's Apology, p. 137. 

30. Tui' 'ini.ipiiiv KapttStv. Aristotle does not include in his 

1. 8. 1256 a 36— 1256 b 3. 171 

enumeration those who live on the fruits of wild trees, like the 
' acorn-eating Arcadians ' (Hdt. i. 66 : Alcaeus, Fragm. 91) of early 
days, before Demeter and Dionysus had given men corn and wine 
(Leutsch and Schneidewin, Paroem. Gr. i. 42). 

40. oo-oi ye auT<S<t>uToi' k.t.X. Giph. 'vitae genus quod naturae 
instinctu agat et actionem habeat naturalem ' : Betn. ' diejenigen 
(Lebensweisen), welche auf Ausbeutung von Naturerzeugnissen 
beruhen ' : Sus. ' welche eine unmittelbar-naturliche Thatigkeit 
betreiben.' Vict., however, translates 'vitae quaecunque suam e 
seque natam culturam habent,' and explains the words in his com- 
mentary 'vita quae pariat ipsa vi sua sineque alius auxilio quod 
alat ' ; and Liddell and Scott interpret airrofpvros ipyacria here as = 
avTovpyla, a rendering not far removed from that of Vict., which is 
probably right — compare such words as auT-cJjroior (Soph. O. C. 696), 
auTOT-eXeo-Tor, avTar/iv(6\os. The meaning will then be ' lives whose 
work is self-wrought,' and not achieved with the help, or at the 
expense, of others, like the life of aXKayii ndi. KomjKeia. Cp. i. 10. 

1258 a 40, T^s 8e fieTa^ijTiKris yfreyoiievr]! biKaiios (ou yap Kara <f)i<nv dXX' 
cm' aKKrjKav eariv, Rhet. 2. 4. 1381a 21, 810 tovs i\ev6epiovs Kai 
Toils dvBpetovs TLfumcri Koi Toits btKaiovs' rotovTovs 6' v7ro\afi^dvov(TL tovs p-ij 
dcji eTepav ^avTas* tolovtoi S' oi dirb tov epyd^sfrSai^ Kai TOVTav 01 diro 
yempytas (cal t&v aXXuv 01 avTOvpyol /idKuTTa, and [Plut.] InSt. Lac. C, 12. 

41. 8v' dXXayijs Kai Ka-mr|Xeias. KaTrijXeta is perhaps meant to 
explain and limit dWayrj, for aXXay^ up to a certain point is natural 
(1257 a 15, 28). Still even the simplest form of dWayfj may 
possibly not deserve the epithet avT6(f)VTos. 

3. irpoo-ai'aTrXiQpoui'Tes k.t.X., ' eking out the shortcomings of one 1256 b. 
mode of life, where it falls short of completeness of provision, by 
adding on some other.' The superlative ivSeia-Tarov is perhaps 
used because men may be evSeeU not only els TdvayKoia, as in the 

case before us, but also els \mepo\i]V 5 els dTroKavaiv (Rhet. I. 12. 

1372 b 24 sq.); or else it is used here, as elsewhere by Aristotle 
(see Bon. Ind. 403 a 3 sqq.), in a sense in which the use of the 
comparative would seem more natural. 'H ruyxdvei k.tX. implies 
that the added mode of life must be one which will supply the 
deficiencies of the other: thus when brigandage is added to the 
nomadic life, or hunting to agriculture, it is because brigandage 
and hunting fill up gaps which the pastoral and agricultural 
modes of life leave unfilled. Compare Strabo, p. 833. 27 sqq.: 
Dio Chrysostom's picture (Or. 7. 224 R) of the life of the rude 
Euboean mountaineers, iS/iev fit otto 6fjpas as to noXi, niKpov ti ttjs 
yris hrepya^6iuvoi : Diodorus' picture of the Ligurians (5. 39. 3, kuwj- 

173 NOTES. 

yias 8e notovvTai avvex^ls, iv ah TroXXa rav drjplaiv ^^eipovfievoi rrjv ex tS>v 

Kafm&v (TTTcinv SiopBovvrm) : and Leyden's of the Border people 

(Scenes of Infancy) : — 

' The Scott, to rival realms a mighty bar, 
Here fixed his mountain home : a wide domain, 
And rich the soil, had purple heath been grain; 
But what the niggard soil of wealth denied. 
From fields more blessed his fearless arm supplied.' 

' The Shetlander is a fisherman who has a farm ; the Orkneyman 

a farmer who has a boat ' (Tudor's Orkneys and Shetland, quoted 

in the Saturday Review for July 14, 1883). 

4. auT(ipKr]S, i. e. h toIs avaynalois (cp. 4 (7). 4. 1326 b 4), which 

is a very different thing from airapKeia rov ev Cijv (3. 9. 1280 b 34). 

6. o-uracaYKdET]. Bernays : ' wie das Bedtirfniss zum Verbinden 
verschiedener Lebensweisen treibt ' (compels them to combine 
different modes of life). But if we look back to 1256 a 27, we 
shall see that it is taste (t6 fibv) that leads men to select this or that 
mode of life, though necessity may force them to eke it out with 
some other : will not the meaning therefore be — ' as necessity in con- 
junction with taste may compel ' ? Cp. Rhet. 2. 7. 1385 b 2, where it 
is pointed out that a service may be explained away by the plea that 
those who rendered it did not render it out of kindness alone, but 
were in part compelled [a-vvr]payKacr6rja-aj>): [Demosth.J adv. Aristog. 

2. C. 10, ^ jTpoaipovfievovs rj (TVvavayKa^opevovi : and Xen. HierO 3. 9. 

7. ToiauTii, that which is necessary for sustenance, and which 
is avTOCpvTos. Cp. Eth. Nic. 3. 13. Ill8b 18, avairkfipaa-is yap rijs 
iv&fias fj (jivtriKri imdv/iia. 

8. <|)aiceTai SiSofji^i'T), 'is evidently given.' 

irao-ii', here not 'all human beings' (as in 1253a 30), but 'all 

9. KOTcl ■n]v irpuTi)!' y^''^"'"'. We have the proof of this in 10-15, 
and of TcXsKiieeiorii' in "15-20, as Prof. Jowett has already remarked. 

The expression Kara TfjV Tvparqv iv Tg p-riTpl ySveo-iv occurs in Eth. 

Eud. I. 5. I2i6a 7. 

11. TOffauTi]!' ... us. Eucken (de Partic. usu, p. 51-52) finds in 
Aristotle's writings only one other instance of this use of as — Pol. 
7 (5)- 5- i3°5 a 32- He adds — 'pauUo saepius in libris pseudo- 
Aristoteleis particula as eo modo usurpatur.' 

12. oloi' oaa o-kuXtikotokgi <j uotokei. Cp. de Gen. An. 2. i. 
732 a 25-32) tSi' 8e faioH' TO fiev TeKecmvpyfi Kai eKnep,irei Bvpa^e Ojioiov 
iavT^, olov oaa fmorofcei fls Toip<j>aves, to. 8c adidpSparov iKrUrei Koi ovk 
djreiKrj^os ttjv avTov p.op<^r)v' tS>v bk Toiovjav tol p,ev tvaipa laoTOKii, ra 8' 

1. 8. 1256 b 4— 12. 173 

Svaiiia (TKoKriKOTOKfi' Sia^epei S' (u6i> Kai (TKaXrj^' dov jikv yap iariv i^ 
oi yivtrai to yivofievov ck /lipovs, to 8e \017r6v iari Tpocjiri ra yivopiva, 
fTKoKri^ S e^ oS TO ywofievov SKov oKov ylvfrat. A part of the contents 
of the egg is intended only to serve as nutriment for the young 
creature ; it is used for that purpose and there is an end of it ; the 
lower part of the o-KtoXijI, on the contrary, though in Aristotle's view 
it furnishes in the first place nutriment to the upper and thus aids 
its growth, begins itself, after it has done this, to grow and receive 
articulation ; and thus no part of the (tkoKt)^ can be said, as a part 
of the egg can, to be set apart simply and permanently for the sole 
purpose of nutriment. This is explained in de Gen. An. 3. 11. 

763 a g—l6,noLOvvTai 8e xai Ttjv av^triv ofwiois toIs <rKa\ri^iv' eVi ra 
av(o yap Ka\ ttjv dp^Tjv av^dvovrai oi o"K(aXijKes' iv rc5 Karo> yap ij Tpofprj 
Tols avcd' KOL TOVTO yc ofioUos €;(€( rots eK tS>v aiav^ irkriv eKCiva pev KOTav- 
dkiaKei nav, iv 8e toTs (rK(o\r]icoTOKovp^vois, Srav av^T]6^ ix Trjs ev rm koto) 
fiopla (TvaTdcreas to ava popiov, ovTtos ix tov vjroXotTrou SmpOpovrai to 

KorcoBtv. On the a-Kokrj^ and to o-KcoXijKoroKoSvra (i. e. Insects, Hist. 
An. 5. 19. 550 b 26), see Dr. Ogle's translation of Aristotle on the 
Parts of Animals, p. xxvii sqq. I can find space only for the 
following quotation. ' It has been supposed that Aristotle had in 
some extraordinary way overlooked the eggs of insects, and fancied 
that these animals produce primarily grubs or maggots. This, 
however, was not so. He says that there are two kinds of scolex, 
one capable of motion, in other words a grub or maggot, the other 
incapable of motion, and so excessively like an ovum in shape, size, 
and consistency, as to be indistinguishable from, it, excepting by con- 
sidering its ulterior changes (de Gen. An. 3. 9. 758 bio sqq.).' The 
only difference between the case of a-KoiXrjKOTOKovvTa and aoroKovvTa 
on the one hand and ^moTOKovvra on the other is, that t6 Xemopemv 
(1258 a 36) — ^i. e. the surplus material beyond that which is drawn 
upon in the process of generation — is in the former case severed 
from the mother, inasmuch as it forms a part of the egg or o-kcbXt)!, 
while in the case of C<?oTOKovvTa it is retained within the person of 
the mother in the form of milk. Cp. de Gen. An. 3. 2. 752b 19 

sqq., 17 yap (pvais ipa tt)V tc tov ^aov tlXijw ev t^ aa Tldrjai Kai Tfjv iKav^v 
Tpo<^v TTpbg TrjV av^ri<rW inel yap oi Swarm Te\eovv iv avrrj r/ Spvis, 
avvfKTiKTfi TTjV Tpot^fjv iv Tco wa' Toir pev yap ^oioroKov/icVoic iv oXXia 
uopuo yivcTai rj Tpo^rj, to KoKovpevov ycXa, ev rots patTTo'ts' Tois 8* opvuri 
TOVTO jrotet ij <j>i<rig iv rots ^ots, tovvovtIov pevroi ij 01 re avSpumoi olovTai 
Kai 'AXxpaiav (^ijo'iv o KpoTaviaTrjs, oi yap to XfUKOv citti yoXa, dWa t6 

&Xpov TOVTO yap ia-Tiv rj Tpot^rj rots vcottois. In the case of many kinds 
of fish, indeed, and among them the Salmonidae, provision is made 

J 74 NOTES. 

for the sustenance of the young even after they have left the tg%. 
This has long been known to naturaUsts. ' When the little fish 
emerge from the eggs, they have a large bag, the umbilical vesicle, 
attached to their stomachs ; this contains the nourishment which is 
to serve them for several (three to eight) weeks' subsistence, and 
they do not commonly take in any food by the mouth until it is 
absorbed ' (from a Paper on Salmon; by F. Day, Esq., F.L.S.). On 
milk as an evidence of the providence of Nature, see Plutarch de 
Amore Prolis, c. 3, an interesting passage already noticed in vol. 
i. p. 30, note 2. 

13. Tois yei'i'u/i^i'ois. See critical note. 

15. <|)u(Tii'. Cp. 17 K^vais tS>v (fAefiav, Hist. An. 3. 2.511b 20, where 
' notio vocis (pva-is adeo delitescit, ut meram periphrasin nominis 
esse pules,' though this is not really quite the case (Bon. Ind. 838 a 9 
sq.). Cp. also ojiomjiaTa trapa ras oKriBivas (pvireis, 5 (8). 5- 134° a 18. 
' Thing ' or ' object ' seems to approach the sense of (j)v(ns used 
in this way. So Bern., ' den Stoflf, den wir Milch nennen.' 

&irre. The argument is that if there is a provision of nutriment 
for the creature in process of birth, it is not likely that nutriment 
should not be forthcoming for it when past that early stage. Cp. 

Eth. Eud. 7. 2. 1237a 29, b3(TT csrci KOL dreX^ (to OfLoia dWrjKois 

XaLpei), Srjkov on Koi TcXfiadivra. Aristotle, however, carries his 
inference further, and argues that not only nutriment but aXKa 
opyava will be forthcoming. We see how large is the superstructure 
which he raises on the fact that in every species of animal a pro- 
vision of nutriment is made for the earliest moments of existence. 

yeyofiivoi^ which Sus.° places within brackets, may well bear 
somewhat the same meaning as TeXeiaBetcnv, which he substituted 
for it in his first and second editions (cp. Meteor. 4. 2. 379 b 20, 
orav yap 'ire(f>d^, TfTfXnWai re Koi ■yeyoi/ev: Metaph. B. 4. 999 b II). 
TevopJvoLs may perhaps be used as a more comprehensive term than 

TeKfuaBet<Tiv, for yhctns in the sense of f/ Trpmxi; yevea-is 9, or ^ e^ ^RXV' 

yeveais lo, does not necessarily involve rfXftoT^s. The meaning will 
be ' when the irparr) yevecns is over.' Thus milk is said (de Part. 

An. 2. 9. 655b 26 sq.) to be rpo^rj rois yivOjUvois: Tpo(f>ri TOis yevopie- 

vois is something different. Prof. Jowett quotes Eth. Nic. 8. 14. 
1 162 a 6, ToC yap iivai kcu Tpaipr]vai. atnot (sc. 01 yovfis) Kai ycvop^vois 

Tov iraiSevBrjvai. As to the dative, see Bon. Ind. i66 b 26 sqq. 

20. «i oui; ■q <|)u(ns k.t.X. The inference seems to be as follows — 
' plants exist for the sake of animals, and the lower animals — all 
tame ones and most of the wild — for the sake of men ; [but the 
lower animals are made by Nature,] and Nature makes nothing in- 

1. 8. 1256 b 13—21. 175 

complete [in the sense of lacking an end] or in vain, therefore {oSv) 
all of them must necessarily be made by Nature for the sake of 
men.' Aira wdvTa 2 2 has been variously interpreted ' all plants and 
animals,' ' all wild animals ' (Sepulv. ' ipsas omnes feras '), and ' all 
animals.' I have explained the expression in the first of these 
ways in vol. i. p. 128, but perhaps on the whole the third inter- 
pretation is the one most likely to be correct, for plants have just 
been said to exist for the sake of animals generally, so that they 
would not be ' in vain ' if they did not exist for the sake of men ; 
besides, what Aristotle is here especially concerned to prove (cp. 
6i]pia 24) is that the lower animals are made by Nature for the 
sake of men ; he proceeds, in fact, at once to infer from this, that 
the kind of war which is waged against wild animals and to com- 
pel natural slaves, who differ but little from the lower animals, to 
submit to enslavement is a natural form of Supply. The inter- 
pretation of Sepulveda — ' all wild animals ' — is a possible interpre- 
tation (cp. Brjpla 24), though the assertion that Nature has made all 
wild animals for the sake of men seems strange, if we look back to 

18, tS>v 8e aypiav, ft /irj iravra, dXXa to ye irKelcTTa, where the contrary 

seems to be implied. It is true, however, that the same assertion 
is made, though less conspicuously, if we interpret avra navra ' all 
animals ' or ' all plants and animals.' Aristotle's aim in the passage 
is to show that just as property in the sense of what is necessary 
for sustenance is given by Nature to all animals, so the lower 
animals themselves are made by Nature for the sake of men. Com- 
pare Xen. Mem. 4. 3. 10, and Cic. de Nat. Deor. 2. 14 (referred to 
by Mr. Eaton) and 2. 62-64 (referred to by Giph.). In the last- 
named passage Cicero argues that as flutes are made for the sake 
of those who can use them, so the fruits of the soil exist far more 
for the sake of men than for the sake of the lower animals, 'tan- 
tumque abest ut haec bestiarum etiam causa parata sint, ut ipsas 
bestias hominum gratia generatas esse videamus.' Cp. also Metaph. 

A. 10. 1075 a, 16, iravra 8e avvTiTOKrai ttcbj dXX' ov\ 6fi,oias, Koi TrXtord 
Koi 7rTij»d Koi (fivrd' Kal ov)( ovras e^" ^^re firj eivai Barep^ jrpos Bdrepov 
fii]8etfj dXK' iari ti. 

21. dTcXeg. In using this word, is Aristotle referring to man or to 
the lower animals, which are made for the sake of man ? He has 
often been taken to refer to the state of incompleteness in which man 
would be left, if he were unprovided with sustenance when past the 
earliest period of existence. Mr. Welldon translates the passage — 
' assuming then that none of Nature's products is incomplete or 
purposeless, [as man requires food and the other animals are 

176 NOTES. 

suited to his consumption].' But looking to the form of the sen^ 
tence {nouX . . . itciToirjRevaC), it Seems more likely that Aristotle refers 
in the protasis as well as in the apodosis, and in areKds as well as in 
jiAniv, to the lower animals. 'hreKk may in fact bear the meaning 
' lacking an end/ and it is thus that Zeller (' ohne Zweck,' Gr. Ph. 
2. 2. 565. 6), Bonitz (' ovK exov TeKos sive oS «/««,' Ind. 119 a 48), and 
Susemihl in his translation (' zwecklos ') explain it here. Bonitz men- 
tions no other passage in which the word arcX^s is used in this sense, 
but perhaps de Gen. An. 1. 1. 715b 14, ^ 8c ^iJo-ty <j>evyn t6 Smtipov' tA 
fikv yap aiTfipov dreXer, ^ 8e (f){nris del fi)T« riXos may be compared ; 
cp. Plato, Phileb. 24 B, d« toIwv 6 Xdyos fiplv arrifiaivci tovt<o pj} rtXos 
fXeW aTeKrj S' Svre drjTTov TravrmmtTtv aneipo) yiyveaBov. But dreX^j is 
rarely used in this sense, and I incline on the whole to follow Sepul- 
veda, who translates ' imperfectum ' and adds in his note the ex- 
planation ' quod non referatur ad aliquem finem, res enim quaeque 
suo fine perficitur (Metaph. X),' where Metaph. I. 4. 1055 a 12, 

TeKos yap e^ei rj reXeia bta^opa, &a7rep Kai T&KXa ra reXos e)^eiv \eyeTai 

reKeia is probably referred to: cp. Metaph. A. 16. 1021 b 23, en oh 
viTap)(ei rh TeKos (Tirovbaiov, TavTa KeyeTai TeKeia' /caxa yap to ej(eiv t6 
TeKos TeKeta. 

fMirr)!'. Cp. de An. 3. 12. 434 a 30, to fie ffflOK dvayKaiov ai<r6r)(nv 
e\eiv, el pjj^ev pArqv ■Koiel rj f^vtrts' eveKa tov yap TrdvTa viTap\ei, ra (jivaeij 
fj avpiTT&paTa earai Tfiiv evexd tov. Cp. also de Gen. An. 2. 5. 741 b 
2-5 : de Animalium Incessu 2. 704 b 15 sq. 

di'aYKaToi' riav dkOpciirui' iveKev k.t.X. Aristotle is unaware that 
many animals existed long before man. We are reminded here of 
the Socratic teleology, according to which the movements of the 
sun in summer and winter are arranged with a view to the advan- 
tage of man (Xen. Mem. 4. 3. 8, kuI TavTa Tvavrdnaaiv eoiKev dudpmrav 
eveKa ytyvopevois). But tO AristOtle man is only nms TeKos, liOt TO 

tfTxoTov TeKos (Phys. 2. 2. 194 a 35). He assumes, it will be noticed, 
that animal food is necessary to man, and thus incidentally pro- 
nounces against those scruples as to its use which can be traced 
back in Greece to very early days. Orphic teaching forbade it (Plato, 
Laws 782) : Empedocles was against it (see Prof. Campbell, Intro- 
duction to the Politicus of Plato, p. xxiii sq.): Democritus seems to 
have allowed the slaughter only of those animals which injure or 
wish to injure man (Stob. Floril. 44. 16, quoted by Bernays, Theo- 
phrastos' Schrift iiber Frommigkeit, p. 149), and in this view he was 
apparently followed by Theophrastus (Porphyr. de Abstin. 2. 22), 
who may possibly be alluding to the passage of the Politics before 

us when he says (ibid. 2. 12), « Sc Xeyoi ns oti oix ^ttov tZv Kaprrm 

1. 8. 1256 b 22—23. 177 

Koi TO fma fi/uv 6 debt eir xpi"'"' SeSoMtev — if indeed we are right in 
ascribing this passage, with Bernays {op. cit. p. 61 sqq.), to Theo- 
phrastus and not to Porphyry. His contemporary at the head of 
the Academy, Xenocrates, was also opposed to the use of animal 
food, though for a different reason (Xenocr. Fragm. 58 — MuUach, 
Fr. Philos. Gr. 3. 127 : Zeller, Gr. Ph. 2. i. 678. 6, ed. 2). The un- 
hesitating language of Aristotle on this subject is deserving of notice. 
If there were those in antiquity who ascribed the Politics to Theo- 
phrastus, this passage at all events can hardly be from his pen. 
Observe that Aristotle does not here notice the case of carnivorous 
animals other than man. 

22. aurd irdn-o. See above on 20. 

23. 8t6 K.T.X. The following extract from Susemihl, Qu. Grit. 
P- 347) will show how variously this passage has been interpreted. 
' Victorium si audimus, cui adstipulati sunt Giphanius, Schneiderus, 
Boiesenius, avn\s et ^ ad ttoKciuktiv pertinent, ut nihil nisi parenthesis 
sint ij yap 6rjpevnKfi fupos avTrjs, qua indicetur cur bellum etiam contra 
bestias geri queat contendi : sin Lambinum, Schnitzerum, Stahrium, 
Bernaysium, avrrjs ad noXefiiKriv et .7 ad 6ripeuTiK.r)v : sin Garveum, 
Hampkeum, alios, out^s ad KtrinK^v et 5 ad BripevnKtjv spectat.' Vic- 
torius' commentary refers g to iroKefUKt], but his translation refers it 
to BripeiynKf] (' studium enim venatorum pars ipsius [artis bellicae] est, 
quo decet uti,' etc.). Bernays takes airris as meaning t^i TroXf^oe^i 
and refers y to fj BrjpevTiKtj, and this seems to be the more natural 
interpretation, looking to the close sequence in which 3 stands to 
BripevTuaj, but then we hardly expect tovtov toi' noKepov 26, though it 
is true that hunting has just been brought under the head of war 
(23: cp. 1255 b 38). Those who refer n to ^ nokeptioi will point 
to the use of the word itoKcpov in 26, and may also adduce 

Isocr. Panath. § 163, tS>v Se iroKepmv i]TcKdp0avov dvayKatdrarov pev 
elvai Koi SiKaiorarov tov pera rrdvrav dvBpamav irpos tt/v dypiorrjTa ■nji' 
tS>v BriploDV yiyvopevov, Seirfpov 8i tov pera rav 'EXKrjvav trpos Tovs fiap- 
Pdpovs Toiis Koi (^vaei TToKeplovs SvTas Kai ndvra tov )(p6vov iiri^ovKdovrag 

Tiplv (cp. Plutarch, Demetrius, c. 8: Porphyr. de Abstin. i. 14: 
and Dio Chrysost. Or. 38. 137 R); Isocrates here certainly speaks 
of war, not hunting. But Aristotle has just said that hunting is a 
part of war, and the sentence seems to run more naturally if » is 
referred to fj drjpevTiKri. The words 5 Set xp^f^Q' Jfpos te to dijpla k.t.X., 
in fact, acquire fresh point, if connected with ^ drjpiVTuo] : Sripevniefi is 
not only to be brought to bear against 6rjpia, as the name might 
suggest, but also against men who are like Brjpia. The reference of 
g to ri 6i]pevTiKri is Still further supported by two passages of Plato 

178 NOTES. 

(Sophist. 222 B-C: Laws 823 B), which seem to be present to 
Aristotle's memory no less than the passage from the Panathenaic 
Oration of Isocrates just quoted, for in them Plato speaks of hunting 
as having to do not only with wild animals but also with men, in 
language much resembling that of Aristotle here. Atd draws from 
the fact that animals are made by nature for the service of man, 
and that their acquisition is natural, the inference that men -who 
are, like animals, made to be ruled, may be acquired without any 
infraction of the order of nature. Air^s can hardly mean rr)s 
KTfiTiKrjs, for the fact that hunting is a part of KrrjTLicfj is no proof that 
war is in some sense a part of KTTjTiKri, in the absence of a statement 
that hunting is a part of war. I incline therefore to translate the 
passage thus : ' hence the art of war also is in some sense ' (i. e. so 
far as one kind of it is concerned) ' by nature a form of /cnjrtKij, for 
of the art of war the art of the chase ' (already said in 1256 a 40-b 2 
to be a form of KTrjriKrj) ' is a part, which ought to be used against 
both wild animals and such human beings as being intended by 
nature to be ruled refuse to be ruled, seeing that this kind of war is 
by nature just.' There were kinds of war which had nothing to 
do with acquisition (4 (7). 14. 1333 b 38-1334 a 2). The myth of 
Protagoras had contrasted the art of war with ^ Srjfuovpyiicfi tc^vij 
(Plato, Protag. 322 B, 7 SrnuovpyiKtj rex"') ovTois irpos juev Tpo<pT)v iKavrj 
fiorjSos fiv, Trpos Se Tov rmv Brjpiav TrdXe^oK ivSerjs' ttoXitik^i' yap Tix^V" 

oifn-o) erxoi/, rjs pepos iroXffjMtTJ), and Aristotle may wish to point out, 
in correction of this view, that some kinds of Tpo(f>fi cannot be ob- 
tained without war; he evidently does not agree with Rep. 373 
D-E, where the origin of war is traced to the unbounded quest of 
■wealth. On the contrary, he holds that one kind of war (that for 
the acquisition of (pvaei. Sov\oi) falls within the sound or limited 
Xp-qpaTioTiKfj. Columella (de Re Rustica, Lib. i. Praefat. c. 7) will 
not admit war to be a laudable form of KTrynut) : cp. [Aristot.] Oecon. 

I. 2. 1343 a 27, ^ 6e yeapyiKr) paKitrra on, SiKala' ov yap air dvBpairav, 
ovff eKovrav, acmep KanrjKda Kal al jUirBapviKal, oiir' aKovrav, &inTep al 

26. ei/ ^kv oSc k.t.X. The first question which arises as to this 
much-debated passage relates to Kara tpia-iv. Sepulv., Vict. (' unam 
rationem quaerendi rem, illam inquam quae naturam sequitur'), 
Lamb., and Giph. connect Kara cjiia-Lv with (cr^jriK^r, but this seems 
hardly possible. Bern., who connects Kara (fivaiv with pe'pos icn-iv, 
translates ' is a natural part of Household Science,' but Susemihl 
and Mr. Welldon are probably right in translating ' is naturally a 
part.' The remainder of the paragraph (0 Sel k.tX.) is thus ren- 

1. 8. 1256 b 26. 179 

dered by Sepulveda — ' quae (quaestuaria) vel suppetere debet, vel 
res ab ipsa comparari, quae condi reponique solent necessariae ad 
vitam et ad civitatis aut domus societatem tuendam accommodatae'; 
he adds in his note the following explanation — 'aut haec quae- 
stuaria facultas adesse debet patrifamilias atque homini civili, ut per 
earn res necessariae ab ipsis comparentur, aut certe per earn res 
necessariae comparari debent ab eo, cuicumque tribuatur.' He 
evidently refers airriv 28, not to Trjs oIkovoiuk^s 27, to which Bern., 
Sus., Stahr, and others are probably right in referring it, but to 
eiSos KTr]TiK^s 26. There is much more to be said for his view that 
xprjiiara, the suppressed antecedent of Sv xpw"'"'"'') is the subject of 
vTrapxn- It is thus that both Stahr and Vahlen (Aristotel. Aufsatze, 
2. 32) interpret the passage. For the case and position oi xPW"'^'^" 
within the relative sentence, see Vahlen u5i supra, who compares 
4 (7). I. 1323b 15 : 6 (4). 4. 1290b 28 : 6 (4). 5. 1292b 8. If 
we follow these authorities (as I have done in vol. i. p. 129), we 
shall translate — ' which (form of the Science of Supply) must either 
be forthcoming, or Household Science must itself ensure that 
storeable commodities shall be forthcoming,' etc. This interpreta- 
tion of the passage, however, is open to the objection that it sup- 
plies a different subject with the words iirapx"" and iirdpxn, whereas 
the sentence certainly reads as if one and the same subject should 
be supplied with each. I incline, therefore, on further considera- 
tion, to suggest a different interpretation. May not there be an 
ellipse of ' having to do with ' before &v earl Brjaavpia-fios xpip<"''^''t 

just as there is in I. 3. 1253 b 3, olKovojxias fie pipr], i^ &v troKiv oIkIu 
<ruve(TTriK€P, and in I. II. i258b 27 sqq., rpiTOv Be elSos ;(pi)/iaTio'TJic^r 
. . . oca OTri y^r koI tS>v otto yrjs ytvofifvav k.t.X. (see above on 1253 b 

3) ? If we explain the passage thus, o (e'fioj KTrjTtiajs) will be the 
subject both of {mapxiiv and of imapxji. On Bernays' proposed 
substitution of koSo for o, see Sus. Qu. Crit. p. 352. For other 
suggested emendations, and for Susemihl's own view of the pas- 
sage, see notes a and 3 in Sus.'', vol. i. p. 116. In strictness 

the function of olKovo/uKrj is not ri iropiaacrBai to Kara rrjv oiKiav, but 
tA xPWO'''^'"' (c. 8. 1256 a 11: Cp. StoBeivai, C. lo. 1258 a 24); 

we are told, however, here (cp. pciKiara, 'if possible,' c. 10. 1258 a 
34), that if fi Kara (fivaiv KTrp-iKr) is not forthcoming from the first, 
oliiovop.LKj} must see that it is forthcoming. "Eari Biiaavpia-fios ap- 
pears to be added because there are things necessary to human 
life (e. g. light, air, fire) which cannot be stored. On Storeableness 
as an attribute of Wealth, see Comte, Social Statics, E. T. p. 131, 
and J. S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy B. i. c. 3. § 3. 

N 3 

i8o NOTES. 

Are slaves and cattle, however, susceptible of 6tj(Tavpi(rii6s? and 
does Aristotle's definition of wealth include wealth in land ? 
For the various kinds of wealth, genuine and other, see 2. 7. 
1267 b losq. and Rhet i. g. 1361a 12 sqq. J. S. Mill defines 
wealth (Principles of Political Economy, Preliminary Remarks, 
and B. i. c. 3. § 3) as 'useful and agreeable things of a material 
nature, possessing exchange value.' Aristotle says nothing here 
of exchange value, though his definition of xpw"™ ii Eth. Nic. 

4. I. 1119b 26' as vavTa oaav r) a^la vofiiaiiaTi fUTpeiTcu. implies this 
limitation. How far does his account of wealth in the passage 
before us agree with his account of (cnj/iora in c. 4. 1254a 16, 
where he seems to exclude Spyava iroi-qTucd from KTrjo-is ? Such Spyava 
are certainly xp^ifo els Koivavlav iroKeas rj olKias. On Mill's definition, 
see Prof. H. Sidgwick in the Fortnightly Review for Feb. 1879. Mew 
ovv is taken up by phi ro'imv 37, and answered by fit 40. 

31. Ik tou'tui'. 'Ek is here used of the ' material ' of which 
wealth is made, the 'elements' which constitute it : op. 2. 2. 1261 a 

Z 2, eK TrKevavav dvSpatiratu. 

ydp, ' for true wealth is not unlimited in quantity (consisting as it 
does of Spyava, and no Spyavov being unlimited either in size or quan- 
tity), and the wealth of which we speak is not unlimited in quantity.' 
Just as a very large or very small shuttle, or too many shuttles or 
too few, would be in the way and ineffective for the end (cp. 4 (7). 
4. 1326 a 35 sqq.), so too large or too small a supply of necessary 
and useful commodities is unfavourable to dyad^ fmij. This thought 
•was taken up by Epicurus : cp. Porphyr. de Abstin. i. 49, Stpiarai ydp, 
cj>ri<riv, 6 r^s (j)va(a>s ttKovtos xai %(ttiv eviropuTTOs, 6 8i rav Kev&i/ 8o^S>v 

uopiaros Te ^v xai SvoTTopio'Tos. Bemays (Theophrastos' Schrift fiber 
Frommigkeit, p. 145)' compares also the fourteenth Kvpia 8o|a of 
Epicurus (Diog. Laert. 10. 144). Cp. also Plutarch de Cupiditate 
Divitiarum, c. 4. 524 E-F. For avrdpKeia, cp. c. 9. 1257 a 30. 

32. 'Z6\ii>v. See Fragm. 13. 71 sqq., and Theognis 227 where 
the lines appear in a slightly altered form. They seem to be 
present to Isocrates' memory in De Pace § 7. 

33. •ir£<J)ao-(i^Koi' AcSpdo-i, ' made known to men.' 

34. Tais oWais Tixyais, ' in the case of other arts.' 

35. ouSei' yAp opyai'oi' k.t.X. Aristippus appears to have met 
this argument by anticipation ; cp. Fragm. 58 (Mullach, Fr. Philos. 

Gr. 2. 412), ov}(^ fio-jrep VTroSripa to /xtZfoK Sv(rxpi(rTov, ovtoi (cat ij nXelav 
kt!j(tis' toO pev yap iv rfj xpfjira rh nepnrov epnoSi^ei' rfj 8e Ka\ oXji 
,Xprj(r6ai Kara Kaipov e^etrn koI pcpci, 

36.^ See J. S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy, Preliminary 

1. 8. 1256 b 31— 9. 1257 a 17. i8i 

Remarks, on definitiohs of wealth which, like that in the text, treat 
it as ' a mass of instruments.' 

38. 8i' TJc aiTiai>. The reason apparently is that the acquisition 
of the things assigned by Nature for the service of man is a 
necessity of human life. For ^v, see above on 1252 a 20, and cp. 
de An. 2. 7. 419 a 6. 

40. t]i' is affected by attraction to XP'IM'"""'"*:'?'', though airb is C 9. 
not : the fern, continues to be used in 41 — 1257 a 5. 

41. 81' ■^1'. How this happens, we learn in i. 9. 1257 b 35 sqq. 

3. EKEinris. ' Pronomen cKelvos ab Aristotele etiam ad proximas 1257 a. 
voces trahitur' (Busse, de praesidiis Aristotelis Politica emendandi, 

p. 24, who refers to Pol. 7 (5). 6. 1306 a 10: Meteor. 2. 6. 364 a 
8 sq.). ^ 

4. 81' Ifiireipias. Cp. 1257 b 3. 

7. K06' ouTo. On predication koB' airo, see Anal. Post. i. 4. 73 a 
34-b 24 and other passages collected in Bon. Ind. 2 1 2 a 3 sqq. We 
have here to do with use Kaff aM. A thing is used Kaff aM, when 
it is used as being what it is and nothing else. Thus the term is 
explained in 12 by xpV"'^'"' ''9 vwoSruuiTi 5 imoSrum. The /leroiSXijnKij 
xpv""" of ^ shoe is an use of it Ka6' aM, as much so in fact as the 
oiKeia xpi'^'^'i t^ie use of it as an article of wear ; it is because the 
shoe is a shoe that the buyer buys it and the wearer wears it ; still 
the one use is o'lKeia toO npayiuiTos (the use for which the shoe was 
made) and the other is not. If the shoe were used, on the con- 
trary, for measuring, it would not be used as a shoe, but as being of 
a certain length. This is explained in Eth. Eud. 3. 4. 1231 b 38 sq., 
where, however, the writer so far departs from Aristotle's view that 
he treats the sale of an article as an use of it Kara trvfi^e^riKos, not 
Kaff avTo. From the use made of commodities in simple exchange 
must be distinguished the use made of them by the unsound XPW- 
TUTTiKfj, which aims at the indefinite increase of wealth (c. 9. 1257 b 

35 sq.). 

14. ■^ iiETopXniTiKi^, sc.xp^(Tis, as in 9, or nxyrjl The latter view 
seems preferable, for we must supply rixv^i with ^ Toiavn} nera^rj- 
TiKij in 28. Perhaps, however, we may translate simply ' exchange ' 
(Bern. Sus. ' Tauschhandel '). 

15. ii.iv has no 8e to answer to it, apparently because at ^ xaX SjjKou 
the intended course of the sentence is changed : we expect it to 
be continued — ' but later passing the limit of necessity and nature.' 

cK Tou kotA <tiija'ii', ' from that which is natural ' (Mr. Welldon, 
' from natural circumstances '). 
17. if Kol SijXoi' K.T.X. Vict, 'quo perspicuum etiam est non con- 

i82 NOTES. 

stare natura pecuniariae genus cauponarium.' Lamb, (followed by 
Bernays and Susemihl) : ' ex quo licet intelligere cauponariam (sen 
mercaturam sordidam quam profitentur atque exercent ii qui ab 
aliis emunt quod pluris revendant) non esse partem artis pecuniae 
quaerendae natura.' In favour of Vict.'s rendering, cp. Phys. 2. 2. 
194b 2, T^s TToojTwc^s T] apxiTfKToviKT), and tlic Statement in 3, eort 8* ^ 
fiex <f>v<rei fj 8' ov (fivcm avTotv: in favour of the other, c.8. 1256b 23, 
610 Kai Tj TroKcfiiK^ tpva-fi KTrjTiKri ttms eorai. The interpretation of 
Lamb, is probably right. Bern, conjectures r^r iieTapXrjnKrjs for rrjs 
XpiiMiTurriK^s, looking probably to fj /iCTa^Xi/riK^ 14, but all the MSS. 
read ttjs pfpij^iaj-io-Tuc^s, and in 1257 b 2 we have Oarepov elbos t^s 
XPIfiaTtanKTJs . . . ro Kanrjki<6v. 

18. ouoi' yap k.t.X. Sepulveda : 'alioquin necesse erat ut 
quatenus eis satis esset, commutationibus uterentur.' ' For if it 
were so, those who practise it would necessarily have made use of 
exchange only to obtain what suffices for themselves [whereas in fact 
they notoriously purchase not for their own use, but to resell at a 
profit]. So the commentators generally. Cp. 5 (8). 3. 1337 b 35, 
ou yap Sq nailjavTas' T-eXor yap dvayxaiov ewai tov ^iov rf/v naiSiav fjiuv. 

For the omission of av in phrases like dvayKalov fjv, see Jelf, Gr. Gr. 

§ 858. 3- 'Ikcii/ov takes up tS>v iKavwv. To Kara (f>vcriv is to iKavov avTOts 

(cp. 30 and 1256 b 11). It is possible, no doubt, to take ^v histori- 
cally, and not as = 5" av, and to translate ' for it was necessary (and 
therefore natural) to make use of exchange to obtain what suffices 
for the persons exchanging (which those who practise Kanr]KtKri do 
not do),' and this rendering would suit the paragraph which 
follows, which is historical in purport ; avayKaiov k.tX would also 
be used in the same sense as four or five lines below (23); but 
the ordinary interpretation seems on the whole preferable. 

19. iikv oui/ introduces a slight correction of what precedes ('true, 
exchange is not necessary in the household'). It seems to be 
answered by dX\d, 21 : cp. c. 13. 1260 a 13, and see Sus.* Ind. 
Gramm. s. v. fieu. 

■nf irpciTT) Koii'ui'ia, i. e. the household, though the union of male 
and female and that of master and slave are spoken of as Kotvavuu 
(c. 2. 1252 b 10), and are of course prior to the household, for the 
household is formed of them. Cp. al wpHTai Koivaviai, c. 2. 
1252 b 31. 

21. auTTJs is taken apparently by Sus. to refer to oKXayrjv 19, but 
I incline to follow Bern, and Mr. Welldon, who refer it to 17 prra- 
pXrjmcfj 14 (cp. T) p.ev ovv ToiavTr] fiera^Xrinid], 28). It is true that in 
1257b I the earlier form of pLeTa^XrjTud] is described as r) dvayicaia 

1. 9. 1257 a 18— 29. 183 

aWayrj, SO that the Sense is much the same, whichever view 
we adopt. 

itXeioi'os Ttjs KoiFCdi'ias ou<tt)s, i. e. ' extended,' in opposition to 

jrpcBTi; (Bon. Ind. 6l8b 34) : cp. 2. 2. I261 b 12, koL ^oiiXerai y rjSt} 
Tore fivcu TrdXtr, orav airapKr] avfu^aivrj rfjv Koivaviav elvai tov ttXij^ous. 
'H neTo^XrjTiKfi seems to be regarded as beginning in the Kant) and 
the TroKis. 

01 (ler ycip K.T.X. As to the phrase jroXXSv koI mpav, see Bon. 
Ind. 357^8: 'koL interdum duo adiectiva coniungit, quorum alterum 
definiendo alteri inserviat, non solum ubi prius adiectivum n-oXus est 
(ttoXXoI Koi TraXaioi Xiyovcriv, Eth. Nic. I. 8. 1098 b 27 al.), sed etiam 
in aliis.' It has been much discussed, on what verb the words 
TToXXSv KOI erepav depend. Schn. would supply iBeovro, while Bern, 
thinks that no addition is needed, inasmuch as Kexapia-fiivoi contains 
the notion of ' wanting.' For Susemihl's view, see his note. Vict., 
however, would seem from his commentary to supply iKoivmvow — 
certainly the most natural course, and that which best agrees with 
nXeiovos t^s Koivmvias ovmjs. Aristotle is commonly chary of words, 
and often expects us to supply a word from a previous clause 
which is not altogether suitable — e.g. in 3. 16. 1287b 28 (iSot): 

6 (4). 13. 1297 a 40 (TTopif"") : 2. 5. 1264 b 2 (ojKoi/o/iijtrei). 

Cp. also 8 (6). 8. 1322 a 16-18. Both household and village 
have a certain aggregate of commodities at their disposal, but 
whereas in the household what one member has all others have, in 
the village this is not so ; on the contrary, some members of the 
village have corn and no shoes, others shoes and no corn. The 
members of the village are described as <ex<apwiiivoi, i. e. they are no 
longer ofioalirvoi or o/ioKanoi, but are parted into a plurality of house- 
holds. The use of the word Koivaveiv in reference both to the 
household and to the village is of course not fortunate, for the 
household shares in what it possesses in a different sense from the 

23. Kara tAs Sei^cteis, in contrast to the practice of KcmriKoi, 
iroiEiaOai Tcls fi€TaS(5(r£is . . . Karcl •riji' dXXayl^i'. 'AXXa-y^ here 

means ' barter ' : fieraSoo-i? is the more comprehensive word, 
including barter as one of its forms. 

24. KOI (in place of which Bern, conjectures koI vvv) probably 
means ' no less than the members of the village.' 

26. eiri irX&i' 8' ouS^c, i. e. no money, which is here contrasted 
with TO xpv"'^!^) iiot that it is not itself one of rk xprictp^a (36), but 
because it is not directly useful for subsistence, like corn or wine. 

29. xpnifiaTio-TiKijs, i.e. t^i paKia-Ta xP'}l">turTiKris, 1256b 41. 

1 84 ISIOTES. 

30. Cp. Eth. Nic. 3. 13. IIl8b 18, avaTrKrjpaxns yap Trjs cvdeias fj 
(j)V(TiKri eTrtdv/iia. 

31. KOTcl \6yov, ' in accordance with reason and what one would 
naturally expect' : see the references in Bon. Ind .368650 sq. It is 
often used in much the same sense as eiXoyas (e. g. in Metaph. N. r. 
1088 a 4-6), and the phrase Sm nv aWiav eilXoyov (de Part. An. 2. 17- 
660 b 16) may be compared. In Rhet. ad Alex. 9. 1429 a 28 we 

have — TO fiev yap tSiv wpayfidrav yiverai Kara XdyoK ra 8e jrapa XdyoK. 

ieviKtaripa^ yh.p k.t.X. ' For, the supply of men's needs coming 
to be more drawn from sources external to the State.' Here the 
origin of money is traced to an increased distance between buyer 
and seller. Money being more portable than commodities in 
general, an advantage is found in paying a distant seller in this way. 
Aristotle perhaps remembers that the Greek coinage had its 
origin in the commerce of Aegina: cp. Strabo, p. ^'j6, "Ecpopos 
fi' ev Aiyivrj apyvpov irpSiTov KOTrrjvtu <j>T](riv vtto ^eidajvoi' ifiwopiov 
yap yetica-dai. In Eth. Nic. 5. 8, however, the advantages of 
money in all commercial transactions, whether between parties 
near to or distant from each other, are recognized. Again, the 
purchaser may not for the moment need any commodity in return : 

in this case money serves as an iyyvryrfis oti ea-rai eav SeijBtj 

(Eth. Nic. 5. 8. 1133 b 10 sq.). Still all this is quite reconcileable 
•with the view that what first called money into being was its use in 
distant transactions. Plato (Laws 742 A) seems to regard the 
payment of wages and of artisans' remuneration as that which 
makes some sort of money necessary. Giph. (p. 99) refers to 
Isocr. Paneg. § 42, which is not without resemblances to the 
passage before us. 

32. &v ivieeis. For the omission of c'rat and its parts, see Vahlen 
on Poet. 24. 1459 b 7 (p. 243). 

35. 816 irpos Tcis dWayAs k.t.X. Cp. I. 10. 1258 b 4, ovk i(f> 
oirep iiropladrj' pfra^oKrjs yap eyej/ero x"?'" (™ t>6pi(Tpa). "The selection 
of the particular commodity was a matter of convention, so that 
here for the first time convention stepped in ; but even then money 
was for a space dealt with inartificially by weighing, till the measure 
of its artificiality was made complete by the ingenious addition of 
a stamp to denote the value of the coin. With <ruvi6ivro, cp. Kara 
(TvvdriKrjv, Eth. Nic. 5. 8. 1 133 a 29. 

37. Etx€ K.T.X., 'possessed utility of a kind to be easily dealt 
-with and made available for the end of existence' — was, in 
fact, easily carried, easily stored, easily converted into other com- 
modities, and so forth. Vict, 'unum eorum quae . . . possunt 

1. 9. 1257 a 30— 1257 b 2. 185 

facile deferri ad alios'; but that is only one of the characteristics 
present to the mind of Aristotle. Lamb, better; 'usum haberet 
tractabilem ac facilem ad vitam degendam.' For eixe rfiv xp^lav 
(which takes up tS>u xpw^l^'"'), cp. Sosipater (Meineke, Fr. Com. 
Gr. 4. 483)— 

fKyoKrjV xpeiav tIv ds to TrpSy/i' fX"- 

For TO f^i/, cp. 1257 b 41. The Thessalians are said by Isocrates 
to be ai;Sp€s ovK evfieTaxeipiarot (Epist. 2. § 2o). Aristotle notices 
portability and ease in use as characteristics of a satisfactory circu- 
lating medium, but not durability or steadiness of value. The last- 
named characteristic is, however, referred to in Etfa. Nic. 5. 
€. 1133 b 13 sq. 

38. aiSripos K.T.X. Iron, or the dross of iron — to axpetov tov a-iSripov 
■ — (by weight) by the Lacedaemonians ([Plato,] Eryxias 400 B) : 
iron coins were also used at Byzantium (see Mr. Ridgeway, Trans. 
Cambr. Philol. Society, vol. 2. p. 131, who refers to Plato Com., 
lifLfyavhpos 3 — Meineke, Fr. Com. Gr. 2. 649) — and Ar. Nub. 249) : 
an iron coin of Hermaeus king of Bactria, brought by Sir Douglas 
Forsyth from the ruined cities of Central Asia, is mentioned in 
the Academy, Nov. 25, 1876 (p. 527). Cp. also Caesar de Bell. 
Gall. 5. 12: utuntur (Britanni) aut aere aut taleis ferreis ad 
certum pondus examinatis pro nummo. As to rclv d n toiovtov 
erepov, we find in the Eryxias (399 E sqq.) a description of the 
leather money of Carthage ; but, as Mr. Ridgeway says (ibid.), Aris- 
totle may have in his mind ' some such coinage as the electrum 
money used at Cyzicus.' 

41. 6 yAp x^p'^KTrip K.T.X. The xap<"n'W varied with the value. 
' The tetradrachm of Syracuse is in early times stamped with a 
quadriga, the didrachm with a pair of horses, the drachm with a 
single horse with its rider. Thus the number of horses shows at 
a glance the number of drachms in any piece of Sjracusan money. 
The obol is marked with the wheel of a chariot ' (Prof. P. Gardner, 
Types of Greek Coins, p. 50). ' On the tetrobol of Athens there are 
two owls ; on the diobol the owl has but one head, but two bodies ; 
on the triobol the owl is facing the spectator, and so forth ... In 
Thessaly a horseman marks the diobol, a single horse the, obol ' 
(ibid. p. 66). But see Mr. Head's remarks. Hist. Numorum, p. Ivi. 

2. TO KairTjXiKoi'. The unsound kind of x/>w"<'"''«^ is so called, 1257 b. 
not because none but raTnyXot practised it, but because it was exem- 
plified in, and best illustrated by, their way of trading, with which 
every one was familiar. The rajnjXoy did not himself produce what 
he sold, but bought it of the producer, and bought to sell agaiil, 

l86 NOTES. 

not to supply his own household needs. His operations were on 
a smaller scale than those of the efiiropos, and, unlike his, were con- 
fined within the limits of a particular State (cp. Plato, Polit. 260 C : 
Rep. 371 D: Sophist. 223 D: and see Biichsenschiitz, Besitz und 
Erwerb, p. 454-6 and notes). This kind of xpvH"'"<^"''V comes into 
existence after the appearance of money on the scene, but its 
existence is in reality due not to money, but to a radically wrong 
view of the end of human life (1257 b 40 sqq., and esp. 1258 a 5). 
Money, however, makes it possible, — how, Aristotle does not 
directly explain ; but he probably means that money facilitates sale 
and re-sale, is easily stored, and the like, and thus meets the spirit 
of gain half-way. If trade were carried on by barter, the practices 
of the KairrfKoi would be defeated by the cumbrousness of the 
operation, and they might suffer more by depreciation of stock. 
' The value of money,' says Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. 9 — vol. i. 
p. 356), 'has been settled by general consent to express our wants 
and our property, as letters were invented to express our ideas ; 
and both these institutions, by giving a more active energy to the 
powers and passions of human nature, have contributed to multiply 
the objects they were designed to represent.' See also the quo- 
tation from Xen. de Vectigalibus given in the note on 1257 b 33. 

3. (lei' oSy. See note on 1252 b 27 sqq. 

4. Tex>'i'«^T6poi'. Cp. Isocr. ad Nicocl. § i. 

•n6dei' K.T.X. Uodfv seems to depend on TfX'"K<o"P<«', which 
itself seems to be adverbial to yivofievov. But what is the nom. to 
jroirjo-ei ? Vict. and Bern, make fieralSaXKoiievov passive, the former 
supplying to vofiurna, the latter 'etwas' (i.e. a commodity). Lamb, 
and Giph. explain iieTaffaXKo/ievov by ' permutando,' apparently 
making it middle : Bonitz also would seem to take it as middle (Ind. 
458 b 15), for he adds 'i.e. ttoIov yevos ttjs iiera^XrinKrjs' Adopting 
this explanation of nSis lifTafiaKKoficvov, which makes t6 KaTnjXiKov 
nom. to iroirja-ei, we are still met by the question, what is the meaning 
of TToBev ? Does it qualify iieTa^aWofievov like nSis, or are the words 
ttSis neTa^aWonemv to be taken together by themselves, so that the 
meaning will be — ' carried on with a more studied skill in devising 
from what source and by what kind of investment it will win most 
profit'? Perhaps this is the correct interpretation. Cp. irSs, c. 11. 
1258b 13. 

5. 816 K.T.X. Aristotle here passes on to describe the effect of 
the emergence of this kind of xpw"'^""') on opinion. It suggests 
to many the erroneous conclusion that the aim of xpw"'^"'"? is 
the acquisition of money and of as much money as possible. But 

1. 9. 125rb 3—11. 187 

then others by a natural reaction refuse to allow that money is 
wealth, or that this kind of p^pij/iaritrrtK^ is ^PW""'"*'? ^^ all. This 
conflict of view enables Aristotle to step in, as is his wont, and to 
say that those who take the latter view are so far right that the 

Kam]\iKfi ;;(pij/iaTi(rrifCij is not pfpiyfiOTJOTtK^ Kara (jiiartv, nor is money 

natural wealth. The natural xp';/*a"o'T(K^ is that which goes hand in 
hand with the science of household management, and which regards 
the acquisition of commodities, not as an end, but as a means to 
TO eS Cn" rightly understood, and therefore not to be pursued beyond 
a certain limit of amount. 

7. iroiif)TiK}| Y^P «'•'«"■. sc. SoKei. 

Tou irXouTOu Kai xpy\fi.AT<itv. Vahlen (Aristot. Aufsatze, 2. 13 n.) 
compares 4 (7). I. 1323 a 37, ir\ovTov Koi xprfjiareav, and I. 9. 

1257 a I, irKovTov KOI KTria-ecos. Here, as often elsewhere (Bon. Ind. 
357 b 13), KOI appears to be used in an explanatory sense, just as 
it is two lines lower in t^w xp')^'*""'"'"'^'' '"'' 'r^" KairrjKiKriv, and in 

aXXay^s xal RaTnjXeias, 1 256 a 4I. Xprnxarcov is an ambiguous WOrd, 

often meaning money and always suggestive of it (cp. Eth. Nic. 
4. I. 1119b 26, XPW"'"'" S^ Xeyofiev ndvra o(ra>v ^ a^la vofilafiaTi 
fuTpeiTai, and [Plato,] Eryxias 403 D, quoted below on 11). 

8. Kai yip toi' irXouToi' k.t.X. These words supply an indis- 
pensable link in the argument, which seems to be as follows — 
■}(priiw.TumKr] iS ttoit/tik^ tou itKovtov (cat xprumTdv, TrXoCroi is vop.iafw.Tos 
TTXrjBos, therefore XPW"'''''"'^ is notrjnKri vofila-iMTos jtXtiBovs, or in 
other words, its epyov is t6 Sivaa-Bai deiopfiv ■noQev ecrrai ttX^^os xPI' 
fidrav. This word ;(p))/iariBi' might have been vop.itriw.Tos, but the 
two words do not lie far apart in meaning. In koI yap somewhat 
of the force of km perhaps survives : ' they not only misconstrue 
Xprn^aTLOTiKri and take it to be concerned with money (5), but they 
also misconstrue TrXoSror and take it to be abundance of money.' 

So we have toi» ttXoutoi' koI ttjv xpi/^aTio-Tt/tiji', 18. 

11. vcSjAos, 'a mere convention': cp. Eth. Nic. 5. 8. 11 33 a 30, 

KoL but tovto Toivnfia ex« vopi(Tp.a, Sti oi (pvirei dWa vopM itrri, Kai etp' 
ijpXv p.era0a\eiv koX iroirja-ai axpr](TTov: Magn. Mor. I. 34. II94 a 

21-23: Plato, Laws 889 E: Xen. Mem. 4. 4. 14, vopovs 8', e^i;, 

S> ScoKpoTcs, ttSj S.V ns riyrja'aiTo CTrovSaiov rrpaypa eivai ff to jreldeaOai 
aiiTols, ovs ye TroXXoKti avTol 01 defievot diroSoKip.da'avTes fieraTiBevTai ; 

No'juoE and voiiuTjia were both connected in popular etymology with 
vop.i^at. Plato had said in Laws 742 E, irXovo-Lovs 8' av a-<^6bpa koI 
dyadovs dSivoTOV, ovs yc Sfj TrXovaiovs ol ttoXXoI KaToXeyouaf Xeyouo-i 8e 
roir KeKTijfievovs iv dXlyois tS>v dvSpwTrav jrXeioTou vo^iiVfiaros a^ia 
KrrjpMTa, a Kai Kancdf ns k^kt^t av: cp. Rep. 52 1 A, Laws 73^^, 

t88 notes. 

and Aristot. Rhet. i. 5. 1361 a 33 sqq. But it is possible 
that the Cynics, or some of them, are also here referred to. 
The Eryxias, which is included among the dialogues ascribed to 
Plato, appears to treat the subject of money and wealth from 
a Cynical point of view, and we find in it not indeed the exact 
arguments here used, but arguments pointing to the same con- 
clusion — e.g. 403 D, ri ovK eKctvov tov \6yov 8teTe\f(Tas, i>s rd SoKovvra 
ouK eoTt ;(p^/iiaTa, ^pvaiov Koi dpyvpiov Koi raXKa to Toiavra; When we 
are told (18) that the persons referred to by Aristotle in the 
■passage before us sought wealth and XPW"'"'"'^ ^^ something 
other than the things to which these names were commonly given, 
we are reminded of Eryxias 403 C, ema-Tfiitriv ydp nva jrapaSiSoiis 
Tffl dvdpamm ajta Koi TrXouirwv airbv ireiroirjKc, and Diog. Laert. 6. 68, 

who says of the Cynic Diogenes — rfiv irmSelav tare toIs jiiv veois 

<To>(l)poo'vvrjv, Tols Be npur^vripoii napa\ivBlaVj rois Sc 7revijo*t iT\o\rToVf 
Tols fie TrXouo-i'ots Koa-fiov elvai. The Cynics seem to have made out 
knowledge how to use things to be real wealth, and its acquisition 
true xpw"o"''"'^. Compare the doctrine of the Stoics that 'the 
wise man alone is rich,' and see Cic. Paradoxa Stoicorum 6. 3. 51. 
Zeno of Citium in his ideal polity, which was much coloured by 
Cynicism, abolished the use of money altogether (Diog. Laert. 
7. 33, vonKTiia 8' ovT aXXayr/s evcKcv oiccrSai Selv KaracTKfvd^eiv 
oiki drtohriiims evexev). The arguments used by the inquirers 
here referred to are far from convincing, though Aristotle does not 
stop to comment on them : money does not necessarily become 
valueless when deprived of the character of money (cp. t&v xpw'^- 
fjuov avTQ ov, 1257 a 36), and as Lord Macaulay noted on the 
margin of his copy of the Politics [Macmillan's Magazine, July 
1875, p. 220), 'a man who has plenty of clothes and drink may die 
of hunger, yet you would call clothes and drink wealth.' Aristotle, 
it is true, speaks (Eth. Nic. 5. 8. 1133 a 31) of money being made 
' useless ' by demonetization, and he also looks upon articles of 
subsistence as furnishing the truest type of wealth (q jrcpi ttjv rpoijjriv, 
1258 a 17), but he would hardly go so far as the inquirers he 
refers to here. Things which serve for clothing and as Sfyyava are 
to him part of true wealth (1256 b 15 sqq.). 

ouS^r. Cp. 5 (8). 6. 1341 b 7 : de Gen. An. 4. 4. 771 b 29. 

ficTa6£[i.^i'(i)i'. Mr. Welldon : ' give up a currency and adopt 
another.' For this use of the word, compare Fragm. Aristot. 508. 

1561 b 4) eXa^e" o Eu^cvos yvvaiKa Koi avvaKei iieradi/ievos ToSvo/ia 
' ApioTo^hniv, and the use of the word (neraorijtrcoo-u; in 7 (g). I. 

1301 b 8. Cp. also Plato, Laws 889 E. 

1. 9. 1257 b 12— 23. 189 

12. ouT£. See critical note. 

14. dirop^^orei. For this use of the third person, see Bon. Ind. 
589 b 47 sqq.: 763 a 25 sq. 

15. diToXeiTai. For the future after toiovtov oS, cp. 2. 7. 1266 b 
36, Compare also Plato, Euthyd. 299 D-E. 

rhv MiSai' ekeii'oi', SC. oiroKiaQm. 

20. Bekker reads ^ ^^ KaTrrjkiKri ttohjtik^ xpif'"-'''''"' k.t.X. : thus he 
evidently, like the Vet. Int., makes ^ Kairt]\iKfi the nominative. 
Susemihl's stopping, however, which I have adopted, seems prefer- 
able. With this stopping, the translation will be — ' but the other 
is commercial.' Cp. i. 10. 1258 a 39. 

21. dXX' r,. All MSS. have aXX' ^ or dW r,, none oKXa. The 
sentence would have been regularly constructed, if it had run — ov 

iroajTiKTf )(pj]iiATa>v aX\' f) hia -j^prijiaTav fitTO^Xfjs, or TroiijrtK^ ;(. ov irdvras, 

d)0\.a 8ii X- M- li^vov. Instead of adopting either of these forms, 
Aristotle anticipates in ov iravras the coming exception and employs 

both oil Trawms and dXX' ^: cp. Plato, Protag. 354 B, $ excre n aXXo 
TtXos Xtyetv . . . dXX' fj fiSovds re Kal Xwras, where Riddell (Apol. 
p. 175) remarks, 'the SKXo is anticipatory of the exception, and 
this is also pleonastic' 

22. Kal 8oK£i K.T.X. It is thought to be concerned with money, 
because it operates through exchange and money is the starting- 
point and goal of exchange. In reality, however, it deals with 
KTrjiris (37), the same subject-matter as oIkovoiukt) x/oi/^aTto-TiK^ deals 
with, though with a different aim. 'S.Toixeiov, ' id quod est simpH- 
cissimum, ex quo reliqua conficiuntur ' (Bon. Ind. 702 b 32) : cp. 
itopurBivTos o?v ^817 vofiitriMTos, 1 2 5 7 a 4 1 . Hepas, ' quia contenta haec 
ratio rei quaerendae est cum coacervat nummos, nee aliud sibi 
proponit ' (Vict.). Cp. Hegesipp. Fragm. (Meineke, Fr. Com. Gr. 
4- 479)> 

OvK, aXXa TO nepas Ttjs itayeipiKjjs, Svpc, 
evpTjKevai itavrav vopn^e fiovoy ipx: 

and Posidipp. Fr. (ibid. 4. 521), 

T^s rix''"!^ iripas 
tout' eariv, 

Aristotle, however, recognizes a kind of exchange which is carried 
on independently of money and before money comes into being. 

23. KOI . . . Si^. See note on 1 2 53 a 18. Here is a further distinc- 
tion between the Kanrjki.Kri and the oikovo/uk^ ii^pij/iano-nK^. Not only 
does the former seek wealth by meansof exchange alone, but it aims at 
an unlimited amount. It makes wealth, which is a means, an end, 

190 NOTES. 

and as all arts pursue their end to an indeterminate extent, it 
consequently pursues wealth to an indeterminate extent. 

25. €is S.-ne.ip&v eori. Cp. 1258 a I, cw aireipov otv iKeivr)s Ttjs 
c'mdviilas oCar]s, and Metaph. r. 5. 1010 a 22, ehm els aireipov, where 

Bekker conjectures Uvea without necessity: see Bonitz on the 

27. IksIvo. See above on 1237 a 3. 

29. 6 TOiouTOS K.T.X., i. e. 6 xpr)iian<TTiKbs jrXoixos — ' a mass of 

xprjiiara, and especially money, and the quest of this by exchange 

30. TYJs 8° oiKoi'Ofi.iKTJs K.T.X. It is Hatural, looking to rairrfs 
rris XPIA'"'''"""'*^^ 28, to explain rrjs oIkovoiuk^s as ttjs oIkovoiukijs 
XpripananKijs, and with this view to propose the excision of oi, or 
the substitution of av (Bernays), which the wrong reading of oSv 
for aS by n' in 1268 a 39 might well be used to support. But 
perhaps no change is necessary, for ^PW"'"'*"' KTfjoreas is very 
probably that which we are to supply. Transl. : ' but of house- 
keeping, not money-making, acquisition of commodities there is a 
measure, for money-making is not the business of the house- 
keeping acquisition of commodities.' ToOto appears to refer to 
6 ToioiJTOs irXovTos K.T.\. Contrast 38, &(TTf BoKel n<r\ tout" clvai ttjs 
oiKOfo^iK^f ^Xprjireas Trjs ;(pT;/iaT«rTtKijsj i'pyov — i. e. rj av^cTK. 

32. T'jj (j.eV. Vict. ' hac quidem ' — ' si ita rem attendimus, 
id est si argumentis ducimur.' The reasoning referred to is that 
which is set forth in 1257 a 10-31, where we learn that 
true wealth is that which is necessary to sustenance and for the 
purposes of the household generally, and that this kind of wealth is 
limited by the needs of the household (cp. also 1256 b 26-37). 
Lamb., however, followed by Bernays, translates ' huic quidem ' — 
i. e. for the oiKovopMri x/Jij/iaTio-Toci} — not rightly, as it seems to me. 

33. em 8c k.t.X., ' but we see the opposite occurring in the 
experience of life.' For avpfiaiveiv im, cp. de Gen. An. 2. 5. 741 b 

1 9, avpL^alvet, b' iin navrav to TcXcuTatoc ywop^vov wparov aTroKemciv, to 
8f wparov TeXeuTaTov. Aristotle is met by a contrariety between 6 
Xdyos and TO yivo/ifva (or to. avpPaivovra), and We might expect that 
he would apply the famous principle of de Gen. An. 3. 10. 760 b 

27 sqq., en pev ovv tov \6yov ra irepX t^v ysvetriv tS>v pektrrSfv tovtov 
£;(ft T^v Tp&nov, Koi ix tcov (Tvp^aivfiv Hokovvtoiii irepl avrds' oi pfjv 
eiKriJTTal ye to. (rvp^aivovra iKavas, aXX' iav note Xr/tjiSji, Tore rrj alaBrjiret 
paKKov r] r<5 Xoyo) iriirrevTeoVj Koi rots XoyoLSf eav opoKoyovpeva 8eiKvu<oai 

rots tpatvopevois. But the question here is what ought to be and 
not what is, and to yiv6peva are not as decisive as in a problem of 

1. 9. 1257 b 25—38. 191 

natural history ; men's action, as Aristotle proceeds to point out, 
is in this matter the offspring of mistake. 
6pS>(ji,ey). See critical note. 

irdcTes Y^p k.t.X. Cp. Xen. de Vectig. 4. 'j, xai yap ^ (irmka fiiv, 
iiteihav luava ris KTrjirrfrai tj otfcm, oi fioKa en Trpoaavovvrai' apyvpiov 
Se oi&ils TTO) ovTco iToKii eKTrjcraTO, wirre p,^ en TrpoirSeia-dai. 

35. ainoi' Se k.t.X. What is airav ? I incline to think, not the 
two kinds of xprnj-ana-nKri, but the two kinds of x/";^"<''''<»i' KTrja-is (30), 
or in other words, the two uses of x^wticttkci). The reason why men 
act as if wealth were subject to no limit is the mutual proximity 
and similarity of the two ways of using xpwarto-TiK^. ' For either 
use of xpiz/iaTicrTtK^, being of the same thing, overlaps the other, so 
as to seem one and the same ; for property — the subject-matter of 
both (cp. I. 9. 1257 a 13 sq.) — is applied by both to (or has to do 
■with) the same use, but not with the same aim, the aim of the one 
mode of using it being its increase and that of the other some- 
thing quite different.' The two kinds of xp')/""'"rruci7 are, in fact, 
only two different uses of the same science, or even an identical 
use, only with a different aim. 'EKarepa, which is the reading of 
all known MSS., though three MSS. of the Vet. Int. (b g h) have 
' utrique pecuniativae,' seems to be placed where it is to bring out 
the antithesis to rod airov oSa-a more sharply. Sepulveda appears 
to have found iKoripas in some MSS. (see critical note on 1257 b 
36). There is certainly some strangeness in the immediate 
sequence of cKanpa fj xP'i°'^s ^"^^ '"i^ avTrjs xpw^'"'} S'Hd the genitive 
TTjs avTrjs xp'/o'e'Bs is perplexing. But if we accept, with Bern, and 
Sus., Gottling's emendation rrjs yap airrjs ian <TT)aeas xpw'^h we are 
not quit of our difiBculties, for t^s avTjjs KTjjo-eas is not a satisfactory 
expression. Perhaps the reduction of the two uses of xpwananKf] 
mentioned in 35-36 to the one use not Kara rairov of 37 may be 
no more than the word iiroKKaTTei prepares us for. For the phrase 

TTj! yap avTTJs iorl ^prjaeas KTija^is, Soph. El. II. 171b 29 may be 

compared (the passage also illustrates oi Kara ravTovj^Kal tS>v \6y<ov 

tS)V aiiT&v p.ep tlo'iv ol ^iXepides Ka\ vo^iaTai^ dXX* ov rav avT&v eveKtv' 
Ka\ \6yos 6 avTos piv e<TTai aocjuariKos xal ipiOTiKos, aXK ov Kara tovtov, 
aXX' y /iiv viiaqs ipaa/opevrjs, cpumKos, j) 8i aocplas, aro(j>taTi,K6s. Cp. also 
Pol. 4 (7). 6' 1326 b 33, oTav oXfflS Trepl KTrjaeas Ka\ t^s jrfpt t^v ovalav 
exmopias avp^aivr] iroieiadai, pveiav, rras Sei Kai riva rpmrov ex^'" fpo* '■'J" 
Xp^ct" avTi]v; In 7 (S)- 2. 1302 a 37 we have hv hvo pev ian Tavra 
rots elpjjpevois, dXX* o^x atravTas. ' 

38. &(ne k.t.X. takes up eVaXXdrrei : the two uses of XPW""'"'"'"? 
overlap, and so the end of the KmrriKiKrj xpwi-' — 'he increase of 

19a NOTES. 

property — is taken to be the end of the ohovoiwcfj xP^ais (for 
perhaps it is more natural to supply xp^"'" here than xpif^"""'""'!)' 
Householders are thus led to follow the example of ol xpij/iOTifofteTOt 
in the use of property and to make its indefinite increase their aim. 
Aristotle seems, however, after all (40 sqq.) to trace the confusion 
of the olKovojuKr] xpw^s of property with the KairrfKiKri XPW'^ of it to 
something more than the oraXAa^u of the two — to a wrong view of 
the purpose of life and of the nature of t6 ed ^v. Either men forget 
everything else for mere existence (to Cn"), or they erroneously take 
TO cv ^riv to consist in bodily enjoyment. The same two contrasted 
classes of misusers of property appear in 4 (7). 5. 1326 b 36 sqq., 
and in a saying ascribed to Aristotle by Plutarch (de Cupiditate 

Divit. 8. 527 A), (TV 8c ovk duoveis, (pfftToiiev, 'Api(TTOTc\ovs \eyovTos, on 
oi jxkv oil ;(pSi'Tat [toji ;(p^/tao'0'], oi &e irapaxpSivTai (I owe this quotation 
to an unpublished essay by the late Mr. R. Shute). As to the former 
of the two classes, cp. Eth. Nic. 4. i. 1120a 2, Sokei S' airoKeiA ns 
avTOv thai koI t) tjjs oitrlas (fiBopd, ias toC ^v Sia tovtiov ovros, and Dio 
Chrysost. Or. 6. 209 R. As to the misapprehension of to eu ^v 
by the second, cp. Plato, Rep. 329 A, ayavaKrovinv i>s luyaKav Tivav 

cmcaTeprifiivoi, kcX ToVe ftev (while in the enjoyment of the pleasures 
of youth) ev ^avTcs, vvv Si oiSe fwvTcs : Eurip. Fragm. 284. 3-6: 
Hyperid. Fragm. 209 Blass, p-r/ Sivaa-dai KoKas Cn"! /"? P^6«>v ra xaKa 
TO. iv Tw /3ia> (and these Hyperides notoriously interpreted in this 
way): Theopomp. Fr. 260. Our own expression 'living well' is, 
however, illustration enough. 

40. T^ji' K.T.X., ' their wealth in money ' : see below on 1259 b 19. 
1258 a. 1. Eis aTreipor . . . oSoii|s. See note on 1257 b 25. 

2. oo-ot Se Kal k.t.X., ' and those who do aim at'; or perhaps the 
sense of Kai is ' at all ' (see Riddell, Apology of Plato, p. 168). 

4. Kal tout', i. e. not only t6 f^j/, but also to jrpos rag aafumncts 

6. i\riKu9ev. For this use of the word, see 8 (6). 2. 1317 b 
14 sq. and Bon. Ind. 288 a 52 sq. 

10. Tuc SucdfiEui' here seems to include not only arts like 
cTpaTqyiKTf, but also virtues like dvhpia : contrast Eth. Nic. 2. 4. 
1105 b 20 sqq. and 5. i. 1129 a 11 sqq. 

ofi kotA ^iaw. Plato (Rep. 346) had already insisted that pay 
is the end of the art of payment, not of medicine, or building, or 

navigation (cp. Rep. 342 D, a/ioXdyijTm yap 6 aKpi^rjs larpos a-anoTaiv 

ehai apxav, aXX' oi xpw"'-'^'^^)- There is perhaps a reminiscence 
of the passage before us in Magn. Mor. i. 25. 1192a 15 sqq., and 
possibly in Lucian, Cynicus 545. 

1. 9. 1257 1b 40— 10. 1258 a 20. 193 

11. oTpaTKiyiKijs. Generals of the type of Chares (see Theopomp. 
ap. Athen. Deipn. 532 b sq.) were perhaps present to Aristotle's mind. 
Aristotle does not refer to the ways of contemporary politicians, but 
he might well have done so : see Prof. S. H. Butcher, Demosthenes 
(p. 13), who cites Demosth. Olynth. 3. c. 26 and Isocr. Areopag. 
§ 25. Sophists also used their (paivofihrj a-ixjtta with a view to 

■Xprnianajios, Soph. El. II. I7lb27 sqq. 

13. TouTo, i. e. TO ;(/ji7/jaTtfeo-fla(, which must be supplied from 


tAos, 'the end of all these bwaneis.' Cp. 8 (6). 2. 1317 b 5 sq. 
for a very similar expression. 

15. 81' aiTiai> Tifa k.t.X. It has been explained (1257 b" 40- 
1258a 14) that men come to need the unsound kind of xp^- 
luuumKt), because they live for to ^v or for to eS f^v wrongly in- 

17. r[ irepi tt|i' Tpo^v. The sound form of xpw"""'"''^ is, how- 
ever, concerned with the acquisition of many things besides Tpo^iJ 
— e. g. i(r6r]s, Spyava, SovXoi, as is explained in c. 8. 1256 b 15 sqq. 
Still Aristotle viewed articles of subsistence as the type of true 
wealth, herein apparently following the inquirers referred to in 
1257 b 10 sqq., and trifling inexactnesses are not rare in the 
Politics, so that this one need not disturb us. 

19. e| &px'>is> c. 8. 1256 a 4, though there no reference had been C. 10. 
made to jroXmmj. It was evidently a common view not only that 

the main function of the head of a household was to add to the 
household income, but also that the statesman's main business was 
to provide the State with as large a revenue as possible : cp. c. 11. 

1259 a 33) S'o'''fp Tivh Koi TroKiTevovTai tSiv woKiTevofiivav TauTa ix6vov, 
and see the account given of the ttoXjVtjs ayaOos in Rhet. ad Alex. 
39. 1446 b 33, oo'm wpocoSovs jrapatTKevd^ei jrKfiaras, rav ISuot&v pjfiiva 

hrjiuvav, and Theopompus' pictiu-e of Eubulus (Fr. 96 : Miiller, Fr. 

Hist. Gr. I. 293) — E0;3ouXos . . . Sij/xay<ayos rjv fTTKJiavia-TaTos, «rifie\^j 
Te Kai <j>iK67rovos, apyipiov re avj(yov iropi^av T019 'Adrjvaiots Siivetfie' 816 
Koi Trjv rroKiv iir\ t^s tovtov jroXiTeias dvavdpoTaTrjv kol p^Ovp^ordrrjv arvpe^rj 

yevea-Bai. Aristotle's object here is to correct these erroneous con- 
ceptions of the office of the Statesman and the head of a household. 

20. ou, not ovK, though preceding dXXa, as in 1258a 33 and 
3. 14. 1284 b 39. 'Ovi is used before a vowel without the final 
K when it stands at the end of a clause and when it is emphatic : 
of. Xen. Hell. 2. 2. 2: Cyr. 2. 3. 8, 5. 5. 31, 8. i. 5 : Mem. 4. 7. 7' 
(Holden, Oeconomicus of Xenophon, p. 191). For the transition 
to oKka, cp. 1258 a 33: 3. 7. 1279 b i: 6 (4). 8. 1294 a 2. 

VOL. 11. O 

194 NOTES. 

21. TouTo, not probably 17 •)(ifn]\i.a.Ti(mKi\, though this would harmonize 

well with C. 8. 1256 b 28, but ■)(pi]\ui.Ta as in 35 (piXio-T-a 8e, KoBdirep 
e'lpriTai wporepov, Set <j)i(rei tovto vTrdpxetv). For the thought that 

the statesman has not, any more than the weaver, to produce the 
material on which he exercises his art, cp. 4 (7). 4. 1325 b 40 sqq.: 
13. 1332 a 28. Cp. also Plato, Laws 889 A. Aristotle speaks 
somewhat diflferently in Phys. 2. 2. 194 b 7, iv /lev oSv rois Kara Texvi" 
^fieis irotov/iev Trjv vXr/v tov epyov fveica, iv Si rois (jiviriKois VTrdpxft ovcra. 
&<rnep yolp koI . . . outu Kai. See Sus.', Ind. Gramm. &a-jrep. 

23. Tpo(}>^i' K.T.X. ' So for sustenance nature must make over 
land or sea or something else.' Cp. Xen. Mem. 4. 3. 5 sq., and 
Antiphon, Tetral. 3. r. 2. For a similar use of Tpo(f>riv, cp. Xen. 

Oecon. 17. 14, & &y iicelvai ipyairdiievM Tpo<j)riv KaraSavTai. For oKko 
Ti, cp. 8. C. 1256 a 37j Xi/ivas Kai eXij Kai norap.ovs fj BaKarrav Toiairrjv, 

The food of animals, indeed, is rather that which comes from earth 
and water, than earth and water (de Gen. An. 3. ir. 762 b 12); 
earth and water are food rather for plants (ibid.) : still food is said 
to be a mixture of earth and water in de Part. An. 3. 5. 668 b 11. 

24. ix. 8e Toiriav k.t.X. Schneider, Bonitz (according to Sus. Qu. 
Crit. p. 356), and Susemihl himself explain ex rovrav here as = fiera. 
TaOra, and there is much to be said for their view, though perhaps 
this use of ix tovtwv is more common in Xenophon than in 
Aristotle (as to Plato, see Riddell, Apol. p. 162). This rendering 
certainly has the merit of softening the harshness of the juxta-posi- 
tion of TovTav and raCra. But I incline on the whole to think that 
in the context in which it stands « tovtcov means ' starting with 
this provision.' Tavra must mean ' food,' not ' land, sea, etc.,' for 
it is the function of olKovop.iKri to deal with the former, not the latter; 
the word is perhaps in the plural because there are many kinds of 

food — TpoKJifi fK yrjs, Tpoifiri iic SaKdrrris k.t,\. 

26. YKurai. Cp. Phys. 2. 2. 194 a 36,800 Sfi ai apxova-ai t^s t!Xi;s 
Kai al yvapi^ovcrm Tcp^r/ai, fj re pfpm/iei^ Kai t^s TroojriK^s r/ apxiTCKTOviKfj. 
The ship-captain (representing 17 xp<»/*e'"7)> toWc ti t6 elSos tov n-ijSa- 
Xiou, yvapl^ci Kai imTarrei' 6 Bi (the apxiriicrav who superintends its 
construction), « Trot'ou ^uXou Kai iroitav Kivqa-eav eo-rai. The claims of 

o xpa/^fos to be credited with knowledge are also maintained in 
Pol. 3. II. 1282 a 17 sq. 

27. Kttl ydp. ' For, if this were not so.' 

31. For eirei followed by oSna, cp. 1253 b 23-31. The house- 
holder must know bad commodities from good, but he need not 
know even the sound methods of producing or acquiring them. 
Cp. Cic. de Rep. 5. 3. 5. 

1. 10. 1258 a 21— 1258 b 2. 195 

33. ruv xp^iC'iiTii))'. The article is probably added, because the 
meaning is ' the commodities essential to the household.' 

34. "The use of the word /laXtora implies that occasionally the 
means of subsistence may not ^uo-tt iwdpxfiv, in which case the 
householder must provide them as best he can. The territory of 
the State may be so infertile and the sea so barren of fish, that a 
resort to other modes of acquiring sustenance than the obtainment 
of vegetable and animal food from the soil and sea may be in- 
evitable. Aristotle's meaning may be illustrated by the instance of 

Aegina : cp. Ephor. ap. Strab. p. 376, eimopiov yap yevea-Bai, 8ia Tr)v 
Ximp&rqra rrjs x^P<" ''Si' dvBpanrau BdKaTTOvpyoivrav ifmopiKSis. 
irpoTEpoi', 1258 a 23. 

35. The proof that it is for Nature to supply the animal once 
brought into the world with food, is that every creature finds its 
food in 'the unexhausted residuum of the matter from which it 
takes its origin, or in other words receives it from the hands of 
Nature (c. 8. 1256 b 7 sqq. : see note on 1256 b 12). So we read 

in de Gen. et Corr. 2. 8. 335 a 10, aitavra fiev yap rpecjieTai, Tois avTois 

e| &uircp ia-Tiv. Not only is the earliest food used by an animal 
born with him and the gift of Nature, but animals subsist through- 
out life on the products of the earth and water of which they are 
made (Meteor. 4. 4. 382 a 6 sqq.). Cp. Oecon. i. 2. 1343 a 30, 

€Tt de Kat Tav Kara (jyvatv [^ yeapyiKTjy ^aei yap affi Trjs firjTpos t] Tpo~ 
^^ jraalv i<Tnv, aarc Kat rots dvBpinrois dirb t^s yrjs, and Lucr. 2. 1 1 56, 

Sed genuit tellus eadem quae nunc alit ex se: 
Aristotle, however, would say 'land and water,' and would speak 
not of the mother, but of the unused residuum as the true source 
of food. But, if food is always won from land and water, all other 
commodities, it is implied, should be sought from the same quarter, 
and the Science of Supply should thus procure them. 

38. iroo-ii'. Cp. C. 8. 1256 b 7, ^ f'f" o^" TotauTij Kiijais vit avTqs 
(palveTai T^y (j>v<Teas bihopAvr) vcuriv (i. e. itacn rots t?o's), though here 

■naai. seems to mean 'for all human beings,' as in c. 2. 1253 ^ 30- 

2. dir" dXXi^Xbic stands in contrast to dnh tS>v KapTrav (cat tSk ^^av. 1258 b. 
Cp. Rhet. 2. 4. 1381 a 21, 816 roiis iXivdcpiovs Kal tovs dv&peiovs TijiSxn 
KoL TOVS SiKaiovs' toiovtovs 8' VTroXafi^dvovfTi tovs pi] d(f)' erepav (mVTas' 
TOiovToi 8' 01 OTTO Toii ipyu^eaBoj,, Ktu Tovrav oi diro ycapyias Kxii tS>v SKKtov 

01 avTovpyoi fioXtora. The idea is still further worked out in Oecon. 

I. 2. 1343 a 27, ^ 8€ yeapyuai paKicrTa [xTfjcrfffls ejrt/ieXeta] on Sueaia' 
ov yap dit dvOpimaiv oUff eKovrmv, aiaTrep KaTrrfKela (tat at p,i(r6apviKai, oCt' 

oKovTav, &<rnep ai noXepiKuL Here the Writer has before him Plato, 
Soph. 219 D. 

O 3 

196 NOTES. 

■^ oPoXocrraTiK^, ' the trade of a petty usurer ' (L. and S.) : see 
also Buchsenschiitz, Besitz und Erwerb, p. 501, n. 7, who quotes 

from EtjTllolog. Magn. 725. 13, o^oXooTaras ymiv 01 'At-tocoi tov% oklya 

Savel^ovtas eXeyoi' tin-ep/SoXucSy. ' Aristotle's objection seems to apply 
as much to lenders of large sums at usury as to lenders of small ; 
but we find TOKtorai koto fUKpbv dm jroXX^ singled out as objects of 
obloquy in the Nicomachean Ethics also (4- 3- 1121b 34). Cp. M. 
Cato, de Re Rustica, praef. : maiores nostri hoc sic habuerunt, et 
ita in legibus posuerunt, furem dupli condemnari, feneratorem quad- 
rupli ; quanto peiorem civem existimarint feneratorem quam furem, 
hinc licet existimari. See also Cic. de Offic. 2. 25. 89, and Sandys 
and Paley on Demosth. contra Steph. i. c. 70. 

3. 8ii TO K.T.X., 'because profit is acquired' (literally perhaps, ' the 
acquisition of profit results': cp. for kt^o-w, 1257b 30 and 1256a 19), 
' from money taken by itself, and not from exchange, for which 
money was introduced.' For the ellipse of otto tovtov before 
f(t>' Sirep eVopiV^v, cp. I. 3. 1253 b 3 : 5 (8). 5. 1340 a 27 : 4 (7). 
13. 1332a 29-30. In usury, according to Aristotle here, the profit 
comes from money taken by itself, not subjected to any process of 
exchange, nor converted into corn or any other commodity — ^the 
use for which it is intended. It was introduced to serve as a 
medium of exchange, not to grow, but usury makes it grow. It 
makes money come'' out of money, and hence the Greek word 
for interest (tokos), for as children are like their parents, so is 
interest money no less than the principal which begets it. Things, 
however, should be used for the purpose for which they exist 
(c. 9. 1258 a 10) ; hence this mode of acquisition is in an especial 
degree unnatural. Nd/no-fta i/o/xiV/xaxos is perhaps, like Ai/fioo-fleKijs 
Ariiwa-de'vovs, meant to express a filial relation. The nature of 
Interest on Money seems to be better understood in c. 11 (see 
below on 21). 
C. 11. 9. We now come to a chapter differing both in matter and 
manner from the chapters which precede and follow it, and for 
. which we can hardly be said to have been prepared in advance. 
A friend has expressed to me a doubt of its authenticity, and even 
if we hold it to be Aristotelian, it might be (as some other pass- 
ages of the Politics appear to be) a subsequent addition, due 
either to Aristotle himself or to some succeeding editor. The 
question deserves examination, and it will be well to notice here a 
few considerations on either side. 

The opening words of c. 8 promise an inquiry into all kinds of 
property and all forms of the Science of Supply. The question 

1. 10. 1258 b 3—11. 1258 b 9. 197 

■whether the Science of Supply is a part of the Science of House- 
hold Management is here indeed singled out as the first question to 
be discussed, but we gather that other questions also will be 
treated. Still no reference is made to a division of the inquiry into 
a part relating to to tt/jAs t^v yvatnv and a part relating to rh nphs 
■njv xp^c'". C. 1 1 , however, starts with this distinction. ''EireX fie to. 

irpos Tjjv yvSxriv fiKopiKa/iev IkovSis, to irpos t^v xP?""'" S" Bif\6eiu (c. II. 

mt(.). We have learnt — this seems to be the meaning — to dis- 
tinguish the sound and unsound forms of the Science of Supply. 
We have also learnt how far the oiKovofUKos has, as such, to con- 
cern himself with the Science of Supply ; but we have not yet 
learnt in any degree how to practise this Science, nor which 
of its branches are most safe or most profitable or most alien to 
a freeman, nor generally what are the principles of successful 
money-making. There is nothing un-Aristotelian in giving advice 

to lovers of money-making (roir nfiatri tt/v xpr^imTianKrjV, 0. II. 
1259 a 5), for Aristotle disapproves of the tyranny and the extreme 
democracy at least as strongly as he disapproves of a money-making 
spirit, yet he advises both these constitutions how best to secure 
their own continuance. Besides, States may find the inquiries of 
this chapter useful (1259 a 33 sq.). And if to us instruction how 
to farm and trade seems to fall outside the province of a treatise 
on Household Management and Politics, this was not the view of 
Aristotle's time, for Xenophon had sketched in his Oeconomicus 
how a farm was to be managed ; the only novelty in this chapter 
is that it studies the principles of commercial success. 

And then again, if Aristotle does not prepare us in c. 8 or else- 
where in the First Book for a consideration of to ;rpoi t^v xp^""' in 
relation to the Science of Supply, it is nevertheless the case that in 
entering on the question of slavery (c. 3. 1253 b 14 sqq.) he had 
announced his aim to be not only to arrive at conclusions on the 
subject better than those commonly held, but also to throw light 
on the use to be made of the slave (to « wphi Trjv avaymiav xp^iav 
tbapxv, 1253b 15), and a similar inquiry respecting xP'll^<^"<rrMri is 
not unnatural. Throughout the Politics to xpw'i^o", no less than t6 
opeiv, is kept in view (see e.g. 2. i. 1260 b 32 sq. : 6 (4). i. 
1288 b 35 sqq.). 

On the other hand, the account given of xpwa"<"'«)j in c. 1 1 
differs in many respects from that given in cc. 8-10. Three kinds 
of xp'7;«o"<r"'e^ are now distinguished, not two only as before — the 
natural kind (or, as it is also now called, fj oiVftordTij), 17 liera^XriTtK^, 
and a kind midway between the two of which we have heard 

198 ■ NOTES. 

nothing in cc. 8-10, and we find labouring for hire (/lurBapvla) and 
lending money at interest (tokutiws) ranged under v fn^ra^rrnKt} 
■XpriiumanKj], whereas in cc. 8-10 nothing has been said of futrdapvia, 
and o^oKotnoTua) has been described as winning money, not from 
any process of exchange, but from the barren metal itself. The 
inclusion, however, of the work of the Texvirr]s, as a form of p.i<r- 
Bapvia, under ^ p,eTa^T)Tuaj xptl""''-''''''''") i^ quite borne out by i. 13. 
1 260 b 2, where tixvItoi are said not to exist by nature, though 
it does not seem to agree with the recognition of the Texvirtis 
elsewhere (4 (7). 8. 1328 b zi: 6 (4). 4. 1291 a i sqq.) as 
one of the necessary elements of a State. The reference to 
writers on the subject and to ra Xeyo'/iEva <nropd8Tjv [i2^8h 39 sqq.), 
again, is in accordance with the advice given in Rhet. i. 4. 
1359 b 30 sqq., and this passage of c. 11 may well have been 
present to the mind of the writer of the so-called Second Book 
of the Oeconomics, whoever he was (see Oecon. 2. 1346 a 26 sqq.). 
Hieronymus of Rhodes, as has been, observed elsewhere, may 
possibly have had a passage from this chapter (1259 a 9 sqq.) 
before him. The writer of the sketch or epitome of the Political 
Theory of the Peripatetics which is preserved in the Eclogae of 
Stobaeus (2. 6. 17) would seem to be acquainted with the earlier 
part of c. 1 1 down to the notice of peraKKevTiKri, for he says. Si' o koL 

TToXXSv cijmeipov, Seiu (hai tov otKovo/uKcij.', yeapyias Trpo^areias fUToKKtias, 
Iva Toiis XvaiTeXfaTaTovs apa km SiKmorarovs Kapnovs SiayivaxrKrj : he 
may well have been acquainted with the later part also, though he ■ 
does not mention anything from it. The following passage from 
the First Book of the Oeconomics may likewise be based on the 

teaching of C. 11 — KT^(7C<oy 8i Trpamj iTrip,i\eia fj Kara (jjiaiv' Kara 
<j)v(nu 6e yetopyiKrj nporipa, Kai hevrepcu, 0(rai aTro ttis yrjs, oiov fitraXXeuriK^ 
K.a\ ct Tis oKKrj roiavTrj (p. 2. I343 a 25Sqq.). 

On the whole, I incline to think that this chapter is Aristotelian, 
and perhaps coeval with the rest of the First Book. 

10. irdrra 81 t& Toiaura k.t.X. Stahr translates : ' auf diesem 
ganzen Gebiet hat freilich die Theorie freies Spiel, wahrend die 
Praxis an nothwendige Bedingungen gebunden ist.' Bern, and 
Sus. follow him in this translation, and Mr. Welldon's version is — 
' it is to be observed, however, that in all such matters speculation 
is free, while in practice tljere are limiting conditions.' Vict. 
however translates — 'cuncta autem huiuscemodi contemplationem 
h^bent libero homine dignam, usum vero necessarium ' — and 
I incline to this view of the passage. We have e\cv6epa ayopd, 

4 (7). 12. 1331a 32: eXcvdepa eVtari/fiij, Metaph. A. 2. 982 b 27. 

1. 11. 1258 b 10 — 12. 199 

Prof. Tyrrell {Hermalhena, 12. 28) 'thinks it will be found that 
iXevdepos when of two terminations always means " liberalis," not 
" liber." ' The aim of the remark will then be to distinguish between 
what is liberal and what is not so in relation to these matters — an 
aim which appears also below, 1258b 34-39, as well as in the 

contrast of evTifwTepa and dvayKaiorepa tpya, c. 7. 1255b 28, and in 

6 (8). 2. 1337b 15 sqq. We are told, in fact, that though 
speculation about matters relating to the practice of x/"?/witiotoci7 
is liberal, the exercise of the arts which fall under the head of 
XPwaTKTTiKri is not so. So in de Part. An. i. 5. 645 a 5 sqq. 
Aristotle tells us that he will treat of Zoology /jijScv Trapdkmav cU 

bwajuv jiffre art/idrepov (UijTe TijiiaiTcpov' Koi yap iv tois p.^ Kej^apttrpivots 
avrav (sc. tSiv C^av) irpbs Trjv aiadrjo-iv, KaTol T^v deiopiav Spas fj hripunip- 
yri<Taiia ^vitk dpr])(avovs fi&ovas 7rape)(ti tois hvvapAvois Tar aiTias yvapi^eiv 

Koi <pi(T€i <l)iKoiT6(j>ois. It appears from Plato, Laws 889 D, that there 
were those who ranked agriculture very high among the sciences. 
12. 2oTi Sc K.T.X. Varro in his De Re Rustica (lib. 2. praef. 5) 
gives a similar account of the qualifications which a farmer should 
possess : — quarum (sc. agriculturae et pastionis) quoniam societas 
inter se magna . . . qui habet praedium, habere utramque debet 
' disciplinam, et agriculturae et pecoris pascendi, et etiam villaticae 
pastionis : ex ea enim quoque fructus toUi possunt non mediocres, 
ex ornithonibus ac leporariis et piscinis. Compare also the open- 
ing lines of Virgil's Georgics, and Cicero de Senectute ig. 54. 
The following passage of Varro, de Re Rustica (2. i. 16) is very 
similar to that before us — in qua regione quamque potissimum 
pascas; et quando, et quels ? ut capras in montuosis potius locis et 
fruticibus, quam in herbidis campis, equas contra; neque eadem 
loca aestiva et hiberna idonea omnibus ad pascendum. It will be 
noticed that Aristotle places 'res pecuaria' before ' agricultura,' 
perhaps because pastoral farming long prevailed more extensively 
in Greece than agriculture (Buchsenschutz, Besitz und Erwerb, 
pp. 208 sqq., 313), perhaps because it was more lucrative (cp. 
Cic. de Offic. 2. 25. 89), perhaps because animals like the horse 
and ox deserve precedence. We hear nothing from him as to the 
employment of slaves as a source of profit. 

Xprjaifia (cp. 30, dmpnav piv xpriaipiav 8e) apparently takes up ra 

irpbs T^v x/'?"'"' and bears probably somewhat the same meaning as 

in Rhet. I. 5. 1361 a 15, ravra Si Trdvra Koi d(r<j)(Afl koi iXevdepia Kal 
XpfjiTipa' coTt Se )(pTi<npa pev /iSXXov tq KapTtipa, e\fv6cpia 8e ra Ttpbs 
diroKavinV Kapwipa fie Xeyco d(j)' &u ai irpoaoSoi, dnoKaviTTiKa fie d(j} &tv 
prjSiv irapa t^v xPV"'''" y'l-yverai, ti km a^iov. 

aoo NOTES. 

KTii|jiaTa is used in 2. i. 1261 a 5 in the same sense as nTqa-eLt, 
1261a 8, but here it seems to be used in a sense exclusive of 
•yeopyi'a (cp. 17), and the illustrations which follow seem to show 
that its meaning is ' farm-stock ' (Vict. ' pecora '). Horses, oxen, 
sheep, and some other animals (15) are included under KTrifiara, but 
not, it would appear, the water-animals and birds referred to in 19. 

13. TTus. Vict. ' quomodo habita et curata.' 

14. KTijffis iroia tis, 'what course should be followed in the 
getting of horses,' so as to secure the maximum of profit. Kr^o-ts 
includes both breeding and purchase: iroia refers to quantity, 
quality, kind of animal, etc. 

15. T&v Xoi-n&v liaay, e. g. mules, asses, swine, goats. As to the 
animals referred to, see above on 12. 

irpSs oWnjXa. Vict, 'oportet quasi conferre ipsa inter se, videreque 
ex equorumne gregibus sive armentis boum maiores utilitates 

18. rfii]. Cp. de Gen. An. 2. 6. 742 a 19, to 8e nparepov rjbri 
TroKKa^as ftrriv: ibid. 2. 6. 'J42h 33, ap^fj 8' ev fiev rots okivtitois 
TO Ti eariv, iv Se Tois yivopivois TJhrj ttXeiouj : ibid. I. 20. 729 a 19, ek 
fie ToC (rvvurraVTOs irparav e^ cvos ^8?) iv ylverm povov. These passages 

may serve to illustrate the use of rj&rf in the text, though the 
word does not perhaps bear quite the same meaning in all of 
them. In the passage before us it may be roughly rendered by 
' again.' 

<|n\rjs . . . ir6<|)uT£un,^ni]s. The distribution of the two kinds of 
cultivation throughout Greece is well described by Biichsenschutz, 
Besitz und Erwerb, pp. 293-6. As to Italy, cp. Varro de Re 
Rustica, I. 2. 6: contra quid in Italia utensile non modo non 
nascitur, sed etiam non egregium fit ? quod far conferam Campano ? 
quod triticum Appulo ? quod vinum Falerno ? quod oleum Venafro ? 
Non arboribus consita Italia est, ut tota pomarium videatur ? An 
Phrygia magis vitibus cooperta, quam Homerus appellat dfwreXo'fo-- 
^av, quam haec ? aut Argos, quod idem poeta noKlmvpov ? 
- (leXiTToupyias. As Vict, points out, honey was of more import- ' 
ance to the ancients than to us. See Biichsenschutz, p. 228 sq., who 
remarks that ' though sugar was known to the ancients, they used it 
solely for medical purposes, so that the only material they pos- 
sessed for sweetening food was honey.' Plato's citizens in the 

Laws are to be yempyol kqi vopets Koi pfKiTTOvpyoi (842 D). 

19. Kai rav aXXuv taav. Should we translate 'and concerning 
the other animals, whether water-animals or winged,' or should we 
supply 'the management of before 'the other animals' from the 

1. 11. 1258 b 13—21. aoi 

latter portions of the words yewpyias, lieXirrovpylas ? Perhaps we 
are intended to supply these words. Aristotle seems here to 
refer, not to fish and fowl in a wild state, but to poultry-houses 
and fish-preserves. In his time these appurtenances of a farm 
would be on a simple and moderate scale, wholly unlike that of 
the 'villatica pastio' in the days when Roman luxury was at its 
height (Varro, de Re Rustica 3. 3. 6 sqq.). Yet a great IxBvoTpo^eiov 
existed at Agrigentum early in the fifth century before Christ (Diod. 

11. 25.4). 

20. TYJs . . . oiKEioTdrris xpifioTiorriKiis, ' of the Science of Supply 
in its most undistorted form.' The word oIkCios is used by 
Aristotle in connexion with xipios and with Kara <j>i(nv, and in 
contradistinction to pia (see Bon. Ind. s. v.). Cp. also c. 9. 1257 a 

12, ov Trjv olxeiav ;fp^(rw, ov yap SKKayris evcKev ■ycyovei', 

21. TauTa (topia Kal irpura. Mopia is sometimes used, like p-fprj 
(Bon. Ind. 455 b 40 sqq.), of ' ea quae naturam alicuius rei con- 
stituunt ac distinguunt' (Bon. Ind. 473 b 55 sqq.), and this would 
seem to be its meaning here. The simplest elements of a thing 
are often called npSyra, as in Pol. I. 3. 1253 b g, irpSna kcu iKdxiara 
/iepij oiKtas (see Bon. Ind. 652 b 42 sqq.), but here irpSn-a appears 
rather to mean ' the primary or leading elements ' (cp. p-iyivTov 22) : 
see Bon. Ind. 653 a 26 sqq., ' irpSrros significat ipsam per se rei 
notionem et naturam (ut quae iam a principio sit et rem con- 
stituat).' So we have in 28, t^s jrptinjs xpvi"'-"'^^'''"!' (<^P- Oecon. i. 
2. 1343 a 25 sqq.), and in de Caelo i. 3. 270b 2, t6 nparov tS>u 
crapaTav. The account now given of the various forms of the 
oiKMoran; xPW"crT«^, which is referred to in 28 as ^ Kara ^imv, 
is not harmonized with the account given in c. 8 of the /3to4 
included under the natural xpvi^"°'"i^'l '• for instance, we now hear 
nothing of \ria-Tfla. Aristotle, however, here mentions only to irpSrra. 

■rijs 8e fi,cTapXi)TiKT]s. Abeady in c. 10. 1258 b i the unsound 
XpripaTurruoj has been called /ifrajSXijrue^, instead of KainjKiitfj, and 
here the change is especially necessary, for epiropla could hardly 
be brought under KaTrrjKiKri without some sense of strangeness. 
'Exchanging' comprises, we are told, the transport and sale 
of commodities (cpiropta), and the letting-out of money {TOKurp/is) 
or of labour, skilled or unskilled Qua-dapvia). ' This classification/ 
says Buchsenschutz (Besitz und Erwerb, p. 455), 'nearly ap- 
proaches that accepted by modern political economy, inasmuch as 
the first of the three departments has to do with traffic by way of 
sale, and the second and third with traffic by way of letting, 
the object let out being in the one case capital (money, land, etc.), 

aoa NOTES. 

and in the other labour.' Aristotle, however, makes no reference 
to the letting of land. Biichsenschutz points out that in Plato's 
Sophist (219 D) ula-Bams is already brought under /iera^'kijTiKfi 
(Besitz und Erwerb, p. 251 n.). He also compares Plato, Rep. 

371 E, ot Sfj TTcakovvres ttjv rrjs liTxios xpeiav KcKkrjvrai liurOaToi, In 

the passage before us Aristotle regards the work of the fiavava-os 
TexvtTTjs as a form of lua-Bapvla: in Pol. 5 (8). 2. 1337b 12 sqq., 
however, luaBapviicai. ipyaaiai are distinguished from ^dvava-oi 


22. i<auK\T|pia ^opTi\yia irapdarao-is. Sus. and others translate 
the first two words, ' maritime trade,' ' inland trade ' ; but Buch- 
senschiitz (p. 456 and note i) explains them otherwise. According 
to him, ifiiropia is here resolved into the three elements — the 
provision of a ship, the conveyance of cargo, and exposure for 
sale. The j/auxXijpos lets out a ship, sometimes (Xen. Mem. 
3. 9. 11) himself taking passage in it; the merchant transports 
goods from point to point; and the salesman, wholesale or retail", 
sets out goods for sale. 'Eimopla is thus made to include the 
work of the (caTnjXoy, if this interpretation is correct. That i^op/rryyla 
does not refer exclusively to land-trade, appears from C. F. Her- 
mann, Griech. Antiqq. 3. § 45. 6 (ed. 2). According to BQchsen- 
schutz (p. 458), the transport of commodities was effected in 
Greece almost entirely by sea. It should be added that the same 
individual might often be vaixkripos, (jioprrjyos, and wholesale salesman 
in one. 

23. irapdoToais would probably be safer and less remunerative 
than vavK\iipta and (jtopnjyia. As to the chances of vavK\ripia, see 
Eth. Eud. 7. 14. 1247 ^ 21 sqq., and for the general Spos dir<piAeias, 
Rhet. I. 5. 1361a 19 sqq. A shield-manufactory was safer than 
a bank (see Sandys and Paley on Demosth. Pro Phorm. c. 11). 
The remark in the text is interposed to give useful guidance in 

the practice of p^pij/iarioTuc^ (cp. tq wpos rrlv ;(p^CTii' Sfl fiifXflfii', 

1258 b g) : we find a similar hint in Oecon. i. 6. 1344 b 28 sqq. 

26. tS>v Arixyav k.t.X. is masc. There is no need to alter t^x"^" 
to TexnTav. Similar transitions occur in i. 10. 1258 a 33-34 {rov 
olicovoftov . . . Trjs imrtptTiKTfi) and 3. 1. 1275 a 23-26. As the labour 
of the 61JS is of a purely physical kind, he is nearly akin to the 
slave: cp. 1258b 38 and 5 (8). 2. 1337 b 21, ^rueoi' mi Sov\ik6v. 

27. TpiTot' 8e eiBos k.t.X. How can this kind be said to possess 
any of the characteristics of /ierajSXTjruoj ? Probably because, 
though the commodities it acquires are acquired from the earth, 
it does not seek wealth dn6 tZv Kapirav xal rav fffluy {1258 a 38), but 

1. 11. 1258 ta 22—37. 203 

seeks it from things uKapira fuv xp^frifia he, such as timber-trees, just 
as iirra^XifTKr] seeks it cm aWrjKav Or from money. 

29. So-o K.T.X. ' (Having to do with) things won from the earth 
and from products of the earth not yielding fruit, but still useful.' 
For the ellipse, see notes on 1253b 3, 1256 b 26. Of commodities 
won cmo yjjs marble or chalk may serve as an example : timber 
is an instance of a commodity won dn& rS>v ino yTjs ywoixevav 
aKofmav jtiv xpw'-H''"'' Se. Metals probably fall under the former 
head, notwithstanding that they are called, together with some other 
mineral products, to iv Tjj yjj yivonem (Meteor. 3. 6. 378 a 19 sqq.). 

32. liSiri, 'again' (see above on 18). The indifferent useofyims 
and eiSos should be noted here. Cp. Rhet. i. 2-3, 1358 a 33-36. 

35. ^opriK6r. Cp. Rhet. 3. I.'l403 b 35, oun-w 8e avyKeirai rexvt) 
iTtpi avrSiu, Ejret mi to itepl tijv Xe'^ik di^e irpaqkOev' Kat Sokci (jjopriKov 
thai, koKSjs xmo\aii^av6y.evov. To Overdo the illustration of one's 
meaning is (jiopriKov (Poet. 26. 1461 b 27 sqq.). And those who 
pay too much attention to to xpijo-'^oK especially merit the epithet 
(4 (7)- M- 1333 b 9: 6 (8). 3- 1338 b 2). Cp. also 7 (5). 11. 

1315 a 40, irepUpyov fie to Xeyeiv Kaff cKa<rTov tS>v roiovrav : Metaph. 

•^- 3- 995 a 8 sqq. 

cicrl 8e . . . 39. dpETijs. These remarks come in with singular 
abruptness, and it is not clear that they are not an interpolation. 
On the other hand, there is something not quite satisfactory in the 
sequence, if we omit them and place i-nei 8' cotiv iviois k.t.X. im- 
mediately after (ftopTiKov Be t6 evSurrpl^fiv. Susemihl places Trepl 
Akoittov he Toirav 33 — to evhiarpi^eiv 35 after, instead of before, ela\ 
he — operas, but rovrau 33 is thus robbed of its significance and not 
much is gained in any way. There is this to be said for the 
passage, that a somewhat similar reference to the varying dignity 
of diiferent kinds of slave- work is to be found in c. 7. 1255 b 
27 sqq. 

36. Texi'iK'^Tajai, According to Eth. Eud. 7. 14. 1247 a 5, 
(rrpaTtiyla and Kv^epvrjnia] are instances of arts in which rix^r) ia-ri, 

'iroKii jucvroi xat tu;(i;s evvirdpxet. Agathon, on the Other hand, traced 
a relation between Art and Fortune in the well-known line, quoted 

in Eth. Nic. 6. 4, 11 40 a 19, rexvi tvx^v earep^e Kai rvxt rexvrjv. 

37. Parauor^TaTai. Those pursuits also are jSarauo-ot which de- 
teriorate the character or the intelligence (t^k ■\jruxriv ff rfiv hiavotav, 
5 (8). 2. 1337 b 8 sqq.), but this does not conflict with what is 
said here. 

Xu^urrai. For the third person plural after to aapara, see Bon. 
Ind. 490 a 44 sqq. 

304 NOTES. 

38. 8ou\ik(5totoi. Cp. i. 2. 1252 a 33 : i. 5. 1254 b 18. 

39. irpocrSeT, i.e. in addition to technical skill (cp. Eth. Nic. 10. 
10. 1181 a 12). 

€irel 8' eoTif K.T.X. According to Varro de Re Rustica i. i. 8, 
and Columella i. i. 7, both Aristotle and Theophrastus -wrote on 
agriculture. See Menage on Diog. Laert. 5. 50. They probably 
refer to the Vfapyuea, which the list of Aristotle's works given by 
the Anonymus of Menage names as spurious (No. 189), though in 
the Arabic list based on Ptolemaeus (No. 72) it is accounted 
genuine. See Aristot. Fragm. 255 sq., 1525 b i sqq., and ZeUer, 
Gr. Ph. 2. 2. 100. n. i, who adds — 'that Aristotle did not write 
on agriculture and the cognate subjects, appears from Pol. i. 11. 
1258 b 33, 39.' The TeapyiKa are thus probably spurious. Is it 
possible that Charetides of Paros is the same as the Chartodras, 
whose opinions as to manures are referred to by Theophrastus 
in Hist. Plant. 2. 7. 4 ? A Messenian named Charetidas figures 
in an inscription (Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscr. Graec. 240. 5, vol. i. 
p. 346). ApoUodorus of Lemnos is mentioned by Varro and 
Pliny (see Diet, of Greek and Roman Biography, s. v.). 
1259a. 3. «K TouTui', 'with the aid of their writings': cp. Eth. Nic, 10. 
10. 1 181 b 17: Rhet. I. 4. 1359 b 30 sq. : de Gen. An. i. 11. 
719 a 10: de Part. An. 2. 16. 660 a 7. As to the collection of 
scattered notices of instances of commercial sagacity and success, 

cp. 2. 5. 1264 a 3, TTOvra yap (7;(e8oi' eSptjrai /icv, a)0^a ra /xev ov (rvviJK- 
rai, Tois 8' ov \pSivTai, yivaa-Kovres, and Rhet. I. 4. 1369 b 30 sq. An 

attempt to act on this suggestion appears to be made in the so- 
called Second Book of the Oeconomics: see Oecon. 2. 1346 a 
26 sqq. 

6. oioi' K.T.X. 'such as the feat told of Thales.' Cp. Plato, 

Rep. 600 A, aXV Ota Bfj els TCI fpya a-o(j>ov dvSpos jroXXai imvoiai 
Kal evp.r)\avoi els Ti)(yas ij rivas SKKas jrpd^eis XcyoiTot, &(nrep av OoXccd 
T« nepi Tou MiXrj(riov Koi 'Avaxap<Tios toS Skv6ov ; Kal here as 

elsewhere serves to introduce an example. It is not quite clear 
whether ohv k.t.X. is adduced in illustration of the sentence imme- 
diately preceding or of en 8e . . . avXKeyeiv. Perhaps Sus. is right in 
taking the former view of the passage — cp. toJto yap ea-n Karavoripd 

n ■xpqpjnuTTUiov, which Seems to take up iravra yap uxjjeKipa Tairr' 
eo-Ti Tois TipoMTi T^v ;fp?;fiaTioTi(c^i', and also 1259a 33, XPW'H'"" Se 

yvapl^av ravra Koi Tois rroXiTtKoii, which seems to refer back to the 
same words. The passage also gains in point when taken in 
this way, for it conveys a hint that Aristotle is aware how para- 
doxical the idea of xP')f«"''o'"'«<»' learning anything from Thales 

1. 11. 1258 ta 38— 1259 a 12. 305 

will appear to his readers. ToO MiKr/mov is added to distinguish 
him from the Cretan Thales mentioned in 2. 12. 1274 a 28. His 
ingenuity was proverbial (Aristoph. Aves 946) ; yet there was also 
a popular impression that he was o-o^ds, but not <j}p6vinos (Eth. 
Nic. 6. 7. 1 141 b 3 sqq.). 

8. ■rill' (TO^Lav. Cp. Diog. Laert. I. 22, xai npSms cro0ij i,va- 
jxatrBj] (o 6a\^s) apxovros 'AB^vrjtri Aapicrtav, Ka6' ov km oi iitra ao(j)oi 

Tuyxd^et Se koOiSKoo ti oc, i.e. not confined to philosophers like 
Thales, but generally applicable in commercial transactions. We 
have not here a o-o^ds devising a novel subtlety, but rather an 
instance of the use of a recognized weapon from the armoury of 


9. ocEiSi^diTui' yip K.T.X. For the construction, cp. 2. 12. 
1274 a 25. The charge against philosophers was a common- 
place (Anaxippus ap. Athen. Deipn. 610 f: Plato, Gorg. 484 C 
sqq.: Isocr. adv. Sophist. §§ 7-8: Eth. Eud. 7. 14. 1247 * 
17 sqq.). 

11. cK TTJs doTpoXoyias. The Egyptian priests claimed to be able 
to predict Kafm&v (jtBopas rj Tolvavriov noKvKapmas by means of their 
observation of the stars (Diod. i. 81. 5). 

12. cuiropiQirai'Ta, cp. Plutarch, Sulla C. 26, tinopfia-avra tS>v avri.- 

dXtyoji'. The point off the story lies in the smallness of the 
capital. Thales only paid down the earnest-money of the rent of 
the olive-presses which he hired, trusting to his future profit to 
pay the rest. If we compare Cic. de Divin. i. 49. in, non plus 
quam Milesium Thalem, qui ut obiurgatores suos convinceret 
ostenderetque etiam philosophum, si ei commodum esset, pecuniam 
facere posse, omnem oleam, antequam florere coepisset, in agro 
Milesio coemisse dicitur, we shall see that though this passage is 
very similar to the passage before us, Cicero's version of the story, 
nevertheless, as Vict, remarks, misses the point, for only a large 
capitalist could have done what Thales is described as doing. 
Cicero can hardly have had this passage of the Politics before 
him; still less can Pliny, who tells the story of Democritus 
(Hist. Nat. 18. 28). The version of Hieronymus of Rhodes, though 
abbreviated, is nearer to the Politics — 0i;o-l koI d 'pdSior 'Upawfios i» 

T^ devTepa rav (nropdSTjv virop.vtjpArav, on ^av\6p,evos Sei^ai [d eaX^sJ 
paov etvai TrXovmv, <j>opas peX\ov<n]S ekaiav etreaSaij irpovotjiras e/ucrBa)- 
craTO TO, iXaioupyeia leal Tra/wrXftora avveiKc xpripara (Diog. Laert. I. 26). 

We cannot, however, be certain that Aristotle and he were not 

ao6 NOTES. 

drawing from some common source. If the story is true, it would 
seem that a citizen of Miletus was legally capable of renting 
olive-presses in Chios. Chios and Miletus both belonged to the 
Ionic Confederacy, and a special friendship seems to have existed 
between the two States (Hdt. i. i8 : 6. 5). This may have made 
the thing easier. 

SiaSourai is usedbecause the owners of the presses were many. 

13. T is displaced as elsewhere by being added 'ei vocabulo quod 
utrique membro commune est,' Bon. Ind. ^49 b 44 sqq. : cp. 
fiera^v rt rav eldav Koi tSiv .alirdriTZv, Metaph. K. I. IO59 b 6 : aK\a 
/ifjv ovde 8iayay7]v re ttoktiv dpfiorrei Koi rais ^XiKtats diroStSoifai rais toi~ 
avTait, Pol. 5 (8). 5. 1339 a 29 : vonl^ovres tov re tov iKevBipov fiiov 
irepdi/ riva clvm tou iroXiri/cov Koi iravrcov aipeTODTOTOv, Pol. 4 {'Ij- 3" 

1325 a 19. 

15. For the two participles cKiua-Bovvra, avKKe'^avTa, cp. 8 (6). 5. 
1320 b 8, 8taXa/ij3dcoi/Taff Touff diropovs d^opfias bibovTas Tpeneiv en 
ipyaaias, and Plato, Rep. 465 C, ra Se Trdvras -nopKrapcvoi Bcfievoi TTopqi 
yvvaiKas re Kai oiKeVas, rajiKveiv Trapabovrcs. But here the participles 

are in different tenses. 

17. irXouTEii', 'to become rich,' as in 8 (6). 4. 1318 b 20. 

18. (lec oBv' (' so then') is here used as in c. 2. 1252 a 34. 

19. eiriSeiJii' . . . ttjs (ro(j>ias. Cp. Plato, Hippias Minor, 368 C, 

<To(f)ias liKflaTrjs emheiypxx. 

'But, as we said, the plan adopted 'by Thales — that of trying 
to secure oneself a monopoly — is a general principle of the science 
of money-making.' To toiovtov is explained by iav ns . . . Karaa-Kevd- 
Ceiv. compare the use of idv in Rhet. 3. 5. 1407 b 19, and of Srav 
in Metaph. M. i. 1076 a 30. 

21. 8i(5. Having said that this plan is not confined to philosophers 
but embodies a broad principle of money-making science (xpij^tarto-- 
TiKoV 20), Aristotle points out that some States practise it, when 
they are in want of money {^pr)p.dTa>v 22). See on the subject of 
State-monopolies in Greece Biichsenschiitz, Besitz und Erwerb, 
p. 547 sqq., who traces them at Selymbria (Oecon. 2. 1348 b 
33 sqq.), Byzantium (1346 b 25 sq.), and Lampsacus (1347 a 
32 sqq.), and refers to the scheme of Pythocles at Athens (1353 a 
1 5 sqq.) and to the measures of Cleomenes, the governor of Egypt 
(1352b 14 sqq.). 'There is no evidence,' he adds, 'that mo- 
nopolies were anywhere used in Greece, as they have often been in 
modern States, as a permanent source of revenue.' 'Nay,' 
Aristotle continues, 'in Sicily an individual with whom a. sum 
of money had been deposited' — he seems to have had a larger 

1. 11. 1259 a 13—27. ao7 

amount at his disposal than Thales — ' resorted to a similar device, 
but he found that his success aroused the jealousy of the ruler of 
the State.' Thus the story incidentally bears out the assertion 
made in 21-23, that States occasionally seek revenue from sources 
of this kind. The hero of this story may probably have been 
a rpoTTf fi'nji : cp. Demosth. Pro Phorm. c. 11, 17 8' ipyatria (of 

banking) Trpoirohovs e)(m<ra emKivSivovs dir6 XRW"'""' oK^orpiav, and 

see Biichsenschutz, p. 502. 

24. o-ui/eirpiaTo. Compare the use of irwaveiaBai in Theopomp. 
Fr. 219 and Plutarch, de Cupiditate Divitiarum c. 3. 524 B. 

25. Tuf ciStipeiui'. Bern. ' iron-mines ' : Sus. 'iron- works.' The 
latter rendering is perhaps the more likely to be correct, as the 
metal would come from smelting-works, even if the ore was 
obtained in Sicilian mines, which may possibly have been the case, 
for iron-ore is still 'found in the mountains of Sicily' (A. K. 
Johnston, Diet, of Geography, art. Sicily). Aetna and the Lipari 
islands were famed in myth as the scene of the labours of 
Hephaestus and the Cyclopes (Virg. Georg. 4. 170. sqq.: Aen. 3. 
675 sqq. : 8. 416 sqq.: Ovid, Fasti 4. 287 sq.). 

£fi.iropi(i)i'. The merchants are conceived as sojourning at the 
ipmopia (cp. 4 (7). 6. 1327 a II sqq.), which would usually be on 
the seacoast or not far from it, like the Peiraeus or Naucratis (r^j 
AiyvTrrov to ipntopiov, Aristot. Fragm. 161. 1505 a 14). Not every 
city was an ep.wopiov. 

26. Eir(£\£i. Note the tense. 

27. Ttjs Ti|jiT]9, i. e. the usual price charged for iron. His winnings 
appear to have been due, in part to the advance on the usual 
price, which though small mounted up in proportion to the large 
quantity of iron sold, in part to the large returns which even the 
usual price brought to the merchants. 

IttI toTs TTEi'Ti^KovTa ToXdrfois iitikaPev tKOTiJi'. Cp. Matth. 25. 
20, Kvpie, nevre ToKavrd /loi wapiSaxas' "8e, aWa nevre ToKavra fKepSija-a 
«V* avTois, and Strabo p. 701, &» nva Koiva icol aXXoif 'ivSois icrro/jijTai, 
as TO paKp6^iov more (cat TpiaKOVTa ijrl TOts eKorbv TrpoirKap^dveiv: The 

article may be prefixed to irevTijKovTa TdK&vrois because the sum 
originally invested was fifty talents, or it may be added for the 
same reason for which it is prefixed to bUa in Xen. Oecon. 20. 16, 

paSiag yap avrjp els irapa Toiis SeKa SuKpepei r^ ev &pa ipya^ecBai, on 

which passage Dr. Holden remarks, ' where parts of a whole are 
stated in numbers, the article is sometimes prefixed to the numeral 
"to denote the definiteness of the relation" (Madvig, § 11, Rem. 6).' 
Bernays translates, ' he gained a hundred talents in addition to the 

ao8 NOTES. 

fifty which he had laid out' : Mr. Welldon, 'he realized 200 per 
cent, on all his outlay.' Perhaps the passage quoted from St. 
Matthew makes in favour of Bernays' interpretation, though the 
article is probably to be explained in the same way as in the 
passage of Xenophon. 

28. toOto)' (lEk GUI' K.T.X. This man brought on himself expulsion, 
from the State, while Thales won applause for his wisdom, but yet 
the two men proceeded on the same principle. MtV ovv is answered 
by fiivToi 31. 

31. dau)i,<|)iSpou5. Cp. 2. 9. 1270b 20, aviJi(p€p6vTas fx^i rois 
itpayiuuTiv. Dionysius probably objected to the whole available 
supply of a commodity so important both in war and peace as 
iron finding its way into the hands of a single private individual 
and coming to be obtainable only at an enhanced price. He would 
also hold that a private person had no business with a monopoly; 
monopolies would in his view be for the State. Besides, tjrants 
usually sought to keep their subjects poor (7 (5). 11. 1313 b 18) 
and distrusted the rich (7 (5). 10. 1311 a 15 sqq.). 

33. Kai Tois iroXiTiKots, i.e. to statesmen as well as to heads of 

households (cp. C. 8. 1256b 37) o" juex toIwv eort Tis KTr/TiKfj Kara. 

<j>V(TlV Tols OlKOVOflOlS Koi TOIS JToKlTlKOlS, Olid Eth. NlC. 6. 5- I140b lo) 

and to those who hold the science of money-making in high esteem 
(1259 a s). For xp^ff'/io" yvaplCtiv, cp. 8 (6). i. 1317 a 33, xpwv" 

8' eKa<TTOv avTmv yvapi^av. 

34. TToXXais Yt^P iroXeo-i k.t.X. A large revenue was essential to 
the working of the extreme democracy (Pol. 6 (4). 6. 1293 a 
I sq.) ; States frequently at war were also bound to have plenty of 
money at command (2. 9. 1271 b 11). Households stand less in 
need of exceptional sources of income. 

35. TD/es KOI iroXiTeiSoi/Tai, i.e. in addition to those who pursue 
these aims in private life. See Schneider's note, vol. 2. p. 65, on 
the nopitrTal at Athens, but Eubulus is probably referred to — cp. 
Plutarch, Reip. Gerend. Praecepta, c. 15 su5 fin., and Theopomp. 
Fr. 96 (Miiller, Fr. Hist. Gr. i. 293). See also Plato, Laws 742 D, 
and the accoxmt of the good citizen given in Rhet. ad Alex. 39. 
1446 b 33. 

For TauTtt as the object of iroXtTeuovrai, cp. 2. 7. 1267 a 18. 
C. 12. 37. 'Eirel 8c k.t.X. 'Since we distinguished' (in i. 3. 1253b 
3 sqq.) 'three parts of oUovopiKri' (for rjv, cp. Metaph. A. 6. 
1 07 1 b 3, eVel 8' ^<raii rpcis oitrlat, and de Caelo I. 3. 269 b 33), 
the question arises, with which of them is ohovopiKri most con- 
cerned? We have seen that the oikovo/iuoJs as such can hardly 

1. 11. 1259 a 28—12. 1259 b 1. 209 

be said to be directly concerned with xfyrjfiaruTTua) : but with 
which of the three relations that make up the household — yaiuxf), 
varpiiai, SfcnroTiKr) — is he most concerned? This is the question 
which Aristotle apparently intends to raise here (compare the 
solution given at the beginning of c. 13), but his articulation of it 
is in unusual disarray. He has no sooner enumerated the three 
parts of oiKovofUKi), than he proceeds to refer to the account which he 
has already given of Seo-n-onic^, and to distinguish the rule exercised 
by' the husband over his wife from the rule exercised by the father 
over his children, with the object apparently of showing that the 
two latter relations represent a higher kind of rule [ttoKitikxi or ^aa-i- 
\uai) than the former — the result being that olxovofuio) is more con- 
cerned with iraTpiKTi and yafUKri than with heaironKr] (cp. I. 5. 1 254 a 25, 
ae\ jSeXricBv rj ap)(r) rj tS>u ^eKnovav aj>)(oiievav, and 4 (7). 14- 1333 ^ 
27, T'ov yap SfinroTiRas ap^eiv r/ rav cKev6epiov apx4 KaWicov Koi ftaWou 
fUT apeTrjs), and that it is more concerned with SeaiTOTiKri than with 


■ 39. Kai Y^p. Vict. ' statim autem causam affert, cur distinxerit 
copulam patris ac liberorum a copula viri et uxoris ; docet enim ilia 
imperia diversa esse.' 

Spxeif, sc. ((j>apiv (latent in ?"» 37) '■°'' olKov6p,ov. The reference 
would seem to be to c. 3. 1253 b 4 sq. 

us cXEud^pui' (lEi' a^olv, i.e. rov apxo\iivov x°P"' (4 (V)- '4- 

.1333 a 3 sqq.), or perhaps for the common good of ruler and 
ruled (3. 6. 1278 b 37 sqq.). Contrast Seo-Tror-ticij apxfi, 3. 6. 1278 b 
32 sqq. HoXirtK^, ^atrCKiKfj (3. 7- 1279 a 33), and dpurroKpariKri dpxfl 
(3. 17. 1288 a 11) are forms of ^ tS>v i\(v6ep<av dpxn- It may be 
questioned whether it is quite an adequate idea of ^ rav iKtvBepav 
dpxh to make it consist simply in ruling for the benefit of the ruled; 
Marcus Aurelius (Comment, i. 14) seems to understand it other- 

1. TToXiTtKus, ' as a citizen- ruler rules over his fellow-citizens.' 1259 b. 
HoKiTuai apxr) is Said in 3. 4. 1277 b 7 to be the kind of rule which 
is exercised over rav 6pomv t& yivei RaX tS)v iKfvdepav, but this account 
seems too wide, for the rule of a father over a child would then 
fall under iroXmio) dpxri: in i. 7. 1255 b 20 it is explained as 
iXevBepav (tot 'urav apxr), and this seems more exact, but we must 
bear in mind that under urmv are included proportionate, as 
well as absolute, equals. iioXitk^ apxri usually implies an inter- 
change of ruling and being ruled (cp. 31 6. 1279 a 8 sqq-), but it 
does not necessarily do so (cp. c. i. 1252 a 15) — it does not do so 
in the case of the wife, nor does it do so in the case of the rule of 


310 NOTES. 

vovs over Spells, which is rroXiTiieri Koi ^aa-CKiKj) (i. g. 1254 b 5). The 
relation of husband and wife is elsewhere described as apiaTOKpaTtut) 
(Eth. Nic. 8. 12. 1160 b 32 sqq. : 8. 13. 1161 a 22 sqq.), because 
it should be such as to assign to &pp,6(ov fKda-Ta>,{cp. Pol. 6 (4). 8. 

1294 a 9, SoKe'i be apioTOKpaTia /iev etvat ^dXiora to ras nfias vivefiija-Bai 
Kar apcTfjv). Aristotle holds that though on the whole and as a rule 
the man is superior to the woman, there is nevertheless work which 
she can do better than he, and that account should be taken of this 
fact in determining the position of the wife in the household. 

2. £1 fi^ TTou K.T.X. Sus. ' was nicht ausschliesst, dass das Ver- 
haltniss sich hie und da auch wider die Natur gestaltet,' and so 
Mr. Welldon : ' wherever the union is not unnaturally constituted.' 
Sepulveda, on the other hand, supplies as the nom. to (rvve<mjKe, 
not ^ Koivavia, but ' mas et femina,' translating ' nisi ubi praeter natu- 
ram constiterunt,' and Lambinus ' mas,' translating ' nisi forte ita 
comparatus est, ut a natura desciverit.' I incline, however, to take 
awia-rriKe as impersonal and to translate ' except where therie is a 
contravention of nature.' See Bon. Ind. 342 b 20 sqq., and for 
<ruveaTr]<e napa <j)v(nv, ibid. 73 1 a 20-27. As to the impersonal 
use of verbs in Greek, see Riddell, Apology of Plato, p. 155 sqq. 
The following epigram on James I is quoted by the late Mr. Mark 
Pattison in his copy of Stahr's edition of the Politics (1839) : 
' Rex fuit Elisabeth, nunc est regina lacobus.' 

4. iv ji,€v GUI' K.T.X. Mev olv appears to be answered by S' 9. 
In most cases of political rule, indeed, there is an interchange of 
ruling and being ruled, which does not occur in the case of husband 
and wife. Free and equal citizens, in fact, aim at being equal in 
nature and differing in nothing. (I take to ap■)^ov kw. to apxop.evov to 
be the nom. to ^ovKerai.) Yet even here differences do not wholly 
vanish, for the holders of office seek for the time of their magistracy 
to have their position marked by a distinctive aspect and bearing, a 
distinctive mode of address and marks of respect ; thus if there is 
an equality of nature, there is a temporary inequality in externals 
even among like and equal citizens. The relation in which the 
citizen-ruler stands to those over whom he rules duringhis term of 
office is that in which the male permanently stands to the female. 
(Cp. 2. 2. 1261 a 30 sqq., where the same idea appears that even 
fXfidtpoL Koi "o-oi are differentiated by the fact of their holding or 
not holding office.) The husband, we learn, rules his wife as a 
citizen-ruler rules his fellow-citizens; he is marked off from his 
wife less by a difference in nature than by a difference (Txfip.ain 
Koi \6yois KM Ttiia'ts, The father, on the contrary, is different 

1. 12. 1259 b 2— 12. all 

in nature from his child (1259 b 14). Aristotle does not, perhaps, 
always abide by this view of the relation of husband and wife; 
thus in Eth. Nic. 5. 10. 1134 a 26 sqq., to noKinKov Skcuov, which 

obtains eVl koivoiv&v fiiov Trpos to fhai avrapKeiav, iXevBipav Koi ia-av 

^ KUT avoKoyiav fj mr apiBiiov, is said not to obtain even between 
husband and wife, though the conjugal relation comes nearer to 
realizing it than any other household relation, but only to oIkovoiukov 
tiKcuov — indeed in this very book of the Politics (c. 13. 1260 a 29) 
he requires from the wife a submissive silence before her husband. 

7. Sray, ' for the time during which.' 

ti\Tei, sc. TO apxov. The claim made by a ruler (Amasis) is 
mentioned in illustration. Cp. 6 (4). 14. 1298 a 10, t^v rouwrqv yap 

l(r6njTa f>;Tci o d^fios: 7 (s)- 8. 1308 a II, yap irt\ toC irXq^ous 
fijToCo'ii' ol 8r]p,oTiKoi TO iirov: 8 (6). 3. 1318 b 4, del yap fTjToCo't to iaou 
Ka\ t6 diKoiOV ol ^Tovs, ol Se KpaTovvres ovBev (j^povTi^ovo'iv, 

8. oxinfiawi. Lamb. ' vestitu,' Bern. ' die Tracht,' but fVfl^n and 
axniw-Ti are distinguished in Eth. Nic. 4. 9. 11 25 a 30 (cp. Rhet. 
2. 8. 1386 a 32, if ia^BriTi is the right reading in this passage). Sepulv. 
and Giph. 'ornatu:' Vict, 'vestibus.' Perhaps 'aspect and bearing.' 
See Bon. Ind. 739 b 59-740 a 5. 

Xoyois, ' mode and matter of address.' 

KOI (before 'Afiaa-is) as elsewhere introduces an instance. Amasis 
is an instance of ' that which rules after being ruled.' He had been 
a subject and was now a ruler. He claimed that, like the utensil 
referred to, which had been recast to form the image of a god and 
now was an object of veneration to the Egyptians, he should be 
treated for what he was, not what he had once been. Cp. Hdt. 
2. 172. A somewhat similar metaphor is used by Themistocles in 
Aelian. V. H. 13. 39. 

9. del . . . TouToi/ iyei tov rp6ifov, ' at all times, not merely for a 
term, stands to the female in this relation.' 

11. TO yip yei'i'Tio-ac. Tevvav is used of the female as well as the 
male (cp. 4 (7). 16. 1334 b 36 : de Gen. An. 2. 5. 741b 3), but 
Aristotle is here evidently thinking of the father, not the mother. 

apXar loTii', cp. Metaph. A. 7. 1072 b 10, i^ dvdyKris Spa e<TT\v Sv, 

and Pol. 2. 6. 1265 b 19, taovrai Sta(j)4povTes. It is not identical 
with apxfi : the participle is used in an adjectival sense, ' a per- 
manent quality being predicated of the subject ' (Holden, Oecono- 
micus of Xenophon, Index p. 36 *). 

12. Paai\iK{js «I8os Apx'fis, ' the specific nature of royal rule.' 
Sus. ' was denn eben die Form einer koniglichen Gewalt ergiebt.' 
Cp. Eth. Nic. 8. 12. xi6ob 24, ^ /liv yap jrarpos wpos vWis Koivavia 

P a 

2ia NOTES. 

^a-i\fias ex^i <^XW°! Po'- I- 4- 1253 b 30, ev opydvov ("8u, and 3. 15' 

1286 a 2 sq. 

14. TOf ^acriX^a toutui' diriii/Tuc. Cp. Eth. Nic. 8. 12. ii6ob 
34— 2 7) I) /iEP ■yap narpos npbs vie'is Koivwvia ^aaiKeias txei, ax^poi 
tS>v TcKvav yap t^ iraTpl /ifXei.' ivrevdev 8e Kat 'O/i^pos tok Aia irartpa 
rrpoaayopevfi, irarpiK^ yap ap)(rj ^ovKerai f/ 0a<nXela elvai. Homer is 
praised for using the words ' father of gods and men ' to designate 
the Kingship of Zeus over gods and men. For, Aristotle proceeds, 
the father is the truest type of a King. The King, like the father, 
' should surpass those he rules in nature ' (' indole,' Bon. Ind. 
837 a 52, cp. Pol. 2. 2. 1261 a 39, 8ia t6 t^v (l>i<iiv Ictovs chai irdvras), 

'. but be one with them in race.' 

15. fiiy should logically have followed (jtia-ct, but, as Bonitz 
observes (Ind. 454 a 20), who compares 6 {4). 5. 1292 b 12 sqq., 
' interdum non ei additur vocabulo in quo vis oppositionis cernitur.' 

C. 13. 18. ♦ai'epoi' Toii'ui'. So far as the protasis introduced by eirei in 
j:259 a 37 survives the long series of considerations which break in 
upon it in 1259 a 39-b 17, it here finds its apodosis, which is in- 
troduced by Toivvv, as elsewhere by aare (Bon. Ind. 873 a 31 sqq.) or 
possibly 840 (Bonitz, Aristotel. Stud. 3. 122 sqq.). For the connexion 
of the whole, see note on 1259 a 37. Xenophon in the Oeconomicus 
had described with much zest the mixture of vigilance and geniality 
with which the thrifty Ischomachus gels everybody connected with 
his farm, from his wife and his steward downwards, to strain every 
nerve for the increase of his substance, which is, according to him, 

the aim of oiKOvopia (cp. Oecon. C. 6. 4, 17 be imarTiprj avTTi — i. e. 11 
QiKovofiLa — ((patvero 3 oiKovs bvvavrai av^eiv avBpayiroi). In tacit opposi- 
tion to Xenophon, Aristotle here presses the consequences of the 
principle which he has established in the foregoing chapters, that 
Xpnp^ri&TiKri, and even its soundest part, is in strictness no part of 
oiKovo/iia, but only an auxiliary art (in-i/peTtKij), and that though 
olKovopia will not be indifferent to the goodness or badness of the 
property it uses (1258 a 26), its business is nevertheless rather to 
care for the excellence of the human beings with whom it has to 
deal, and for that of the free rather than the slave. The original 
propounder of this view may well have been Socrates (Cleitophon 
407 A sq. : see Wyttenbach on [Plutarch] de Liberis Educandis 
C.-7. 4 E), but traces of it appear in Plato, Politicus 261 C and Laws 
743 E, and we find doctrines of a similar kind ascribed to Cynics 
like Diogenes (Aelian, V. H. 12. 56 : cp. Diog. Laert. 6. 41). The 
views of Crassus, who was not unacquainted with the teaching of 
Aristotle (Plutarch, Crassus c. 3), may possibly have been influenced 

1. 12. 1259 b 14— 13. 1259 b 21. ii§ 

by the passage before us (see the account 'of them given in Crassus^ 
0. 2. and above, p. xvii). Cato the Censor is praised by Plutarch 
(Cato Censor, c. 20) for combining with keenness as an economist' 
care for the welfare of his wife and children. For the relation 
of the Stoic and Epicurean conceptions of oUovoiiia to those of 
Plato and Aristotle, see Schomann, Opusc. Acad. 3. 234 sqq. 

19. T^v rav 6,'^iyfiiv kttj(tii/, ' inanimate property.' Cp. 2. 7. 1267 b 
10, TTjv rqs yfis KTrja-iv, and I. 9. 1257 b 40, Trjv tov i/o/xiV/iaros ovaiav. 

20. TT|i' TTJs KT110-6US, oi' KaXoGfji.Ei' irXouToc Sus. ' als diesen ■ 
(inanimate property) ' in den tiichtigen Stand zu setzen, den man 
Reichthum und Wohlhabenheit nennt,' ov KoKovfiev ttKovtov being 
explanatory of aperq nxrjaeas, cp. Rhet. I. 6. 1362 b 18, TrXoOros" 
aperrj yap KT^(rea)s Koi ttoitjtikov ttoXXSv rdyaflSv.] 

21. tS>v iXevQipav fiaXXof t\ SouXcdi'. For the addition of the article 
before i\ev6epav and its absence before SovXcov, see Vahlen's note on" 
Poet. 4. 1449 a I, where Rhet. 2. 13. 1390 a 16, fiSXXow fSo-t Kara 
Xoyio-iibv y Kara to ^dos is quoted. It is, however, possible that a 
slightly depreciatory significance attaches to the omission of the 
article before 8oi\<av, as in Agesil. n. 4, ^a-Ket Se i^ofuXeiv p.h navro- 
Sairo'is, ;fp^o-5ai Se Tois dyaSois. Cp. I. 7- 1255 b 32—33. 

irpuToc fiky oSi' k.t.X. MeV ovv here as often elsewhere is 
introductory to a clearer definition of what has just been said: 
(The p-ev is apparently answered by Sc 28.) Aristotle has spoken 
in the preceding sentence of an dperri BoiiKmv, and the thought 
occurs to him that there are two senses of dperri, and that he may 
be understood merely to inculcate on the master the communication 
of technical excellence to the slave (cp. 1260 b 3 sqq.). He there- 
fore loses no time in raising the question, what the virtue is in the 
case of slaves, which he has said the householder is to care for and 
promote : is it merely opyaviKrj kcu SiaKoviKri aperrj, or are they capable 
of TjOiKri aperr) ? (For the terms in which the question is raised, cp. 5 
(8). 5- 1339 b 42) 0" fi'V" aXXo fijTjjTeoc ptj ttote tovto pev irvpfie^rjKf:, 
ripuoTepa &' airnjs fj •^vo'ts cariv rj Kara ttjv flpripcinjv ^peiav.^ Aristotle 

had defined the natural slave in the words, Sa-av iarh epyov 17 tov 

traparos XPW^^! KaiToiiT eor' car avrav ^eXnarov, I. 5. 1254b 17 — words 
which went farther even than the well-known saying in Homer 
(Ody. 17.322), that Zeus in taking away a man's freedom takes away 
half his virtue — and he feels that a doubt may well be raised whether 
a slave is capable of moral virtue. The course of the argument on 
this subject seems to be as follows : — ' The answer is not easy, for 
if the slave has moral virtue, how does he differ from a freemani 
Yet if he has it not, the fact is surprising, seeing that he is a man 

314 NOTES. 

and shares in reason. The same question, however, arises as to 
the wife and child, and it is better to put the question in its most 
comprehensive form — is the virtue of that which by nature rules 
the same as the virtue of that which by nature is ruled, or different? 
(It will be seen that Aristotle abstains for the present from raising 
any question as to that which neither naturally rules nor naturally 
is ruled.) If we say that both have complete virtue, why should 
the one rule and the other be ruled ? If again we say that their 
virtue differs in degree, the same question arises, for between ruling 
and being ruled there is a difference not of degree, but of kind. 
If, on the other hand, we say that one has virtue and the other not, 
how can the ruler rule well, or the ruled obey well, without virtue ? 
Both, it is clear, must have virtue, and virtue must have different 
kinds, just as there are different kinds of that which is by nature 
luled. We are familiar with this in the case of the soul ; in the 
soul there is a part which naturally rules and another which natur- 
ally is ruled, and to each of these two parts we attribute a virtue of 
its own. But if these two parts, related to each other as naturally 
ruling and ruled, exist by nature, then other pairs also, destined by 
nature to rule and be ruled respectively, exist by nature — the 
master and slave, the husband and wife, the father and child — and 
each member of these three pairs has a virtue of its own varying 
according to the constitution of the soul in each and the work 
each has to perform.' We must bear in mind that in the Meno 
of Plato Socrates is made to assert the identity of the temperance 
and other virtues of women and men, in opposition to the sophist 
Gorgias, and that Aristotle's object here is to show that virtue 
varies with social function, the virtue of the ruled not being the 
same as the virtue of the ruler. It is, however, also his object to 
show, in opposition to those who confined virtue to the ruler 
(3. 4. 1277 a zo), that to ^utrei apxoiixvov, whether wife, child, or slave, 
is not without moral virtue, but has a sort of virtue varying with 
its psychical constitution and the function it discharges. Here 
therefore, as elsewhere, Aristotle steers a midway course between 
two extremes — the view of those who denied virtue to the ruled, 
and the view of those who identified the virtue of women and men. 
24. flr<»(|)po(nji/Kj K.T.X. These virtues are instanced as those most 
likely to be found in slaves, more likely than fieydKo^vxia, <^p6vi](ns, 

or tro^ia. 

rS>v IIeoii'. For this use of the gen., Susemihl rightly compares 
I. 13. 1260 b 2 (already referred to by Schn., vol. 2. p. 68): 3. 5. 
1278 a 27 : 3. 13. 1284 b II (if tf are wrong): 5(8). 4. 1338 b 30. 

1. 13. 1259 b 24—1260 a 3. 215 

28. Sx*' • ■ '• &f*<|>oT^p<>is. 'For whichever alternative we adopt, 
difficult questions arise' (Lamb, 'dubitationem habet, utrumcun- 
que dixeris '). 'Exei is probably here impersonal ; see Bon. Ind. 
305 b 31 sqq., and Riddell, Apology of Plato, p. 155 sq. 

eiTE Y^P eoTi, SC. dperfi tis dovXov. 

32. Kal ... 81^. See note on i. 2. 1253 a 18. 

83. ir<5T£poi' . . . Ir^pa. This ig not exactly the same question 
as had been raised about the woman and child just before ; 
perhaps it is already felt to be paradoxical to deny to the apxAp-evov 
ipva-fi the possession of any kind of moral virtue. Besides, the ques- 
tion now raised is that which Socrates had raised (1260 a 22), and 
Aristotle is much preocqupied with his view on the subject. 

34. yip justifies iirurKenTeov by adducing difficulties which arise. 

KaXoKdyaSias. The question is put as paradoxically as possible, 
for KoKoKayMa is precisely the type of virtue from which slaves and 
women and children are furthest removed : see L. Schmidt, Ethik 
der alten Griechen i. 333 sq., who refers to Xen. Mem. i. i. 16, 

frept Twv oKKav (SicXeycTO StoKpa'njs), o tovs piv elboras rjyelro koKovs 
Kayadovs etvai, raiis 8" dyvoovvras avSpairoSaiSHS &v SiKaias KeKKrj(T6<u, Ka- 

\oKdya6ta is the virtue of knights and hoplites (Xen. Mem. 3. 5. 
18 sqq.). Cp. also Eth. Nic. 4. 7. 1124 a i, some (ikv ovv f/ fieydko- 
^UX'" "''"' Kotr/ios TK elvai tS>v dpeTciv' fui^ovs yap airas Troiel Kal ov 
yiverai avev eKavatv' 8ta rmro ;(aXe7ro» tj ahi]6eiq it^yaK6'^v\ov eliiai' ov 
yap otov re avev KoKoKayaSlas : Magn. Mor. 2. 9. 1207 b 20 sqq.: 

Eth. Nic. 10. 10. 1179 b 10 sqq. The conception of KaXomyaflia is 
still further worked out in Eth. Eud. 7. 15. 

87. TO Se K.T.X. Cp. I. I. 1252 a 9. 

38. ouSec, 'not at all,' as in Probl. 10. 35. 894 b 13. 

40. dpxSi^o-crai. The fut. med. ap^ovrm occurs in a passive 
sense in 8 (6). 4. 1318b 36. 

1. SeiXiSs. Cp. Plato, Laws 901 E, ficiXi'ar yap fKyovos ev ye ruiiv 1260 a. 
apyia: Aristot. Eth. Nic. 9. 4. 1166 b 10, dia SeiXlav Kal dpyiav, and 
below 1260 a 36. 

3. TauTt|s 8' . . . d.p\aY.ivfi>v. These words are often translated — 
'and that there are different forms of virtue corresponding to 
the differences between the naturally ruled.' But then hitherto, 
as Susemihl remarks (Hermes (1884), Bd. 19. Heft 4), Aristotle 
has been dwelling on the difference between ruler and ruled, not 
on the differences between various ruled elements, and if mairep here 
means ' corresponding to,' we certainly expect aoTrep km toO ^uo-et 

apxovTos Kal dp)(o(^evov. Not &awep Kal riov (^vcrei ap)(6vTa>v kol ap\o- 

fiemv, the reading to which the rendering found in two MSS. (a, z) 

3i6 NOTES. 

of the velus versio points — ' quemadmodum et natura principantitim 
et subiectorum ' — for hitherto, as Sus. sees, though he accepts this 
reading, no stress has been laid on the fact of the existence of different 
forms of apxovTa and apxafieva : on the contrary, it is on the difr 
ference between to ap^ov and to apxip^emv and their respective ?pya 
that the existence of diflFerent forms of virtue has been rested. 
Perhaps, however, wa-Trep does not here mean ' corresponding to,' 
but simply ' as indeed ' — so that our rendering will run ' and that 
different types of virtue exist, as indeed differences also exist 
between the naturally ruled.' Compare the use of ficnrfp in i. ii. 
1259 a 35, iToWois yap nokeai Set ;^p7;/iaTt(r/ioi), wo'TTcp olKLtif ^oXXoi/ oe, 
Aristotle's meaning will then be, that there is nothing more surpris- 
ing in the fact of ruler and ruled having different types of virtue 
than there is in the fact of the naturally ruled differing in character. 
He has already said in i. 5. 1254 a 24, koI eiSij n-oXXa koX apxofTav Koi 
apxoiiivav iariv, Koi del ^fKriav f) apxfj fj rmv /SeXTidi/iBw dpxopevav. Per- 
haps, however, rrjs apeTtjs should be supplied before tS>v (ftia-ei 
apxoiievav, and the translation should be — ' as indeed differences 
also exist between the virtue of one naturally ruled element and 
that of another.' Those who take flo-n-ep in the sense of ' corre- 
sponding to ' will be much tempted to read woTrep koL tS>v (jiia-eL ap- 
xovrav Koi apxafieixov, but this reading rests, as has been said, only on 
the authority of one or two MSS. of the veius versio, the rendering 
found in which may represent nothing more than a conjectural emen- 
dation. This change of reading might, indeed, be dispensed with, 
if an ellipse of npos to cjjiirei apxou or npos to cfiitrfi apxovra could be 
supposed between fio-irfp am and rav (ftia-ei apxop.iva>v (compare the 
ellipse of Trpor ttjv ^xv" in 6 (8). 5. 1340 b 17). But fio-jrepneed not 
mean 'corresponding to,' and probably does not. (Since writing the 
foregoing note, I have become acquainted with the following 
annotation by the late Mr. Mark Pattison in the copy of Stahr's 
Politics already referred to (above on 1259 b 2). Stahr translates 
in this edition — ' diese aber ihre Verschiedenheiten hat, so gut 
wie die, welche von Natur zum Beherrschtwerden und zum 
Herrschen bestimmt sind.' The annotation is — 'if the words 
[apxovTav Koi] are to form part of the text, surely the meaning is, 
not " so gut wie die," but " have differences corresponding to the 
differences between the natural ruler and the natural ruled." But 
all the MSS. appear to omit them, and the meaning is — " and in 
the same way as there are differences between the virtues of the 
ruler and those of the ruled, so there are differences between the 
virtues of the different species of the ruled." ') , 

1. 13. 1260 a 4 — 8. 317 

4. kal TOuTo K.T.X. I take the literal rendering to be — ' and this 
has at once led the way for us in the case of the soul ' (' this' being 
' the existence of a natural ruler and a natural ruled, each with a 
virtue of its own '). For itpriyriTai in this sense, compare Plato", 

Lysis 2 1 7 A, 3p' odv koI KokSis . . . i^ijyetTai ^fuv to vvv Xeyofifvov ; 

and the use of the word ■n-pooSoTrouta'Sai in de Gen. An. 4. 4. 770 b 3. 
Hepl rrip yjrvxnv is perhaps not far removed in meaning from eV rfj 
i^XV (cp. Bon. Ind. 579 a 29 sqq.). The soul is one of the things 
that lie nearest to us, and on examining it the phenomenon of 
which we are in quest appears, and thus we are guided to detect 
it in other cases also. Cp. Plutarch, de Fraterno Amore c. 2 z«z'/., 

KalroL TO napabeiyfia rrjs xprnreois rav d8e\<j>S)V ^ KJivais ov fiaKpav 
eBr/Kev, aKk' iv avr& t<5 (rapaTi to TrXelora tS>v avayKaiav biTTO. Koi 
d&e\(j}a Kal SiSvfia iii]xavi]<ra\iivj], )(€ipas, irohas, ofipara, &Ta, pivas, eSi- 

ha^cv on K.T.X. The perfect iiprjyriTai may be defended, either as re- 
ferring to the previous assertion of the existence of a ruling and 
a ruled element within the soul (i. 5. 1254b 5), or as implying 
that the soul affords an already forthcoming and familiar example 
of the fact — cp. de Part. An. i. 3. 643 b 10, 8« weipaodai Xap^avew 
Kara yevrj ra ^wa, ats iKJJrjyrji^ff ol sroXXot hiopltravres opviQos yevos kol l\6voff, 
Schutz' conjectural addition of to. before irepX Trpi -^vxfjv simplifies the 
passage, but is perhaps unnecessary. It should be added that Vict, 
takes v^Tjyrirm in a passive sense (' incoeptum est '), and that Bonitz 
also (Ind. 807 b 46) gives it a passive meaning. The correctness 
of this view, however, is open to doubt. For the thought, cp. 4 (7). 
14- 1333 a 16 sqq. 

6. oioi' does not seem here to exemplify but to explain, as in 
3. 13. 1283 b I. 

8. tSiv ciXXui', 'other things besides the rational and irrational 
elements of the soul.' 

&me. K.T.X. Thurot (fitudes, p. 18), with most others, translates 

the words &aTe (ftia-ei to. TrXeioo apxovra (cai apxopeva ' de sorte que la 

plupart des Stres commandent ou ob^issent par nature,' and fails, 
not without reason, to find a satisfactory meaning in the words wheA 
thus translated, adding ' du moins la le9on vulgaire ne se lie pas 
avec ce qui suit immddiatement.' Hence he proposes to read aorc 
TrXei'ca to (^v(r« apxovra Kal apx^peva. But is not another interpreta- 
tion of to irXeia possible? May not the meaning of the passage 
be as follows— r' so that not only is this one case of a ruling 
element and a ruled natural, but the plurality of cases of the same 
thing which we observe are natural too — I say " plurality," for the 
free rules the slave in one way, and the male the female in another, 

21 8 NOTES. 

and the man the child in a third, and while (/tev) the parts of 
the soul exist in all these, they exist differently in each.' The first 
conclusion drawn is, that in a plurality of cases we find a ruling 
element and a ruled, both existing by nature. The reason for proving 
their naturalness is that only to. <\)vati apxovra xm dpxoiifva have a moral 
virtue of their own; thus the Texvirris, being neither (jyiaei nor fully 
a slave, has not a moral virtue of his own, except so far as he is 
a slave. From this first inference Aristotle passes on to a second — 
that of a diversity of psychological constitution and of moral virtue 
in every ruling and ruled element subsisting by nature, according 
as the function discharged in each case is absolute and complete 
(to dn-Xms epyov) or falls in various degrees short of being so. For 

ra TrXn'o) apxovra Kai dpxo/icva, cp. de Gen. An. 2. 7- 'J 46 a, 12, eVel 
Se Ta jiev povoTOKa, ra 8e iroKvTdxa tS>v toiovtcdv eorl (<i<'>v, Ktu ra irXeia 
tS>v ipfipiav (' mehreren Embryen,' Aubert and Wimmer) top 
avrhv cxfi Tp&nov rig, evil de Caelo I. 8. 276 b 19, eV roh wKeioa-tv 
ovpavo't! (' in den mehreren Himmelsgebauden,' Prantl). So we 
have 01 TToXXoi a-ivbiapxii (' a multiplicity of conjunctions ') in Rhet. 
3. 5. 1407 b 12, and 01 n-oXXol Bepcmovres in Pol. 2. 3. 1261b 37: 
cp. also Dio Chrys. Or. 1. 50 R, toXXo ovras dyaira TO apxofieva 
rois apxovras. Thurot, as has been said, would read fio-xf irKda rk 
tpvtrei apxovra Koi dpx6p.fva, but this conclusion Seems hardly to be 
that to which the preceding words point. Bernays avoids this 
objection in his rewriting of 8-17, as does also Susemihl in his 
still more sweeping reconstruction of 8-20 (Qu. Crit. p. 359 : 
Hermes 19. 588 sqq.), but no MS. gives them any support, nor 
am I convinced that any change is necessary. 

11. Tct fiopia TJjs 'I'UX'nS) i- ^- ^ «XoyoK and to Xdyov e^ov : cp. 

de Gen. An. 2. 4. 741 a 2, ra 8' SKKa piSpia ttjs ijfvxrjs (other than 

^ yevvS>(ra Kal BpfitTiKrj ^Irvxfj) Toir pkv indpx'i', rois 8' ovx imdpx^i' fSiv ^(fav. 
To give the slave to \6yov ex""! " ira6riTiK6v must be counted here 
(asinEth. Nic. 1.6. io98a3 and i. 13. 1103a 2) as part of t6 Xoyov 
exov, not of tA aXoyov, for he has not the more indubitable element 

of TO XoyoK exov, to 0ov\(Vtik6v (1260 a 12 : cp. 3. 9. 1280 a 
32 sqq.), which is apparently identical with that which is called 
TO XoyurriKov in Eth. Nic. 6. 2. 1x39 a 12. Thus in i. 5. 1254 b 

22, he is said Koivave'iv \6yov Too'oijTOf oaov cHaBavfaBai cOCKa pri ex""' 

13. aKupoc, ' imperfect in authority,' ' imperfectly obeyed ' — 

cp. Eth. Nic. 7- 10. I151 b 15, XujroujTat, cav oKvpa to avrav y Sunrep 

^i/^ur/uiTa. In women t6 /SovXcvtikoV is there, but often does not 
get its own way. 

14. dTcX^S. Cp. Plato, Laws 808 D, So-ip yap /idXiora [6 naisj ?X" 

1. 13. 1260 a 11—22. 219 

nriyfiv Tov <f>poVHV fifjira) Konjprrviievrjv, and Rep. 44 1 A-B. Cp. alsO 

Aristot. Phys. 7. 3. 247 b 18 sqq., where the child is described 
as in a state of (pva-iKfj rapaxi), which must settle down before it 
can become ^pdiiifiov km emarTrjfiov. In Eth. Nic. 3. 4. iiiib 8 
irpoalpeais, and in Eth. Nic. 6. 13. 1144 b 8 vovs, are denied to the 
child, who is said in Eth. Nic. 3. 15. 1119b 5 to live kut iniBvpiav. 
oftoius K.T.X., i. e. the moral virtues, like the parts of the soul, 
exist in all, but differently. The construction of this sentence seems 
to be — vno\rjTTTeov Tolwv dvayKoiov (ehm) opotas exeiv koX ircpi tcls r/diKas 

aperds, Seiv p^uK.T.X. For the omission of ftvm, see Bon. Ind. 43 a 6, 
239 a 9 sqq., and cp. c. 9. 1257 b 32. A somewhat similarly con- 
structed sentence occurs in Magn. Mor. i. 18. 1190a 15 sq. : cp; 

also 28, 8ia Set, &<rirep 6 ttoiijt^s eipijKe irepX yvvaiKos, ovra vopi^eiv fX"" 

»repi wavTCDv. Bekker and Sus., however, begin a fresh sentence 

with fiiroXlJJTTfOK. 

16. oaoi' K.T.X. 'EirifidKKci or some such word needs to be 
supplied here, but Aristotle follows pretty closely the language of 

Meno in Plato, Meno 72 A, nad' fKatrrrjv yap tS>v wpd^eav Kai tS>v 
^XiKiav wpos fKaa-Tov tpyov eKoara fipav fj dperq iarip. Compare also 

for the thought Plato, Rep. 60 1 D. 

17. 810 K.T.X. ' Hence the ruler must possess moral virtue in its 
complete rational form, for any function taken absolutely and in 
its fullness belongs to [and demands] a master-hand, and reason is 
such a master-hand.' The function of healing, for instance, is pre- 
dicated diAZs of the physician who directs and superintends the pro- 
cess, and only in a qualified way (77(09) of the subordinate who 
carries his directions into effect : cp. 4 (7). 3. 1325 b 21, paXia-Ta de 
Koi Ttpdrreiv \eyop^ev Kvpias koi tSv e^arepiKciti itpd^eav tovs rais Stavotats 
apxiTCKTOva!. Cp. also Eth. Nic. 7- ^2. 1152 b I, Wfpl Si 1780WJJ 
Kai \inrris 6fa>prj<rai. tov tiji/ TroKi/nKfjv <l>iKo(ro(j)ovvTos' odros yap tov 
TeXovs dpxiTfKTav, irpos o ^XejTOvns eKaarov to ptv kokov to 8' dyadbv 
&Tr\mt XiyopLev, and Marc. Antonin. Comment. 6.35. As to reKeav . . . 
TTjV ridiKfjV dpeTTjv, cp; Magn. Mor. 2.3. 12 00 a 3,^ TeKeU apeTT] vrrdp^ei, 
tjv ccjiap^p jKcra ^povr)aea>s etvai : Eth. Nic. 10. 8. 1 1 78 a 18, ro 8' opBov 
T&v tjBikSiv {apeTmv) koto Trfp tppovrjtnV. Pol. 3. 4. 1277b 18 sqq. 
(especially f) Si (j>p6m](ns apxovTos iStor dpcTri povtj, 25). 

21. oux rt ouTT| K.T.X. Cp. 3. 4. 1277b 20 sqq. This teaching 
is anticipated in Eth. Nic. 8. 14. 1162 a 26, can ydp Uarfpov dperri 

(i. e. dvSpos Kal ymaiKus). 

22. Z(i>KpiiTr)s. Cp. Plato, Meno 71-73, though the absence of the 
article before SaKpdTrjs seems to imply that Aristotle is speaking of 
the historical Socrates, not of the interlocutor in the Meno. Anti- 

220 NOTES. 

sthenes agreed with Socrates (Diog. Laert. 6. 12). On the views of 
Socrates and Plato respectively as to the unity of virtue, see Zeller, 
Plato, E. T. p. 448 sqq. Plutarch seeks to prove in his De Virtute 
Muliebri, that though there are differences between the virtue of men 
and that of women, just as there are differences between the same 
virtue in different men (e. g. the courage of Ajax and Achilles), yet the; 
virtues of women are not specifically different from those of men. 

24. tAs oWas, SC. apfTas, i. e. (ra>(f>po(Tivi] Kal SiKawavvri. ThS 

word dperri is SO easily supplied that it is often suppressed — e. g. in 
3. 5. 1278 b I and 5 (8). 4. 1338 b 15. 

TouTo, i. e. the conclusion stated in 20-24. This had been 
reached through premisses relating to the virtue of (^u<r«i apxovra and 
dpxoiieva in general, but it might also have been reached by ex- 
amining the subject more in detail, as for instance by examining the 
virtue of women, children, and slaves separately and successively 
[Kara pepos paXKov iwuTKOTiova-iv). This seems from what Meno says 
(Plato, Meno 71 E) to have been the method followed by Gorgias. '■ 

25. Ka6(5\ou. For the place of ko^oXou, see Vahlen's note on 
Poet. 17. 1455 a 24 (p. 184). The thought is too characteristic 
of Aristotle and recurs too often in his writings to need much 
illustration, but reference may be made to Eth. Nic. 2. 7. 1 107 a 28 
sqq.: Pol. 2. 6. 1265a 31 : Rhet. 2. 19. 1393a 16 sqq. 

26. t6 £u Exeir t^v <|»uxTii'- Plato had said this in Rep. 444 D, 

aperfi piv apa, o)S eoiKec, vyUid Tc Tis hv e"ri Kal KoXXos Kal eve^la ^x.'j^- ' 

TO opSoirpaYEif. As to the omission of ^, see critical note. For this 
definition of virtue, cp. Plato, Charmides 172 A: Meno 97. 

27. eJapi9(ioui'Tes, as in Plato, Meno 71 E, wpSiTov pev, el /SouXti 

dvSpbs dpeTrjv . . . « 8c /3ovX» yvvaiKos dpeTfjV . . . Koi aWt] etrA iratSos 
dperfj, Kal BrjKelas Kal appevos, Kal Trpecr/Surepou dvSpos, cl piv /3ouXfi, 
eKcvBepov, ft Se (SoiJXfi, SouXou : cp. also 'J'J A.- 

28. 8i<5 seems to introduce an inference from the general tenour 
of 17-24. 

29. 6 iroiYiT^^s, here Sophocles (Ajax 293). Cp. Athen. Deipn; 
659 a, where the following lines are quoted from the 'YTri/or of 
Xenarchus : 

EtT* el(Tlv 01 rimyes ovk fvSatpoves, 
0)1/ rais yvvai^lv oib' onovv (fiav^s evi; 

30. TtAvTuv, slaves, children, and women. For the thought, cp. 
Xen. Rep. Lac. 3. 4 sq. 

For the asyndeton at yui'aiK^, compare the somewhat similar ex- 
amples adduced by Vahlen in his note on Poet. 25. 1460 b 23 
(p. 261 sqq.). 

1. 13. 1260 a 24 — 40. 221 

31. oSk^ti. Cp. de Gen. et Corr. i. 2. 315 b 3. 

32. irpos TO T^os Kal toi' rfyoinevov, 'relative to the fully developed 
human being' (contrasted with dreXijs : cp. i. 2. 1252 b ^i,Te\osyap 
av-n] fKciviov) ' and to his guiding authority.' The child is apparently 
regarded as finding in his father the fully developed type of man- 
hood which he himself is designed ultimately to realize and as ac- ■ 
cepting guidance from him. Cp. Eth. Eud. 7. 15. 1249 b 6, Set 8^, 

&(nrep Kal iv rots oKKois, npos to apxov ^rjv xal irpbs tjjv f^iv Kara t^k 
evepyftav ttjv toO ap^ovros, otov BovXov Ttpos SeanoTov Koi ckcuttov irpos 
Trp> iKcia-Tov KadrjKovaav dpxTjV. Eth. Nic. 3. 15. 1119b 7; ^^^ 3- 
5. 1113a 5 sqq. 

33. 6(Aoi(i)s Se K.T.X. For the thought, cp. Menander, Inc. Fab. 
Fragm. 56 : 

'£/xol TToXtf c(TTt Kal KaTa(j)vyfi Kal vopos 
Kal Tov SiKaiov tov t ahiKov itavros Kpvnjs 
6 SeiriroTrjS' irphs toutov eva Set Qu ip,i, 

and Fragm. 150 : 

'E\ev6epos nas ivl ScSovXarai, vopxf, 
Svorlv Se SovKos, Kal v6p<^ Kal SfO'n'dri}. 
lOejiei', e. g. in c. 5. 1254 b 25. 
. 35. The construction of too-ovtos with on-as does not seem to be 
very common. See with respect to it Weber, Die Absichtssatze bei 
Aristoteles, p. 33, who compares Oecon. i. 6. 1344 b 29, xm xas 
cpyafr'ias (Sci) ovtcd vevc/uijcrdai oirms pfj ap.a Kiv8vvei(Ta>(nv diracnu, 

. 36. eXXci+T). Eucken (de Partic. usu, p. 54) compares 7 (5). i. 
1301b 7: 4(7). 14. 1334 a 5. 

diropi^aeiE 8' oi' tis k.t.X. It would be possible to take &pa (37) 
and ^ (39) as in the same construction, and the whole sentence 
Spa — irKcuTTov as dependent on diropria-ne (for Spa followed by 7 in 
indirect interrogations, see Vahlen, Beitr. zu Aristot. Poet. i. 43 sq., 
and on Poet. 4. 1449 a 7), but ^ bia^epa tovto irKeiarov is probably 
not a part of the question raised: it is rather Aristotle's own 
solution of the anopta (see Bon. Ind. 313 a 7 sqq., and compare the 
very similar passage, 7 (5). 9. 1309 b 8-11). The difficulty raised 
is — ' if we allow the existence of an apeTjj SouAou, because the slave 
needs to possess it, must we not also allow the existence of an 

dpeTTj Tf XVITOV i ' 

40. Koicwffis Ju'ns, ' is a sharer with his master in a common 

existence': cp. 3. 6. 1278b 16, rrjs dpxfjs fiSri iroaa Tf/t Trepl avBpanov 

Koi Tr]v Koivaviav riji fffl^r, and Other similar phrases collected by 
Lasaulx, Ehe bei den Griechen (p.. 13, note 22). It was only of 
^uo-ei dpxdiifva that the possession of a form of moral virtue was 

aaa notes. 

proved in 1259 b 32 sqq. Cp. Plin. Epist. 8. 16 : servis respublica 
quaedam et quasi civitas domus est. 

TropptSrepoi', ' less closely attached to the master.' Cp. 3. 5. 

1278 a II, rS>v 8" avayxaiav oi fiev cw Xutavpyovvres to. Toiavra bovKoi, 
oi 8e Koivoi ^avavaoi Koi 6^es. 
1260 b. 1. d<|><>)pio'|ji.E'i'r]i' Tii-cl exet SouXeioc. Sepulveda translates ' deter- 
minatae cuidam servituti addictus est,' and explains in his note that 
the jSaratiffos rexvlrris is not a slave for all purposes, but only for the 
performance of a definite servile task. The extent of his slavery is 
determined by his ?pyoi»: cp. 6 (4). 15. 1300 a 15, ^ « ■navrav 

r\ Ik Tivav d(j)iopi<riifV(ov, olov fj Tifir/iian § yfw fj dperij ^ twi Toiovra 
aXXo), and Eth. Nic. 8. 11. 1159 b 33. 

Kai 6 (Aec SouXos k.t.X. The artisan is not only rather an adjunct 
of the household than one of its ruled members, but he is also not 
by nature. He is not a <^io-ei apxojtxvov, and all that has been proved in 
the foregoing is that ^uo-f i apxifieva possess a moral virtue of their own. 
Nature has indeed provided men with materials for dress and con- 
sequently for shoemaking (i. 8. 1256 b 20), but the shoemaker 
works for hire and practises p.ia6apv'ui, which was brought under the 
unnatural form of xpw"'^"*'? in i. n. 1258 b 25. Yet in 4('7). 8. 
1328 b 6 and 6 (4). 4. 1291 a i sq. artisans are admitted to be a 
necessary element in a State ; it seems strange then that they are 
not by nature. 

2. Tui' aXXuK Texi'iTui'. For the gen., see note on 1259 b 24. 

3. (|>ai'EpSi' Toifuc K.T.X. The reasoning is — we have seen that the 
slave possesses a certain ministerial form of moral virtue over and 
above his technical excellences, and that his moral virtue is relative 
to his master, who is his end and guiding authority ; hence it is 
from the master qua master, and not from the master as possessing 
the Sea-iroTiKri imaTripji, that the slave must derive the kind of moral 
virtue which he ought to possess. The concluding part of the 
sentence, if it were complete, would apparently run — reXe'av cxoito 

rr]V r)6iKr\v apcniv, aW ov rrjv SiSaiTKdKiKriv ep^oiTo rav fpyav BiamyriKJiv. 

Nothing is gained, as it seems to me, by introducing t6v (with 
Bern. Sus. and others) before rrjv SiSao-KoXiKiji'. The point insisted 
on by Aristotle appears to be that the master should be the source 
of moral virtue (in a subordinate and ministerial form) to the slave 
gua master, and as possessing complete moral virtue and reason, 
not as possessing the Seo-n-oruoj iirurnniri : it is not, that the master 
and nobody else is to be the source of moral virtue to the slave. 
Aristotle had said at the commencement of the chapter (1259 b 20), 
that the householder should care for the virtue of his slaves, and 

1. 13. 1260 b 1—5. -333 

he has now made it clear what sort of virtue he should seek to 
produce in them. In i. 7. 1255 b 30 sqq. (cp. 4 (7). 3. 1325 a 
23 sqq.) the SeanoriKfi kma-Trjio} has already been said to be nothing 
great and to be in no way of the essence of the master. Socrates 
and Plato, who had denied the name of fieoTroiTjr to any one not 
possessed of the science of dea-TronKri, are here glanced at ; Aristotle 
perhaps also remembers the picture of the Seottotijs in Xenophon's 
Oeconomicus, himself training his slaves to be efficient servants. 
Xenophon, however, had already in the same work depicted the 
householder as teaching his slaves justice {neip&iim ififii^d^eiv els 
■niv &iK(uo(ruvriv roiis olxeTas, Oecon. 14. 4 : Compare his account of 
the training of a housekeeper, ibid. 9. 13), and in this Aristotle is 
thoroughly with him. 

6. SlO X^YOUCril' OU KuXuS 01 XoyOU Tois SoIjXoUS dirOCTTEpOUI'TES k.t.X, 

When Aristotle speaks of imra^is in connexion with the master of 
slaves, he has in his mind emVafu ■nfpl to avayxaia : cp. 4 (7). 3. 

1325 a 25, ouScv yap to ye douXo), § bovKos, XPW^'"' f^ff-"""' V 7°P *'"■•" 
Ta^is Tj nepiTSiv avayxmav ovSevos /lerep^et t&v Ka\S>v, and I. 7- I255b33, 
eoTi 8' avTJ] 7) iiTKTTriiir] oudei/ fieya e)(ova'a ovSe (rejivov, a yap rov bov\ov 
eiTi<TTa<r6ai del TTOieiv, cKelvov Sel raira eitiarcarBai imTarreiv, The drift 

of the passage before us, therefore, seems to be — ' the master should 
be the source of moral virtue to the slave, hence he should not con- 
fine himself to commands relating to the slave's discharge of his 
servile functions.' But then comes the question — what is the mean- 
ing of ot Xdyou Toiis SovKovs aTrotrtepovvres ? Bern, and Sus. translate 
' those who forbid converse with slaves' — Stahr, ' those who with- 
draw rational admonition (die verniinftige Zurechtweisung) from 

slaves ' (cp. Xen. Oecon. 1 3. 9, avdpaTiovs &' ean niBavarepovs noieiv /cat 
Xoyfi), eiriSeiKviovra i>s (rv/xcjiepei airots TteiBeaBai) ; but I incline on the 

whole, following Bonitz (Ind. 436 b 50) and the earlier commenta- 
tors, to explain Xdyou here as 'reason' (cp. 1260a 17-19 and Eth. 

Nic. I. 13. 1 102 b 33, oTi he ireiderai nas imb Xdyou to cfXoyoi/, fniniei 
Km 17 vovBeTTjiTis Koi ■na<Ta imTiiiriiris re Kai jrapditXj/o'ts), though it 
should be borne in mind that the two senses of the word Xdyor, 
' reason' and ' reasoning,' often tend to pass into each other. We 
still have to ask, however, what is the meaning of ol Xdyou dwoore- 
povvres. The earlier commentators explain the words ' those who 
deny that slaves partake in reason' (cp. 3. i. 1275a 28, koItoi ye- 
Xoiov Touy KvpiaTOTovs cmoaTepeai dpxrjs), but perhaps their meaning 
rather is ' those who withhold reason from the slave ' (by withhold- 
ing the reasoning which is its source, i. 5. 1254b 22). For the 
relation of \6yos to the moral virtues, see Eth. Nic. 6. i. With 

324- NOTES. 

the teaching of the passage before us may be compared that of Eth. 

Nic. 9. 9. Il^ob 10, crvvaurBavftrBai, Spa Set Koi tov (j>l\ov on e<mv, 
TovTO de yivoiT hv iv rw av^v Koi KOLvaveiv \oytjov kol diavolas' ovrco yap 
&v So^eie TO <Tv(^v iin tS>v avSpajrav \eyea6ai, Ka\ ov^ axnrfp «rl rSiv ;3o(r- 

KrjfMTav t6 iv ra avra vep.ea-6ai. What is here Said of the intercourse 
of two friends may hold to a certain extent of the intercourse 
between master and slave. The reference in oJ \6yov rois SovXovs 
fmoa-Ttpovvres k.tX is to Plato, Laws 777 E: cp. also 720 B sqq. 
Pallas, one of the favourite freedmen of the Emperor Claudius, 
'would not deign even to speak to his slaves, but gave them his com- 
mands by gestures, or, if that was not enough, by written orders ' 
(Capes, Early Roman Empire, p. 87). According to Clement of 
Alexandria (Aristot. Fragm. 179. 1508 b 7 sqq.), oiSe npo<rye\av 
^oiXots 'Apia-TOTiKrjs e'la. Is not this writer thinking of what Plato 
had said in the Laws ? 

6. (jidaKorres. ' Infinitives following certain verbs (of saying, 
thinking, etc.) sometimes contain a .Dictative force . . . The 
governing verb gets a different and a stronger meaning : to 
" say " becomes to " recommend " or to " pray " ' (Riddell, 
Apology of Plato, p. 148). *atr(£«c is used of philosophers setting 
forth a dogma. 

7. i'ou6£THT€oi' yelp K.T.X. Aristotlc does not say why (Vict, wishes 
that he had), but his reason probably is that the slave's one 
chance of sharing in reason is to receive it in reasoning from 
outside. The child (1260 a 13) has to ^ov\evTi.K6i> already, though 
as yet imperfect, whereas the slave has it not ; all he has is the 
power of recognizing reason when set before him by another. One 
of Menander's characters says, in a fragment which perhaps belongs 
to the 'ASeKcpoi (fr. 2 : Meineke, Fr. Com. Gr. 4. 69) — 

Ov XvTTovvra del 
iratSdpiov opOovv, oKKa xal itelBovra Tt. 
Aristotle's view would probably strike his contemporaries as 
a decided paradox, for Pseudo-Plutarch, de Liberis Educandis 
c. 12. 8 F, most likely expresses the view commonly taken — kokAvo 
(jyrjpt, deiv Tovs TraTSas eVt Ta Ka\a rav £77triySeufxdT(Bi/ uyeiv irapaiviaurt 
fcal Xdyoij, firj pa Ala TrXijyais pi)^ alKiapoXs. Aokci yap iron ravTO 
ToiJ SouXotr paXKov ^ toIs i\iv6ipois wpejrdv' d7rovapKa<ri yap koi 
(j)piTT0v<n iTpbs TOVS TTOvour, TO, pev 8ia ray dXyijSdi/as Tav TrXijyfii', ra 
fie Koi 84a Tos v^peis: cp. also Ecclesiasticus 33. 28. 

8. Ttepi 8' di'Spos K.T.X. Nothing of this kind appears in the 
Politics ; its inquiries, in fact, seldom assume this delicate ethical 
character. There are a few words as to the mutual behaviour of 

1. 13. 1260 b 6—20. 325 

husband and wife in Oecon. i. 4. 1344 a 13 sq. which may pos- 
sibly reproduce some part of Aristotle's teaching. See also the 
Latin translation of a fragment on this subject (which can 
hardly be from the pen of Aristotle) in Val. Rose, Aristoteles 
Pseudepigraphus, p. 644 sqq. 

11. t6 koXus. See Bon. Ind. 291b 25 sqq. 

12. iv TOis TTCpl ris iroXireios.. The First Book (oj Trpfiroi Xrfyoj, iv 
otg irepi oiRovofilas Siapladrj Koi SeoTTOTetas, 3. 6. 1278b 17) is here 
marked oif from to jrepl ras noKiTeias : cp. 17 nparri fieBoSos irepl rav 

TtoKiTeiav, 6 (4). 2. 1289 a 26. So in Rhet. 2. 24. 1401 b 32, the 
phrase ol h rais TToXireiais occurs, and Plato's Republic seems to have 
been sometimes spoken of as al iroKvretai (cp. 6 (4)., 7. 1293 b i, 
atTTTcp nXdrav iv rms TroKireiais : see for Other instances Henkel, 
Studien, p. 10). 

14. TauTO, i. e. ainlp Kal yvvrj, rixva Koi traTrjp, though only naiSes 

and yvvaiKes are mentioned in 16; it is perhaps taken for granted 
that the training of the head of the household will be relative to 
the constitution. 

TT|i' 8e Tou |j.^pous K.T.X. Cp. 5 (8). I. 1337 a 29, p.6piov yap 
eKa<TTos T^s TrdXcms' jj 8' eirifiEXcia jTf<l>VKtv iKaarov popiav ^ineiv irpoi 
Trjv Tov oXou iirifiiKciav . 

15. Trpos TTif TToXireiai'. The virtue of the part must be adjusted 
to the virtue of the whole; hence the virtue of the woman and 
the child must be adjusted to the constitution, for the consti- 
tution is the standard of virtue in the irSKis, the whole to which 
they belong. Cp. 7 (5). 9. 1310a 12 sqq.: 5 (8). i. 1337a 
II sqq. The course followed in 4 (7). 14. 1332b 12 sqq. is 
quite in conformity with this principle, though we are concerned 
there only with the children, or probably the sons, not with the 
women ; 8^Xo» yap (says Aristotle in that passage), as oKoKovdeiy 

Se-qa-ei koi rfiv iraihelav Kara Tr)V hialpemv Tavrrjv (i. e. the decision 

whether the same persons are always to be rulers or not). 

18. ai (161' Y^p K.T.X. Cp. Plato, Laws 781 A sq. 

19. oi KOti'ui'ol Tiis iroXiTEias. Cp. 3. 3. 1276 b I, eerrt 8e (ij n-dXis) 
KOivoDvia irokiTav iroKiTfias, and 8 (6). 6. 1320 b 28, del &e Sti jrapdKafn- 
^dvfiv ix. To3 ^eXnovos brjpov Tovs Koivavovs. 

20. Sctt eTTEi K.T.X. Birt (Das antike Buchwesen, p. 459. 3) holds 
that ' these last five lines are evidently added by the " redaction " to 
form a transition to the Second Book.' The opening paragraph of 
the Second Book, however, accords but ill with the close of the 
First (see note on 1260 b 27); in fact, koi trpSrrov 23 . . r^s 
dpi(rrt]s 24 would be better away, though it certainly is the case that 


336 NOTES. 

the designers of ' best constitutions ' are criticised in the Second 
Book before actual constitutions like the Lacedaemonian, etc., are 
criticised. It is possible that the closing words of the First Book 
were added by a bungling editor, but it is also possible that 
Aristotle himself may be in fault. The opening paragraph of 
the investigations which now Constitute the Second Book of the 
Politics may have been imperfectly harmonized by him with the 
closing sentence of to irepX olKovo/ilas koI Sea-Trorelas, just as the 
sequence of the Third and Fourth (Seventh) Books is not absolutely 
perfect, and the programme of the Politics given at the close of the 
Nicomachean Ethics is departed from to a large extent in the 
Politics itself. Or again the opening paragraph of the Second 
Book may have been an after-thought of Aristotle's, and the book 
may have originally begun 'Apj^ijw 8e irpSn-ov TroirjTeov k.t.\. This is 
perhaps less probable, as rairris t^s a-Kefjreas 37 seems to refer back 

to Beapijcrai itepi T^s Koivavlas rfis noKiTiKrji 2'J. It is impossible to 
penetrate these secrets of the workshop; one thing, however, 
should be borne in mind, that the component parts of the Politics 
are not as closely welded together as they might be, and often look 
as though they were more or less separate works. This makes 
defects of ' callida iunctura ' less surprising. 


C. 1. 27. 'Eirel 8e k.t.X. The First Book ends, ral rrpSiTOv ema-Ke^apeOa 
1260 b. irfpl tS>v aarotjirivapfvav Trepl Trjs TroXiTfiay Tfjs dpiaTrjs. The Second 
begins by premising that Aristotle's aim is to inquire what form of 
political union is best for those most favourably circumstanced — 
a fact -yifhich had not been stated before — and then proceeds to 
argue that this involves a preliminary review of ' other constitutions 
than that to be propounded by Aristotle ' [tus aXkas n-oXtreias), 
whether actual working constitutions (termed Kvpuu in 2. 12. 1274 
b 27) held to be well-ordered, or schemes in good repute put forward 
by individual inquirers. The two passages are evidently not in 
strict sequence. The opening paragraph of the Second Book is not 
perhaps absolutely inconsistent with the closing words of the First, 
inasmuch as all that is said at the close of the latter book is that those 
who have put forward views with regard to the best constitution will 
be first dealt with, but it appears to ignore them. Inc. 12. 1273b 
27 sqq. the plan of the book is still further extended to include a 
notice of oJ cmKXprjvanevoi n irfpX jroXirfiaf generally, and even of those 

2. 1. 1260 b 27—31. %%'] 

who were the authors of laws only and not of constitutions. 
Isocrates (Nicocl. § 24) refers to the Lacedaemonians and Cartha- 
ginians as admittedly possessing good constitutions; Polybius (6. 
43) adds Crete and Mantineia, and in the opinion of some, Athens 
and Thebes. Plato (Laws 638 B) speaks of Ceos and the Italian 
Locri as well-governed. Cp. also Plato, Rep. 399 E and Crito 52 E. 

29. tAs aXXas iroKiTeias, ' Others than that which I am about to 
set forth ' : cp. n-np' auras erepov, 33. It is possible that these 
words may be used in the same sense ('other than my own') in 
4 (7)- 4- 1325 b 34- 

31. + TuyxAvwaiv t. In eleven passages at least of the genuine 
writings of Aristotle, if the MSS. are to be trusted, we find d 
followed by the subjunctive. These are as follows: — 30b 14, 
66 b 9, 636 b 29, 1261 a 27, 136 a 20, 27, 179 b 22, 343 b 
33, 1279 b 22 (avfi^aivrji. Vat. Palimpsest), 1447 a 24, and 
the passage before us. (In 1132a 11 Kl> has the subjunc- 
tive after kSi/ d: see also 322 b 28, 326 a 6, 645 b 31, and 
Susemihl's apparatus criticus on 1323 a 2.) In the first four of 
these passages the subjunctive is used with ral A, d, oiS' &v d, and 
aanep av d : in the remainder with kSi/ d. See Vahlen, Beitr. zu 
Aristot. Poet. i. 35 sqq., Bon. Ind. 217 a 31 sqq. and 41 a 26 sq., 
and Eucken, de Partic. Usu p. 59 sqq. All the MSS. but pr. P' 
and possibly V have Tvyxdvaa-ip here, and all except P' and possibly 
r have i^Kvaji in 1261 a 27. Vahlen's instructive discussion of the 
question as to the construction of k&v d with the subjunctive in 
Aristotle's writings results in the conclusion that its use is 'very 
doubtful' and in Poet. i. 1447 a 24 he substitutes k&v d rvy- 
xdvov<ri» for kSw d Tvyxdvairiv, which is the reading of the one 
authoritative MS. of the Poetics. Bonitz would emend all the pas- 
sages referred to above, so as to expel from Aristotle's writings the 
use of d with the subjunctive. Eucken remarks (ubi supra, p. 63), 
that Tvyxdvaaw here, (TVfi^a'iVTi in 3. 8. 1279 b 22, and<Ti,v 

in Poet. I. 1447 a 25 may very easily have arisen from Tvyxdnovuiv, 
(Tvii^aivei, and Tuyxdvovaw, and that it is only in passages ' ubi 
minima mutatione ex indicativo nasci potuit ' that the subjunctive is 
found after k&v d in Aristotle's writings. It is easy, however, to lay 
too much stress on arguments of this. kind (see Blass as to Dawes' 
Canon, Handbuch der klass. Alterthums-Wissenschaft, i. 252). 
In Plato, Rep. 579 D the MSS. have k&v el iif) to> SokJ, and in Thuc. 
6. 21 an 'indubitable' instance of d with the subjunctive occurs 
(Classen ad loc). See Stallbaum's note on Laws 958 C, wher^ 
other instances of the occurrence of this construction in Attic 

Q 3 

238 NOTES. 

writers are noticed. Aristotle is not a strictly Attic writer, and the 
fact should be noted for what it is worth that there are other 
passages of the Politics in which either the one family of MSS. or 
the other gives the subjunctive where we expect the indicative or else 
the subjunctive with av : thus in 1301 a 38-tf have rvyxavaaiv, and 

in 1307a 37 orm deXoxTf, while in 1313a 20 tf have Sa-a yap iXmro- 

viov &tn Kvpioi. On the whole, I have contented myself with indicating 
by obeli the grave doubts which attach to the inculpated readings — 
Tvyxavaiaiv here and eXKva^ in 1261a 27. 

32. Iva K.T.X. There is a considerable resemblance between the 
passage before us and de An. i. 2. 403 b 20 sqq. With regard 
to t6 op6S)s €xov and to xpV'f'"' *s the two ends of inquiry in the 
Politics, cp. I. 3. 1253 b 15 sq. and 6 (4). i. 1288 b 35 sq. 

33. t6 Ityrav ti Trap' afir&s irspov very probably refers to Isocr. 
de Antidosi § 83, oiSep yap avrois Sei ^rfrfiv mpovs [vo/ious], oKKa tovs 
napa rots aXXois evSoKiiiovvras Treipadrjvai (rvvayayelv, o pqSias ooris &v 

ovv pmiKriBeis jroiijo-ete. It is precisely this view that the Second 
Book is intended to disprove. See the opinion of Isocrates on 
this subject, de Antid. §§ 79-83. ndvTws probably goes with 
iTo(j)'i^e<T6ai ^ovKopiiiaiv in the sense of ' at all hazards.' 

35. tAs vuv iirapxouo-as. Vict. ' significat, ut arbitror, utrumque 
genus rerumpublicarum (id est, et usurpatas ab aliquibus civitatibus 
et literarum monimentis proditas), etsi id nomen magis convenire 
videtur receptis iam, verius enim hae (mapxav dicuntur.' 

81A TouTO. Bonitz (Ind. 546 a 47) compares for this use of roCro, 
in which ' per ubertatem quandam dicendi quae antea exponuntur 
postea epanaleptice comprehenduntur,' Categ. 5. 2 b 1 7 : de An. 
3. 3. 427 b 8-11. Cp. also c. II. 1273 b 5. 

36. Apx^i" 8e K.T.X. The natural starting-point of an inquiry 
jrept T^r Koivavlas rqs TroKiTuais (1260 b 27) is the question, in what 
and how much is there to be KoivavWi The question put by 
Protagoras (Plato, Protag. 324 E) reminds us in form of that raised 
here, but Protagoras is there thinking of virtue as the thing shared. 

40. iro\iT€io. Cp. 3. 4. 1276b 29, Koji'iBi'iaS' eWij"^ jToXtrem, where 
the meaning of iroKireia is evidently 'constitution'; thus Bonitz 
(Ind. 612 b 15) is apparently right in rendering the word here as 
'civitatis forma et ordo ';- otherwise we might be tempted by 
Toiis noKlras 38 and ol jroXirat 1261a I to explain it here, as in 
some other passages (see Bon. Ind. 612b 10 sqq.), as = 'the 
citizen-body,' especially as in 3. 3. 1276 b 2 the iroXirem is spoken 
of rather as the thing shared, than the Koaiavia — a term more 
usually applied to the TrdXir. 

2. 1. 1260 b 32— 2. 1261 a 9. 229 

41. Citizenship implies membership of the same city, and 
membership of the same city implies residence in the same 
locality. Still residence in the same locality does not amount to 

much : cp. Eth. Nic. 9. 9. 1170b ri, tovto Se ylvoir' &v ev TO OM^riv 
KOI Koivcoveiv \6yaiv Koi Siavoias' ourm yap &v 86^et€ to <rv(rjv iiri tS>v 
avSpawav \cyeiT0cu, koi ou;( aavcp eVi tS>v ^o(TKtjp,dTav to ev tm avT^ 

2. iriSrEpoi' K.T.X. The question is raised in very similar 1261 a. 
language to the question about Kingship, 3. 14. 1284 b 37. 
This is worth remarking, as these correspondences show a 
certain continuity of treatment. 

Scroll'. What are the objects which it is implied cannot be 
shared ? This appears from Plato, Rep. 464 D, 84a ro p,r)8eva tSwv 
iKTrjtrdai nXriv to aafia, to 8' SK\a Koivd. In the Laws (739 C) Plato 
Insists with humorous exaggeration, that even hands ears and eyes 
are to be common. 

9 sqq. ' Community in women involves both many other C. 2. 
difficulties, and this especially, that the object for the sake of 
which Socrates recommends its establishment by legislation 
evidently is not borne out (proved to be a desirable object) by the 
arguments he uses, and then again as a means to the end which he 
marks out fqr the State, the scheme set forth in the dialogue is 
impracticable; yet how it should be limited and qualified, is 
nowhere definitely explained.' Socrates fails to make out that the 
aim with which he pleads for a community in women — that of 
rendering the State as far as possible one — is a correct aim ; and 
the means which he adopts for the realization of his end are — 
apart from qualifications and limitations of which we hear nothing 
"from him — impossible. The first of these two allegations is de- 
veloped in c. 2 and the second in c. 3. The Platonic Socrates 
anticipates a reception of this kind for his suggestion of community 
in women and children ; cp. Rep. 450 C, fcal ycip as SwaTo. \4yerm, 

amaroiT av, (cat el Sri paXtara yivoiTo, as apurr &v eir) raiJTa, Koi 

ravTrj dmarriacTai. Aristotle's criticisms on the Lacedaemonian and 
other constitutions are grouped under two heads (c. 9. 1269 a 30) 
in a not very dissimilar way. As to aSvvarov, cp. c. 3. 1261b 

30, 810 eoTJ TO wavTas to airro Xeyew ah\ pev koKov, dXX' ov SvvaTov, 0)81 

8' ov8ev 6povor]TiK6v, and 1262 a 14 sqq. As to Si ^v alTiav, cp. c. 4. 
1262b 5 sq. For oi ^mWae (Tvp^euvov in the sense of 'evidently 
does not result,' cp. 2. 6. 1266 a 5, ou8' exovva ^aivcTai, and see Bon. 
Ind. 808 b 40 sqq. For ovp^atvov tK ravXoyav, cp. Top. 8. 1. 156 b 
38 (Bon. Ind. 713b 16), and de Caelo i. 3. 270b 11. It seems 

230 NOTES. 

better to interpret these words as 'borne out by the arguments 
used' than with Thurot (fitudes sur Aristote, p. 19) to explain, 'la 
communaut^ n'atteint pas le rdsultat, en vue duquel Platon ^tablit 
cette legislation.' The sentence o>s fiiv etprirac vOv appears to be the 
nom. to earl, which we must supply with dSivarov : cp. c. 5. 1263 a 

22, 01/ 8e vvv rponov ?;(Ei . . . ov fUKpov av SieveyKai. As to wp6s, cp. 2. 
4. 1262 b 3: 3. 13. 1284 a I : 4 (7). 17. 1336 b 31 sq. : 5 (8). 3. 
1338 a 42. For SieXelv (' explicare,' Bon. Ind. 180 a 23, 29), cp. 
Eth. Nic. 6. I. 1138b 20 sqq., and 9.^. ii68b 12, iias ovv t-ous 

TOioiJTOtis S« tS)U Aoyooi/ biaipeiv Koi Siopi^eiv, efj}' ocrov eKarepoi Ka\ irfj 
aKr)6eiavmv : also Metaph. A. 9. 992 b 18 sq. 

15. OTi (idXiCTTa qualifies jj-iav (cp. I261 b 16, and reKiats, 1261 b 

18. TauTi)!' u-n&Qiaiv, 'this as his fundamental aim.' For this use 
oi oItos, see Bon. Ind. 546 a 51 sqq. For the gender — ravrrfv, not 
toCto— cp. 5 (8). 3. 1337 b 32 : 4 (7). 7. 1327 b 41. 

KaiToi K.T.X. For the argument, compare 7 (5). 9. 1309 b 21 sqq. 

18. irXriGos . . . Ti. Cp. 3. r. 1274b 41: 1275b 20: 4 (7). 8i 
1328 b 16 — passages which explain the addition of n. Plato had 
said in Rep. 462 C, koI fjns Sr) iyyvTora cvbs dvdpamov e^^ t (auTi) fj iroKis 
apia-Ta Siotmrat), but his meaning is that the hurt of one member of 
the community is to be felt as a hurt by all, just as the hurt of a 
finger is felt as a hurt by the whole man. He knows well that the 

State consists both e'k nkeiovrnv dvBpimav and €^ etSei hia(jifp6vTav 

(Polit. 308 C). Nevertheless there was a real difference of opinion 
between Aristotle and Plato on this subject. The State is less 
of a avii^va-is (2. 4. 1262 b 14 sqq.) to Aristotle than to Plato ; the 
individual counts for more with him, and is less lost and swallowed 
up in the State. 

22. dmip:f)aEi yAp t^i' iroXii'. Cp. 1261 b 8 sq. For the future, 
cp. 2. 5. 1264a 5, pLoKioTa &' hv yivoiTo (jjavepov, « Tw T019 tpyois tSot 
Tqv TOiaiTr}V noKvreiav KaratTKeva^oiiivrfV' ov yap Swrjaerai k.t.A. 

23. ^? eiSei 8ia<|>£p<Si'T(i)i'. Cp. 3. 4. 127735 sq., and the enume- 
ration of the different ywi; of the ttoXk in 4 (7). 8. 1328 b 20 sq. and 
6 (4). 4. Especially the broad distinction of rulers and ruled is 
referred to (cp. 4 (7). 14. 1332 b 12); but even among rulers there 
will be differences (1261b 5). When we are told in 6 (4). 11. 
1295 b 25 that fi TrrfXts ^oiXerai t| "crav eluai Koi ofioiav on fidKiara, the 

word TToXts appears to include only the citizens, as in the phrase ^ 
ttoKls wo'SiTav ti ttX^Aos eaTiv, 3. r. 1274 b 41. But even like and 
equal citizens can only be ' as far as possible ' like and equal, for 
some of them will be rulers and others ruled. 

2. 2. 1261 a 15 — 27. 231 

25. p.^i' is answered by Se 29. For the thought expressed in 

24-27, cp. Xen. de Vectig. C. 4. 32, &(T7rep ainfmxoi, Sa-c^ 6.V TrXe/ous 
avviStaiv, Icr^vporipovs aKKjjKavs iroiovdiv, 

27. S(Tirep ac et k.t.X. It is not quite clear whether the meaning 
is 'just as a greater weight of anything is more useful than a less,' 
or 'just as a greater weight depresses the scale more.' Giph. 
takes the words in the former way, Vict, in the latter, "atnvep &v 
ei does not always imply an ellipse after &<nrfp av (see Bon. Ind. 
872 b 55 sqq. and Eucken, de Partic. Usu, p. 60), but it may perhaps 
do so here, and we may be right in translating (with Giph.) — ' just 
as would be the case, if a weight were to depress the scale more.' : 

t IXKiio"!) t. See critical note on this word, and also above on 
1260b 31. 

Sioio-Ei Se K.T.X. The first of the many questions which arise as 
to this passage is, what is the meaning of t-m Toiomm ? Here 
as elsewhere it seems to mean ' in the before-mentioned respect,' 
but it is not quite clear whether it should be explained as = ra 
eg ctSfi hia<l)tp6vTa>v ihoL, or 'in being all the stronger for being 
larger, even though its components are identical.' Probably the 
latter explanation is the correct one. Kc-xapuriiivoi Kara Kap,as, again, 
may mean either ' scattered (sundered from each other) in villages ' 
(cp. I. 9. 1257^ 22, oi 8e Kcp^oipKr/ucvot iroWav noKiv Kal Mpav, 

and Hdt. i. 96), or 'distributed in villages' (cp. 2. 5. 1264a 6, 

ov yap Svvr]tT€Tai firj fiepi^atv avra Koi \a>pi^a)V TTOL^trai t^v ttoXiVj and 

Eth. Nic. 4. 3. 112 1 b 19). The two interpretations do not lie far 
apart, but perhaps the former of them is the more likely to be 
correct (see Liddell and Scott s. v. kcdiu)). Passing on to discuss 
the meaning of the passage as a whole, we find that Stuv — 'Apxa- 
Ses has been taken by some to be explanatory of mXis, and has 
been rendered ' when the members of the ttoXw are not scattered in 
villages, but are concentrated in a city, like the Arcadians (after the 
foundation of Megalopolis),' but it seems strange that ' the Arca- 
dians ' should be selected to serve as an example of a ttoXw. It is 
far more likely that Srav pri — 'ApmSfs refers to the members of the 
fBvos, and is intended to explain under what circumstances the 
difference alleged to exist between the jtoKis and the e^vos does 
really exist. But then comes the question, what is the meaning of olov 
'ApKo&es ? Sepulveda explains, ' gens quae non per castella et vicos 
distributa est, ut divisos habeat magistratus, sed sparsas per agros 
domos habitat, ut olim Arcades,' and Lamb., Ramus, and others 
follow in his track, but Aristotle does not indicate in any way that 
he is not referring to the Arcadians of his own day, who had long. 

33a NOTES. 

ceased to live in this fashion. Dittenberger, on the other hand, 
whose able discussion of the passage in Gott. gel. Am. 1874, p. 
1376 sqq. (see an extract from it in Sus.^, Note 132) deserves 
careful perusal, explains the passage thus (p. 1383) — 'provided, 
that is to say, that the nation is not distributed, like most barbarian 
nations, into non-independent (unselbstandige) villages, but, like the 
Arcadian for instance, into a number of independent (selbstandiger) 
City-States.' He holds that a distinction is drawn in the passage 
between ' nations forming a political unity (commonly with a mon- 
archical constitution) ' and nations composed of a number of City- 
States. This is a possible view of it, but it must not be forgotten that 
in Aristotle's day the Arcadians were a confederacy of City-States, 
and that a general assembly of the nation met at Megalopolis : cp. 
Aristot. Fragm. 442. 1550 b 6 (Harpocr. p. 280), nvpioi iv Meydkrj 

TToXEt . . . crvveSpiov eVrt kouiov 'ApKaSiov (nravrav, oS itohXaKis fwrjiiovcvovaiv 
ot ioToptKol' dieiKeKTai 6e Trepi avrav koX ^ AptaroreXrjs iv Tfi Kotinj ApKabav 

TToKmia apxofifvos tov 0i/3\iou, and see Miiller, Fr. Hist. Gr. 2. 134, 

who refers to Diod. 15. 59, irfpl 8e rois avrois XPO"""' AvKop.riStjs 6 
TeyedTijs ?7rei(re Toiis 'ApiedSar eis fiiav crvvreKciav TaxBtjvai Kal Koivfjv E;^eu' 
a-vvobov (TvveiTTaa'av i^ dvBp&v fivpiaVj Koi tovtovs e^ovo'lav gx^iv 7rep\ 

TToKciuw KCLi elprivrfs ^ovKeifcrdat, as well as to Paus. 8. 27 and some 
other passages. Cp. also Hyperid. adv. Demosth. col. i6. 14 (p. 10 

Blass), Toiis Koivovs (TvK\6yovs 'Axai&v re (cat 'ApKaSmv. It is tO this 
confederation that Miiller {u6t supra) takes Aristotle here to allude, 
and the writer of some valuable remarks on the passage in the 
Guardian newspaper for Jan. 27, 1886 explains it in the same way. 
Is it not likely that Aristotle's meaning is — ' a nation also differs 
from a City-State in being all the stronger for being larger, even 
though its components are identical, whenever at least the nation is 
not scattered in villages, as some nations are, but united in a con- 
federacy, like the Arcadian'? It will then be implied that the 
addition of fresh villages to an uncompacted mass of villages brings 
no accession of strength, whereas the addition of fresh City-States 
to a confederacy like the Arcadian does so. An Wvos ' sundered 
in villages ' seems, indeed, to have been little better than a rope of 

sand : cp. Diod. 5. 6, oi 8' oivv '2iKavo\ t6 TraiKaiov Ko)/ii)86i' MKOW, cn-i 
tSiv oxypoTOTav \6<j)<ov ras TrdXfij KaraiTKtva^ovTes Sia roiis Xiyords' oi yap 
^(Tav iwb piav rjyffioviav ^acriXcms Terayp^cvoi, Kara iroKiv 8c eKaoTijv els §» 

6 Svvaa-Tevav : Hdt. I. 96 : Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. i. 9. Pollux, it 
may be noted, speaks as if the efli/or were always composed of 7r<!Xf « 

— Koi ai peu ttoXXoi irdXct: els cu crvvTeXovaai tSvos, ai 8e iroKXai K&ixm els 

iv o-ufK^fpouo-at ovopa noKts (9. 27, quoted by C. F. Hermann, Gr. 

2. 2. 1261 a 29—30. 233 

Antiqq. i. § 11. 10) — ^but this evidently was not the case. As to 
the position of koi before n-eJXti, Dittenberger remarks that though it 
is surprising, it is not more surprising than much else in Aristotle's 
collocation of words. See note on 1254b 16. Certainly ical edvovs 
nokts would be more natural, but perhaps the idea uppermost in 
Aristotle's mind is, that there is another pair of things between 
which a similar contrast exists, and he places nal before both these 
two things. Compare the displacement of the negative noticed in 
Bon. Ind. 539 a 14 sqq. 

29. Ik. The State is a Koivavia i^ ^s ev n TO ycvos, 4 (7). 8. 

1328a 25: cp. I. 5. 1254 a 28 sqq. For the various kinds of 
unity, see Metaph. A. 6. ioi6b 31 sqq. Aristotle inherits the 
thought expressed in this passage to some extent from earlier 
inquirers — from the Pythagoreans, from Heraclitus (Eth. Nic. 8. 2. 
1155 b 4 sq.), and from Plato (Polit. 308 C: Laws 773 C sqq.). 
Of course he also holds the complementary truth that there should 
be an unity of ethical conviction as to to. n-oii/Toca eiSaifiuvias in the 
minds of the citizens (4 (7). 8. 1328 a 37 sqq.). 

SO. SkSttcp k.t.X. For other passages in the Politics in which 
TO 7]3iKd are referred to, see Bon. Ind. loi b 19 sqq. It is the 
reciprocal rendering of an equivalent amount of dissimilar things, 
not the receipt of an equal amount of the same thing, that holds 
the State together (o-afet rat TrdXtir, cp. 1261 b 9 and 3. 12. 

1282 b 16 sq.). Cp. Eth. Nic. 5. 8. 1132 b 33, to dvniroie'iv yap 
dvoKoyov aviifiivei rj ttoXis : 9. I. 1163 b 32 sqq. : Eth. Eud. 7. 10. 
1243 b 29 sqq. and 1242 b 22 sqq. (In the first of these passages 
Aristotle includes under dyTmrSSoa-is a return of ill for ill, as well as 
of good for good, and thus takes a wider view of it than he does in 
the passage before us : dvrairdSoms is made to include the return of 
ill for ill, and further (1133 a 4 sq.) the return not only of service 
for service, but of favour for favour.) The fact that the State rests on 
TO lo-ov rb dvnwejTovBos, and not on the other kind of equality, serves to 
show that it is composed of unlikes, for if all the members of the 
State were likes (e. g. shoemakers), there would be no question of 
equivalence ; an absolutely equal share of the one product would 
be assignable. As it is, the ruler renders to the ruled the ofiices of 
a good ruler, and the ruled repay him with the offices of good 
subjects. It is thus that the State holds together, and that friend- 
ship is maintained between its members (Eth. Nic. 8. 8. 1158b 
II sqq.). This is true even of free and equal citizens, among 
whom one would least expect any difference in kind to exist, for 
though here there is no intrinsic difference, yet the impossibility 

234 NOTES. 

of all ruling at the same time leads to an 'imitation' of, or 
approximation to, such difference, and breaks them into rulers 
and ruled, two classes different in kind, even though they inter- 
change their positions from time to time. Hence here too to Xa-ov 

TO avrmejrovSos IS in place. 

33. Kar' EnauT6i<, 'year by year,' cp. 7 (5). 8. 1308 a 40, iv Sa-ais 
fiiv 7roXe(7t Tifiavrai Kor' ivmvrov, eV 8c raZs iiei^ocn Sia TpicrrjpiSos rj irev- 
TaenipiSos. Mr. Welldon : ' they must follow a system of yearly 
rotation.' Vict. ' hoc igitur pacto solum id administrari potest, si 
interposito spatio anni unius id fiet.' 

i] Kard Tii/a aXXr)!' rdiiy ^ xp6vov, ' or by some other order of 
succession ' (Bern. ' Abfolge ') ' or official period.' 

34. Kttl ... 81^, see note on 1.2. 1253 a 18. For trvp^alveiv aare 
Bonitz compares Pol. 6 (4). 5. 1292 b 12. Cp. also de Sensu 2. 
437 b 8. 

35. <3o-Trep &v ei k.t.X., ' as all would be shoemakers and car- 
penters, if etc. So Giph. p. 154. 

37 sqq. oStus. Sepulv. ' ut nunc sese res habet in sutoribus et 
fabris, ut iidem semper sint sutores, iidem fabri.' Since it is better 
that the same men should always rule (cp. for the thought Isocr. 
Busiris § 16: Nicocl. §§ 17-18: Aristot. Pol. 4 (7). 14. 1332 b 
16 sqq. and 6 (4). 2. 1289 a 39 sq. : Eth. Eud. 7. 10. 1242 b 
27 sq.: and contrast Pol. 6 (4). 11. 1295b 25), and that there 
should be a permanent difference between rulers and ruled, men 
seek, where this is out of the question, to get as near to this state 
of things as possible [fup,eir(u), and by alternation of office to 
create two different classes, rulers and ruled, thus conjuring up a 
difference where it can hardly be said to exist. For iv oh 8c . . . 
rovTo 8e, see Bonitz (Ind. 166 b 58-167 a 12), who points out 
that in this passage there is not (as in 6 (4). 12. 1296 b 32 : 4 (7). 9. 
1329a 11) any preceding sentence introduced by pcv for the first 
8e of the two to answer. The same thing appears in Rhet. i. 4. 
1359 ^ 32 sqq. and other passages adduced by Bonitz. 
1261b. !• «iT AyaGoi' eiTE <|)aOXoi' TO Spxeic. Camerarius (p. 76) refers to 
Plato, Rep. 345 E sqq. : 346 E sqq. Cp. also Pol. 3. 6. 1279 a 8 sqq. 
2. t TOUTo 8e )ii|XEiTai t6 iv jxepci toi)s icrous EiKCif to 8' us 6p,oiou5 
Eii-ai e| dpx»ist. I place in the text the reading of the first family of 
MSS., for though it is obviously untenable as it stands, it probably 
approaches the true reading far more closely than that of the 
second. See Susemihl's able note on this passage in Qu. Crit. p. 
360. He reads avop,olovs for 8' i>s Spoiovs, and this conjecture may 
be correct, but it is of course only a conjecture. 'Ev tovtok 8e (n") 

2. 2. 1261a 33— 1261b 8. 235 

might perhaps with advantage take the place of roCro 8e (tf ), but 
lu/ietTat {u}) appears to suit better with 01 /uv yap Spxavrai K.T.X. than 
fiiliel(T6ai (n"), with which ^eXTiov must be supplied, for, as Thurot 
says (Etudes, p. 24), ' Aristote constate un fait, mais ne donne pas 
un pr^cepte.' A. Schott, in Heinsius' Paraphrase of the Politics 
(p. 1044) conjectures ra in place of ro 3, and Sus. adopts this con- 
jecture, which certainly simplifies the passage if tovto Se is read or 
if the reading of the second family is adopted, but if we read iv 

rovTois fie fufieirac to iv liepei tovs icrouy t'lKeiv to dvonoiovs elvai i§ apyrjs, 
TO — eiKeiw will be the nom. to fH/ieZrat, and the translation will be, 
' in the case of these the alternation of ruling and being ruled imitates 
an original inequality.' So Thurot (£tudes, p. 23), '1^ oil les mem- 
bres de r£tat sont naturellement 6gaux, I'indgalit^ naturelle est 
imit^e par I'alternative dans I'exercice du pouvoir et dans I'ob^is- 
sance. Les citoyens commandent et ob^issent tour a tour, comme 
s'ils devenaient d'autres hommes, c'est-k-dire comme s'ils ^taient 
in^gaux.' Cp. i. 12. 1259 b 7) o'"'"' '■o /t^" «PX3 ™ ^' ^PXVf'^h f"?"' 
8ia(j)opau ftvai k.t.\. For p-ip^lrai in the sense in which it is used 

here, cp. IsOCr. Archid. § 81, ^v oSv etKiKpivis tovto woiria-ap.ev, o piio)- 
tra/icvois fjfuv avvrjveyKiv, ovk abrjKov on pahlas tS>v iroKefilaiy irriKpaTfj- 

a-ofiev, and Plato, Polit. 293 E, 301 A. Eikhv appears to occur 
extremely rarely in Aristotle: Bonitz (Ind. 219b 18) gives no 
other instance of the pres. infinitive. 

5. Kal t6i' auToi' Z^ Tp6-ttov k.t.X. ' And in the same way, again, 
even when they rule, one man holds one ofiBce and another another 
[just as if there were a difference between them].' So inseparable 
is differentiation from the State, that when its members are alike 
and equal, differences are conjured up not only between rulers 
and ruled, but even among rulers. It is thus that I incline to 
understand the passage ; I add, however, Mr. Welldon's translation 
of it — 'the same principle [of alternation] during the period of 
their rule regulates the distribution of the different offices among 
different persons.' 

7. On oure, see critical note. As to iri^uKe, see Vahlen's note 
on Poet. 6. 1450 a 2. 

ouTbis. Cp. C. 5- 1263 b 31, fi«i fi^v yap eivai nas fiiav Km. tyjv olxlav 
Koi Ttju TToKiv, dXX' ov jrdvras k.t.X. : I261 a 15, b 16, on naKurra : 
1261 b 20, reXeoii: 1261 b 10, Xtai'. 

8. TO \ex6ey (is fiiyiarov dyafloi'. Cp. Rep. 462 A. For the 
pleonastic use of on, cp. Phys. 8. 7. 260 a 25 and the passages 
collected in Bon. Ind. 538 b 33 sqq. We have iv toIs n-dXeo-tn here, 
but ev is absent in the similar passage, c. 4. 1262 b 8. 

2^6 NOTES. 

10. Kal Kar SWoe Tpoiroi', i. e. by asking, not how the State is 
composed, but what is most desirable. 

12. Kal PodXerai y rfiii k.t.X. Cp. 4 (7). 4. 1326 b 7 sqq. 
C. 3. 16. 'AXXA hV K.T.X. Here Aristotle seems to pass to his second 
point (1261 a 12 sq.), that saying mine and not-mine of the same 
thing is not a means to the unity of the State. The unity of the 
State is not 'indicated' {aTroSeUvva-Oai., cp. mnieiov elvai, 19) by men's 
saying mine and not-mine of the same thing. 

18. kotA toi' \6yov, ' in connexion with' (or ' in ') ' the expression,' 

i. e. TO Xcyeiv jidvras S-fia to ifjMV Kol ro jiri ifiov. 

28. TO yip irdi'Tcs k.t.X. For the ambiguity of nepiTra Koi Spna, 
cp. c. 5. 1264b 20 sqq.: de Soph. El. 4. 166 a 33 sqq. As to 
TTdvns, cp. 7 (5). 8. 1307b 35 sqq.: 4 (7). 13. 1332 a 36 sq. 

29. Kal iv Tois X<5yois takes up and justifies irapaKoyia-fios : not 
only do ambiguous terms such as these cause contention in practi- 
cal life, but in discussions also they generate contentious syllogisms.- 
Cp. Top. 8. II. 162a 16, troipia-fm 8e (ruXXoyter/ios ipiariKos : 12. 

162 b 3, ^jrevSfis Se Xoyoy Kohflrai TfTpax&s, eva p,ev rprmov orav (jjaLVrjTai 
trvpirepaivforBai lijj (rvfinepaivopevos, or KoKfirai epurriKos irvWoyurpos. 
Cp. also Metaph. a. 3. 995 a 10, ?xei ydp n TO wcpt^is ToiovTov, aijTe, 
KaBatrep €in tS>v avp^o'XaiaiVj koi efft Ttov Xdyov dveXevdepov etvat Tiai OOKei : 
Isocr. adv. Soph. § 7, tqs evavridxreis eVi /lev tS>v X6n/tov Trjpovvras, en-t 
8e TMi/ epyav prj Kodopavras (also § I4) : Plato, Polit. 306 A, Toiy nepi 

Xoyous dfufHo-^rjTriTiKoXs. Thurot {£tudes, p. 24) refers to Waitz, Top. 
8. 3. 159 a I and An. Post. i. i. 71 a 5. Perhaps Pol. 4 (7). 7. 

1328a 19, oil yap Ttjv avTriv aKpi^eiav bii fijTetK fiid Te tS>v \dyav Kal tS>v 
yiyvopJvav Sia Trji aladfitTfas should also be mentioned. 

3 1. ofi Sui/aT^r. ' lurisconsulti negant fieri posse ut eiusdem rei 
duo in solidum sint domini ; hoc tan turn permittunt, ut rei commu- 
nis dominum quisque se vocare possit, sed pro parte indivisa, non 
in solidum' (Giph.). Cp. dbimTov, 1261 a 14. 

32. t6 XEyofiEKOv, i. e. (probably) to jrdvras to aiiTO Xtyfiv efwu Kal 
fir] ifiov. 

34. i^pomJouCTif, 'men care for': cp. 6 (4). 11. 1295b 24, 
/SouXoirai: 8 (6). 8. 1321 b 25, KaSuTToa-iv. Plato had claimed (Rep. 
463 C-D), that his plan of an extended application of the names of 
brother, sister, father, mother, son, and daughter would not impair 
the fulfilment of the duties implied by such relationship. With this 
Aristotle does not agree. 

35. ?! 00-01' iKiioTu EirijSdXXEi. Vict. ' aut quantum suas partes 
postulare putant.' Men care for matters of common interest less, 

2. 2. 1261 b 10—3. 1262 a 3. 337 

or at any rate only to the extent to which they are personally 
concerned, in them. 

irp6s Y^P Tois aXXois is added to explain this limitation of atten- 
tion. Even where there is no other cause for inattention, men may 
well think that some one else is looking after the matter. Camera- 
rius (p. 78) compares Xen. Cyrop. 5. 3. 49 sq. 

38. The argimient is — each of the citizens has a thousand sons, 
and these not exclusively his, for every son is as much the son of 
one citizen as he is of another ; hence all the fathers will alike 
neglect the sons. The indefiniteness of the relation between father 
and child and the neglect to which this will lead is here insisted on, 
as in the next paragraph the fractional character of this relation- . 
ship and the consequent diminution of oiKnoTrjs. Cp. Rep. 463 C, 

navTi yap, a> &v evrvyxdvu rts, ij o)s d6eX0(p rj as dd€\<j)ij rj as Trarpt rj as 
fujTpi fj vUt fj BvyaTpl jj toutosi' iicyovois fj jrpoyovois Ko/iiei evrvyxdveiv. 

yii'oi'Tai, 'every citizen comes to have.' Cp. yiverai, c. 5. 1264a 
14 : 8 (6). I. 1317 a 24 : 7 (5). 4. 1304 b 5. 

iroXiTui' must be taken here in a sense exclusive of the third 
class of the Republic, though this class also is included by Plato 
within the citizen-body. 

1. en K.T.X. Here Aristotle seems to pass from the point of 1262 a. 
neglect and defect of attention to that of defective oiK«oVi)9. Plato 

had claimed (Rep. 462 B sqq.) that all the citizens of his State 
would feel as one man, and would sympathize as keenly with any 
one of their number who might happen to meet with good or ill 
fortune, as the physical frame responds to pain or pleasure affecting 
a limb. Aristotle contends, on the contrary, that they will be con- 
nected with any given member of their body only by a fractional 
relationship varying with the size of the State, and will feel only a 
fractional joy or sorrow at his prosperity or adversity, nor will they 
feel even that without doubt and uncertainty, for they will not 
know whether they ever had a child, much less whether it has 

2. ouTMS, i. e. ' fractionally,' or in other words, with the feeling that 
he has a thousandth share in him, not the whole ; ovras is explained 

by oir(5<TTOE Tvy}(dvei Tou dpiBfidv, as ovra 6 is explained by t6 airo fiev 
Trpoaayopevovras : cp. Metaph. B, 4. 999 b 33, to yap dpiffp,^ ev fj t6 
Kaff eKa<TTOu \eyciv duupfpei ovSeV ovra yap \eyojuv t6 Kad' ckoxttov to 

apiOncf ev, where ro dptOfia ev explains ovra (see Bonitz' note on 
the passage). 

3. oiof ifios i] TOU Seii'os K.T.X., 'i.e. he will say he is my son, or 
so and so's, naming in this way each of the thousand fathers or 

338 NOTES. 

more who are comprised in the State.' For the case of f'/ior, 
Gottl. compares Soph. Antig. 567, aXV ^8e iitvroL firi Xcye. Cp. also 
Metaph. e. 8. 1049b 5. The Latin idiom is the same: cp. Cic. 
de Legibus i. 21. 54: ergo adsentiris Antiocho familiari meo — 
magistro enim non audeo dicere. 

4. Ka9' EKao-Toc rflc xiXiui'. Kara is not ' of here, for then we 

should have xaff iKaa-rov (cp. 7 (5). 7. 1307 b 2, e'prjTai. Kara naaSiv 

Tav jroKtTetmv) : we must take Ka6' cKaarrov as One word (=singulos) : 
cp. Eth. Nic. I. 4. 1097 a 13, xaff eicao-roK yap larpevfi, and See Bon. 
Ind. 226 a 25 sqq. See also Ast, Lexicon Platon. 2. p. 145. 

6. KaiToi ir(5T€poi' k.t.X. AKrx'Xio)!/ Koi (' vi non multum ab ^ 
distans,' Bon. Ind. 357 b 20) fivplav is probably gen. after eKoa-Tov, 
which is the subject of 'Keyeiv. Plato had hoped that when the 
whole of the citizens spoke of the same person or thing as ' mine,' 
the State would be pervaded with a feeling of friendliness and 
brotherhood. MtV has nothing to answer to it, but instances of this 
are by no means rare: see for example 3. 13. 1284b 13. On 
lifv solitariuvi see Holden, Oeconomicus of Xenophon, Index p. 80*. 
In the passage before us the reason why \i.iv has nothing to answer 
to it probably is that Aristotle in his eagerness hurries on to 5 
paKKov K.T.X. without pausing to add,' but though using the same 
name, not feeling any clear sentiment of relationship.' 

9. The words outoC . . . auroC are emphatic : cp. liiov avp^iov, 
13, and Plutarch de Esu Carnium 2. 5. 998 D, vihv airoO tow Keipevov 
fl d8e\(j)6u avTov. Though A, B, C, and D call the same man 
severally by a different name, they nevertheless have that keen 
sense of something iSiov in connexion with him which, in Aris- 
totle's view, the change proposed by Plato would take away or 
seriously diminish. 

11. oiKEioTTiTa, here included under a-vyyevna, while in the 

Rhetoric (2. 4. 1381b 33 sq.) okeiorrjs and o-uyyeiiEia figure as 

two distinct forms of (piKia. 

12. Ii tSiv auTou. Giph. ' ut si frater uxorem ducat.' 

irpos Be toiJtois iTepoy. All the MSS. read erepov, but Bern, 
conjectures mpoi, and Thurot (followed by Sus.) erepos (£tudes sur 
Aristote, p. 26). ^"Erepos," says Thurot, ' est opposd h wpos tovtois, 
aux parents consid^rds comme faisant une seule classe : cf. 3. 14. 
1285 a 29.' We then have 6 piv — 6 Si — 6 8e — jrpos Se tovtois h-epos, 
and the sentence gains in neatness. And even if we take tovtois 
not as masc. (with Thurot), but as neut. (cp. irpos be tovtois, 1261 b 
32 : 3. 14. 1285 b 10 : 6 (4). 11. 1295 b 13, and often elsewhere), 
and make irpos tovtois mean ' besides ' or ' again,' the change of 

2. 3. 1262 a 4 — 21. 2^g 

fTcpou into €T€pos or erepoi is attractive. But all the MSS. are 
against it, and perhaps the point which Aristotle is pressing is not 
so much the number of persons related to one man as the number 
of appellatives indicating definite relationship in ordinary use under 
the actual system. 'Erepou, if we retain it, will be added, because 
the person hitherto spoken of would not be called (ftpdrap or 0vX/t))s 
by his relatives. It is not quite clear whether wpos tovtok should be 
translated ' in addition to these appellatives,' or simply ' again.' It 
is to be noticed that Aristotle in defending the family defends also 
not only the more distant degrees of relationship, but the phratric 
and tribal relations, which in modern societies do not exist. Cp. 2. 
5. 1264 a 8, and the mention of phratries in 3. g. 1280 b 37. 

<f>pdTopa (^uXett)!'. For the omission of ^, see critical note on 
1260a 26. 

14 sqq. Women had the credit in Greece of being especially 
quick in noticing resemblances between parents and children ( Athen. 
Deipn. 5. 190 e). Athenaeus makes the remark in commenting 
on Helen's recognition (Odyss. 4. 141 sqq.) of Telemachus' likeness 
to his father, and this passage of the Odyssey may well be present 
to Aristotle's memory here. 

16. KOTcl yilp Tcts 6(i.oi<5TT|Tas. Cp. Kara ras OfioiorrjTat, 21. Aa/i- 

pdvew ras TrioTfts is more usually followed by « or 8m, but these 
resemblances are referred to here rather as the standard by which 
conclusions as to parentage are arrived at, than as the source from 
which they are drawn. Compare the use of Kara in 4 (7). 14. 
1332 b 15, BrjXov yap i>s aKoKovSeXv fic^irei Koi ttjv irmhelav Kara rqv 
Siaipf(nv TavTTjV. 

18. KOI, ' in fact.' Not only is it likely to happen, but it does 

happen. Cp. de Gen. An. I. 20. 729 a 31, Sirep koI (jjaiverai (rvp,- 

19. tAs Ttjs YTJs ireptiSous. Aristotle dwells in Rhet. i. 4. 1360a 
33 sq. on the utility of these works in discussions about legislation, 
and here we have an instance of it. Hdt. 4. 180 is probably Aris- 
totle's authority in this passage, though the Auseans, of whom 
Herodotus is here speaking, are said by him to be ■rrapa6aKa<r<noi. 
(c. 181 : see Camerarius, p. 79). Aristotle refers to Herodotus less 
respectfully in de Gen. An. 3. 5. 756 b 6 ('Hpo'Soxor 6 p.v6oK6yas), 
and in Hist. An. 6. 31. 579 b 2. Meltzer (Geschichte der Kar- 
thager i. 69) holds that the Libyans were as a rule monogamists, 
and that the customs here and elsewhere (4. 172, 176) ascribed 
to Libyan races by Herodotus were exceptional among them. 

21. EiCTi 8^ Tices K.T.X. Vet. Int. ' sunt autem quaedam etiam 

a4o NOTES. 

femellae etiam aliorum animalium ' ; thus he takes yvvaiKcs here as 
= ' females,' as do Lambinus and many other translators and com- 
mentators after him, including Susemihl (also Liddell and Scott, 
S.V.). Sepulveda however translates, ' sunt autem mulieres quaedam 
et in aliis animantium generibus foeminae,' and Bernays, ' wirklich 
giebt es Frauen und auch Thierweibchen.' TwmKes is not often 
used by Aristotle in the sense of ' females,' and I incline to follow 
the rendering of Sepulveda and Bernays, especially as the word 
seems to bear its ordinary meaning in the very similar passage 
from the History of Animals quoted in the next note. 

23. ToTs Yf'Euo'i''. Cp. Hist. An. 7. 6. 586 a 12, elai 8e Koi yvvai- 
K€s eoLKora nvTois yevvaaaij al Se Ta dvdpij atrirep y iv ^apa'aka tinros rj 

AiKaia KaKovp.ivri, and Plin. Nat. Hist. 7. 12. 51. Vict, 'ea de 
causa lusta appellata fuit, quasi iideliter semper redderet quod 
acceperat.' Giph. ' quasi suum cuique redderet, lusta vulgo dicta 
fuit.' Vict, is probably right : compare the language of Pheraulas 
in Xen. Cyrop. 8. 3. 38, paka piKpov yfjhiov, oi pivroi irovrfpov yc, aXKa 
Trdprav SiKaioraTov' o Ti yap Xd^oL (nreppUj KoKas kdi dLKalas aTrebidov 
avTo Tc KOL TOKOv ovScv Ti iToXvv' fjhT) hi iTOTC vTTo yewatoTrjTos Koi hmXaaia 

dmSaKfu hv eKa^ev, and Fragm. 4 of Menander's Teapyos (Meineke, 
Fr. Com. Gr. 4. 97), together with Meineke's comments : 

'Aypov evaefieiTTepov yeapyflv ovSeva 
oipaC (pepei yap otra deois avdrj icaXa, 
KiTTOv, 8d<pvT]v' Kpidds 8' idv iTTTelpo), wdw 
SUaios i>v d7reda>x oaas &v Kara/SoXta. 

In the land of the just (Hesiod, Opera et Dies, 225-237), as 
Mr. Evelyn Abbott has pointed out to me, 

TiKTOvaiv . , . yvvaXKCs ioiKora rcKva TOKfiiai. 
Mr. By water adds a reference to Hor. Od. 4. 5. 23 : 
Laudantur simili prole puerperae. 
C. 4. 26. TaijTt]!' T?]i' KOivoivlav. Cp. 1262 b 15, Sta Trjv Koivavlav Tfjv 

27. TOus 8e EKOucious. Cp. eXryejoTroioirt Tovs 8e ijiowoiovs ovopa^ov- 

a-iv, Poet. I. 1447 b 14, and see Vahlen on this passage (Poet, 
p. 91), who collects other instances. See also Shilleto on Demosth. 
de Falsa Legatione c. 200. Aristotle refers to involuntary homi- 
cides, and then it occurs to him to add — ' and voluntary ones.' 
Plato hoped to prevent outrages of the kind referred to here by 
his regulations as to relationship (Rep. 461 D: cp. 465 A-B) ; 
he holds that younger men in his State will not do violence to 
seniors, because they will regard them as their fathers. But 
Aristotle does not think that they will be restrained by consider- 

2. 3. 1262 a 23—4. 1262 a 38. 241 

ation for a fatherhood -which he accounts unreal, and if they are 
not, then their violence may chance to fall on their real father 
or other near relative, and thus they may unwittingly sin against 
the divine ordinances. 

28. oaiov. 'Herodotus often uses the epithets oix oo-jos and 
dvoa-ws of violations of duty to near relatives, e.g. in 3. 19 : 3. 65 : 
4. 154 ' (L. Schmidt, Ethik der alten Griechen, i. 400). Aristotle 
does not neglect in the Politics considerations of t6 Sa-wv. cp. 
4 (7). 16. 1335 b 25. He writes as a Hellene animated by the 
religious feehngs of his race and time. In his view, ignorance and 
absence of intention would not remove the lamentableness or 
even perhaps the guilt of these crimes. Nor would it excuse the 
absence of Xvcrcis. So Plato (Laws 865 A-866 B) enforces on the 
involuntary homicide not only purification but a temporary exile. 
His procedure in cases of homicide is largely copied from the Attic 
(Grote, Plato 3. 404-5). See as to the Attic Law on the subject 
Gilbert, Gr. Staatsalt. i. 368 sq. In the Hercules Furens of 
Euripides, the hero, though his murder of his wife and children 
has been committed in the unconsciousness of raving madness, still 
veils his face before Theseus in order to save him the pollution 
inseparable from the sight of even an involuntary homicide 
(1050 sqq.). See also Prof. Jebb's note on Soph. O. T. 1415. It 
appears from the Liber Poenitentialis of Theodore, 3. 14 (Thorpe, 
Ancient Laws of England, 2. 5, cp. Capitula et Fragmenta Theodori, 
ibid. 2. 74) and from that of Egbert, 2. i (Thorpe 2. 183), that 
even justifiable or unwilling homicide was regarded by the Church 
as needing to be expiated by penance. So again, under the laws 
of King Alfred, ' even in the case of unintentional homicide, it was 
prima facie lawful and even proper to slay the slayer ' (Sir J. 
Stephen, History of the Criminal Law in England, 3. 24). Plato, 
however, set little store by "Kiam (R^P- 3^4 E), so far as aSiK^imra 
are concerned ; those to which Aristotle here refers, therefore, would 
in his view only avail in the case of an aKova-wv i/idpTt]ixa (Laws 
860 sqq.). Indeed, if Bernays is right (Theophrastos fiber From- 
migkeit, p. 106), the Peripatetics thought little of expiatory sacrifice, 
so that Aristotle may here be speaking somewhat exoterically. 

30. Kai does not mean ' both ' probably, but emphasizes TrXeioy. 

31. Tuv fikv yviopit6vTui', gen. after Xia-ns. 

32. aTOTToi' 8^. Cp. Plato, Rep. 403 A sq. 

35. TTOTpl irpos ui(5f. Cp. Plato, Rep. 403 B, SnTeadai &cnrep vUos 
waiSiKav cpaoTrp/, 

38. &<t \lav 8e k.t.X. Cp. Plato, Rep. 403 A sq. 

342 NOTES. 

40. T015 Y^(^PY°''3 is in the dative not after xph<'''l^'>^, but after 
Koivas, unless indeed we should compare the use of the dative in 

C. 7- 1267 a 37, tA ray ov<riaf etvai "eras rots TroXiVatr. 
1262b. 2. toioiJtous, i.e. tjttov ipDiovs : cp. 4 (7). 10. 1330 a 26 sqq. 

3. o\us 8e K.T.X. Aristotle has been making a number of 
objections to this or that feature of the proposed law, and the last 
of them (§TToc eo-Toi (})i\ia, i) leads up now to a broad impeachment 
of the law as a whole. ' Broadly, the law is a bad one ; it brings 
about results the very opposite of those which a law should bring 
about.' Compare the transition in Metaph. M. 2. 1077 a 14. For 
the thought that affection is the end of jroXtTtucij, cp. Eth. Eud. 7. i. 
1234b 22. 

5. Kal 81' 7]c oiTioi', ' and of that on account of which.' 
7. <i)i\iai' K.T.X. For the thought, cp. Eth. Nic. 8. i. 1155 a 
22 sqq. and Xen. Mem. 4. 4. 16, opovota iieyiarov dya66u SoKft Tois 
noXeaiv fivai. 

T£ ydp is here duly followed by nai. 

11. if ToTs cpuTiKoi; Xoyois. Cp. Plato, Symp. 191 A: 192 D 
sq, : ' in the discourses on the subject of love ' contained in the 
Symposion of Plato. It is not necessary to suppose that Aristotle 
means to designate the dialogue by this as a second title. See 
Sus.^ Note 148. 

12. For this construction with "Keynv, cp. 6 (4). 9. 1294b 20: 
Polyb. 6. 46. 9. 

13. dfwjioT^pous Iva. Cp. for the contrast of an<}>6Tepoi and eh, 3. 
4. 12773- 30> a/KpoTepa xai ov raira, and St. Paul, Ephes. 2. 14, d 
7roir](Tas ra dfji<j>6Tcpa ev. 

14. ei'Tau9a fi.ei' GUI' k.t.X. In this case to (r(f)6bpa ipiKetv is present 
and the persons are only two in number (contrast fUKpov y\vKv eU n-oXu 
ySap fux^ev) : here therefore a close unity results which involves the 
absorption and disappearance of the two persons or one of them 
(cp. pia yjfvxri, Eth. Nic. 9. 8. 1168 b 7). The case is, in fact, that of 
a a-ip-^vms : cp. a-vfufiv^vai 13 (Plato, Symp. 191 A, had already used 

the word trviKpCvm), and Phys. 4. 5. 213 a 9, (rin^vm Se, Srav S/i^a 
ivepyfla ev ye'vavrai. But the measure which Plato is for applying to 
the State will not produce to o-^oS/jo (^iXfiv, but only a weak and 
watery kind of affection, and this watery sentiment will be spread 
over a whole State. For both these reasons no o-u/z^utrtr will result. 
Plato's idea was not entirely novel (cp. Hdt. 4. 104), and it survived 
him, not only in the jtoXctew of Zeno of Citium (cp. Diog. Laert. 
7. 131, and Athen. Deipn. 561 c quoted by Henkel, Studien p. 27), 
but far later (see Plutarch's account of the proposition of Hor- 

2. 4. 1262 a 40— 12G2b 28. 243 

tensius, Cato Minor, c. 25). For row €va in the sense of tow mpov, 
cp. T^ ev\ iraiavi (' the one form of paean ') Rhet. 3. 8. 1409 a 10. 

17. Y^uKu, probably the ■yXvKiir oKpoTos olvos of Diog. Laert. 7. 184. 
■The yKvKu is ^tXi'a, the vbmp the Koivavla, here the large KoivavLd of 
the State. A similar comparison recurs in de Gen. et Corr. i. lo. 
328 a 23 sqq., and in an illustration by Chrysippus of the nature of 
a KpSa-is (Diog. Laert. 7. 151). 

18. ouTu K.T.X. This sentence may be construed in two ways at 
least : either we may (with Sus. arid others) place a comma after 

TovTav 20 and supply avaicr&rjTov etvcu with rfjv oiKiioTriTa K.T.X., taking 

biatppovriCdv iJKiara dvayKoiov hv k.t.\. as an acc. absolute, or we may 
with Bonitz (Ind. 192 b 61) make SiaKftpovTi^fiv govern rrjv oiKMoVijro. 

'Svfi^aivfi rJKtara avayKoiov Si/ will then gO together (cp. ouScw aXXo 
a-vuffrjaerm VfVop.o6eTr)fievov, 2. 5. 1264 a 9). If we adopt the latter 

interpretation, the question will arise, how the genitives in rj irarcpa 
ojs vi&v, ^ uioi/ as TraTp6!, ^ as dSfXc^oir dXX^Xmi/ are to be explained. 
On this subject see Mr. Ridgeway (Tram. Camb. Philol. Soc, vol. 2. 
p. 132), who compares Metaph. M. g. 1079 b 34, eiSos ir ykvovs (' an 
«Sos viewed in relation to a genus') and Pol. 7 (5). 11. 1314b 17, 
TapXav as Koivav (he would however read aSi^^ois as dXX^Xmw) ; but 
perhaps Susemihl's interpretation, which is certainly simpler, is also 
more likely to be correct. For the acc. absol. with the participle 
of elfii and its compounds, see Dr. Holden's note on Xen. Oecon, 
20. io, pahiov hv TToXX^v TToieiv, and Jelf, Gr. Gr. § 700. I take iJKtcTa 
with dvayKoiov, not with Sta^povri^eiv. It is probably in order to 
avoid the repetition involved in dSeK<^bv as a&e\<f>ov, that Aristotle 

writes as d8f\(j>ovs aXX^Xow. 

23. TO iSiov is that which belongs to oneself, exclusively of all 
others : to ayawriTov ' carum valet . . . idque significare voluit Catullus 
cum inquit " si quid carius est oculis," quo uno se aliquis con- 
solatur, in quo omnem spem suorum gaudiorum coUocatam habet, 
quo impetrato ac retento contentus vivere potest' (Vict, on Rhet. 
^- 1- 1365 b 16, quoted by Mr. Cope in his note on this passage, 
which should be consulted). 

24 sqq. Cp. Plato, Rep. 415 B sq. 

27. Tro\\*|i' exei TopoxVi 'perplexity': cp. c. 8. 1268b 3. For 
the use of tx", cp. Eth. Nic. 8. 15. 1 163 a 10. 

28. yiv&dK^w draYKaioK. Susemihl asks (Sus.', Note 152) 'what 
harm will there be in this, so far as the displaced children 
of guardians are concerned ? ' Mr. Welldon's explanatory addition 
may well be correct — ' and hence a child cannot be absolutely 
separated from the class to which he belongs.' Aristotle may also 

R % 

344 -NOTES. 

hint that persons incorporated with one class and conscious of 
being related to the members of another will find themselves in an 
equivocal position, being neither quite the one thing nor the other. 
29. iriiXai, above in 1262 a 24 sqq. : so rov irakai \oyov in 3. 11. 
1282 a 15 refers to 1281 a 39-b 21. 

33. If with Vet. Int. Ms and pr. P' we read ^vKa^i tovs SlCKmis 
■KoKvras in place of i^vka^m els Tois aXKovs TroXtVas, which the sense 
seems to oblige us to do, we must translate ol irapa toU <f>v\a^i 
' those placed among the guardians ' (placed among them, but not 
born among them). 

34. fiorre k.t.X. is connected, not with the whole of the preceding 

clause, but with the word npoa-ayopeiova-iv in it. 
C. 5. 38. Karao-KeudJeaSoi, probably passive. 

iTo\iT£ij£a6ai TTjc &plirrr[V iroXireiai'. Cp. Plato, Laws 676 C, 
^7r6\(i,ej neiroKiTevp.ivai irdaas ndkiTeias. 

40. TOUTO 8' av Tts K.T.X. ToCro clearly refers to norepov koiv^v 
ij fif) KOivfjv €ivai Tr)v KTtja-iv, but in explaining it {Xiya fit K.T.X.) 

Aristotle does not, as we expect, repeat these words ; he substitutes 
a slightly different topic of inquiry, i. e. whether both property and 
use ought to be common. He wisely decides to treat the question 
of community of property apart from that of community in women 
and children : experience has confirmed his view that the two 
questions are separable. His feeling appears to be — (i) that a 
■decision in favour of severalty as respects women and children does 
not necessitate a similar decision as to property; (2) that alter- 
natives present themselves for consideration in reference to property 
which had not presented themselves in reference to women and 
children. For instance, the ownership of property may be several 
and its use common, or the ownership common and the use 
several, or both ownership and use may be common. He thus 
prepares the way for his own solution, which is, if we take into 
account the conclusions of the Fourth Book, that while part of 
the land is to be koivt) and to be set apart for the supply of the 
common meals and for the service of the gods, other property is 
to be owned in severalty and yet made common in use. 

41. \iyii> 8e k.t.X., ' and I mean that as to what relates to 
property (one may inquire) whether,' etc. Susemihl brackets ra 
Trepl Tjjv KTTjmv (see his remarks, Qu. Crit. p. 365), and these words 
may certainly be a marginal note which has crept into the text 
(see critical note on 1272 a 28 for an instance of this), but the 
expression Xe-yo) he, which, as Sus. allows, often introduces matter- 
of a somewhat superfluous kind (see Vahlen on Poet. 13. 1453 a 4), 

2. 4. 1262 b 29— 5. 1263 a 5. 245 

here perhaps applies to the whole of the succeeding sentence, and 
not to TO TTfpi TTiv KTrja-iv exclusively. 

1. cKcTca, i.e. TO TfKva Koi ai yvvaiKes. For the gender, cp. aird, 1263a. 
c. 5. 1264 a 7. 

2. iro<ri ' commode opponitur lis quae sequuntur, Sirep ena n-oici 

tS)v eoifaVj et Xeyoi/rat fie TLves Koi tovtou tov rpoirov Koivaiveiv rStv ^ap~- 

^dpav' (Busse, De praesidiis Aristotelis Politica emendandi, p. 23). 
Yet the Libyans referred to in 1262 a 19 sq. had women in 
common (for other instances, see below on 1266 a 34). ndm, 
however, probably goes with e^^'j and not with what follows, as 
Sus. thinks. 

3. The words ray re KTTjo-eis . . . xPW"^ imply that there is a doubt 
whether kt^o-is and XPW'^' need be treated in the same way, and olov 
takes up this unexpressed doubt and instances a way (not the only 
one, nor indeed Aristotle's own) in which KT^o-ty may be made 
several and XP?<^'^ common. We might have expected that (cai to. 
yrj-ireSa Ka\ Toiis Kapnoiis Kowois, 8, would have been the first alternative 
introduced by olov, but while it suits better the expressed thought 
of ra's re KT-qcreis—xpfia-^it, the hint contained in these words that 
it is better to make a distinction between KTrja-is and xp5<^'s would 
not have been taken up. Spengel's proposed insertion of ras 
KTTjfras fj ras ;(p4cretr rj (or ras ;^p^ffets ^ ras KTrjcrfis ^) before ras re 
KT^a-eis seems to me unnecessary. 

\otpis, so. (tvai. For the change of subject to dvaKia-Kciv, cp. 5, etvat 
. . . yicopyeiv : 4 (7). 5. 1326 b 29, to yap rrdvra mdp)(eiv Koi beicrBm 

IxTjSevos avrapKcs : and 3. II. 1281b 28. See Riddell, Apology of 
Plato, p. 210. 

5. tS)v iOv&v, Vict, 'intelligit autem barbaras nationes': this 
appears from kui tovtov tow rpoirov, >j. For to. ^Bvrj in this sense, 
cp. I. 2. 1252 b 19: 5 (8). 2. 1324 b 10. Diodorus (5. 34. 3) 

says of the Vaccaei of Spain — otroi Koff inaaTOV eros diaipovp,evoi TTIV 
)(d>pav yecopyoviTi, koi tovs KapiTovs Koivowoioviievoi peraSiSoairiv eKacrrco to 
filpos, Kut Toiy vo(T<puTapivois n yeiopyols Bdvarov to wpdan/iov TcSeiKaa-t. 

Aristotle, however, will hardly have been acquainted with the 
Vaccaei. He may possibly have the Itali in his mind (4 (7). 10. 
1329 b 5 sqq.), and other races practising the custom of common 

meals (cp. 1263 b 4a, atrmp ra Trepi ras KTrjo-eis iv Kamhalpiovi zeal 
Vipfyrri tok av(T<riTiois 6 yo|*ofle'n;s CKoivaMrev). Koivfj dvoKiaKuv is used 

in Rep. 464 C of Plato's guardians, who, we know, had common 
meals (Rep. 458 C). Cp. also Diod. 5. 9. 4, rds oua-tas Koivas 

TTOirjo-diifVoi Kat ^avTcs Kara a-va-a-iTia, and Strabo, p. 'J 01 sub fin. 

Aristotle instances only barbarians ; we find, however, an approach 

3,46 NOTES. 

to the system he describes in Crete, where the men, women, and 
children received their maintenance from the State (wot' U koivov 
rpeipiadai navras, 2. 10. 1272 a 2o). 'Les Syssities existent de nos 
jours dans les communes kabyles sous le nom de Thimecheret' 
(Jannet, Les institutions sociales a Sparte, who refers to Hanoteau 
et Letourneux, La Kabylie 2. 82 sqq.). 

?) TOui/afTioc K.T.X. For ■yecopyelv "oii/n, cp. Plato, Laws 739 E, 
vti\i.a.<j6av \iiv- 617 npwTOV yrjv re Kal olxias, Koi fifj Koivr) yeapyovvrav. 

In this scheme the land would be common and cultivation common 
— i.e. the cultivators would act under the control of some central 
authority, and their labour would not be confined to a particular 
piece of land, but applicable promiscuously to the whole cultivable 
area belonging to the community. This system is hardly less 
unlike than the preceding one to that of the Teutonic village- 
community (see for a description of it Sir H. Maine's work on 
Village Communities, p. 79 sq.). ' In some Russian communes the 
meadow portion of the communal land is mown by all the peasants 
in common, and the hay afterwards distributed by lot among the 
families' (Wallace, Russia i. 208). No mention is made by 
Aristotle of any barbarian races which treated both land and 
produce as common, but the partly Greek population of the 
Liparaean islands appears to have done so for a time ; see the 
remarkable passage of Diodorus (5. 9. 4 sq.) referred to in the last 

8. iTipuy, ' others than the citizens,' not, I incline to think, 
' others than the owners,' though the two meanings do not lie far 
apart. Aristotle is considering the question in the interest of 01 piX- 
\ovTfs iruKiTfiearBcu rfjv dpla-rriv iroKirelav (1262 b 38). For the contrast 
between erepuiv ovtihv tS>v yecopyovvTav and airSiv avTois Sianovovvrav, 

cp. c. 8. 1268 a 36 sqq. If those who till the soil are not citizens, 
but a separate and subordinate class, like the Helots or the tillers 
of the soil in Aristotle's own ideal community (4 (7). 10. 1330 a 
25 sqq.), disagreements would be less likely to result from the 
citizens holding property in common, for, as the citizens would 
not work themselves, individual citizens would not be in a position 
to compare their own hard work and small recompense with the 
easy work and large recompense of others, and thus one main 
source of disagreement among the citizens would be removed. 
If this observation is intended as a criticism of Plato's arrange- 
ments in the Republic, it seems to miss its mark, for the guardians 
cannot be said avTot avrois fimn-oveic, and though the yewpyoi are 
made citizens by Plato, they are not intended to hold property in 

2. 5. 1263 a 8—18. 2,4'J 

common. It is true, however, that in Laws 739 E Plato uses the 
expression Koii/j yeapyeh in reference to the Republic. 

9. aXXos Af EiT) Tpiiiros Kal pouc. Vict. ' alia erit ratio et minus 
molestiae in se continebit.' Koivavtas should probably be supplied 

with Tpoiros (cp. 7), or else t&v nepl rar kxtjitcis (cp. lo). 

10. auTui/, i. e. Tcox TToXirSv — not, as it seems to me, rmv yeapyoiv- 
rav, though this interpretation has the high authority of Bonitz 
(Ind. 187 a 57) in its favour. 

tA irepl Tois K-n^o-Eis, not (as Lamb.) ace. after SiairovoipTav, but 

nom. to wape^oi. 

11. Kal ydp K.T.V. Cp. Eth. Nic. 9. 6. II 67 b 9 sqq. 

13. [^) \ap.^dfoi<Ta5]. See critical note. Congreve omits fj \ap.- 

^avovTas iroWa : Sus. brackets ij Xa/i/SdvoKTas. 

15. oKus 8^, ' but indeed we may say broadly that,' etc. Apart 
from all intensifying circumstances, living together and sharing in 
everything is in itself enough to give rise to troubles. 

Ktti introduces a limitation and explanation of to <ruf^i» : see Bon.' 

lid. 357 b 13 sqq., and cp. C. 2. 1261 a 17, irpoXova-a Kai yivopimj 
Ilia paWov. The article is omitted before Koivavdv, as it is omitted 
before ^oijSijaai in 1263- b 5, to x"/3''''''o'flai koI fioyjB^irai. (cp. also' 
7 (5). 10. 1311a 13 sq., 15 sq. : 7 (5). 11. I3i3a40— b 18). 
Tuf di'SpuiriKuc TtAyrav. Bonitz (Ind. 57 b 43) gives a reference 

to Eth. Nic. 3. 5- 1112 a 28, dXV oi8e irepl Ta>u avdpioniKav Travrav 

16. Tui' ToiouTuc, ' the things of which we have spoken,' i. e. 
property, which, it is evident from what follows, is classed by 

Aristotle with eyxuicXia, cp. 18, Tav ev iroai , . . piKpav, and 21, 
tyKvicKiovs. So in C. 7. 1266 a 36 sq. rb jrepi Tar oiaias explains 
dsro tS>v avayKalav. Aristotle appears to think that quarrels are 
more likely to arise over questions relating to avayKoia and to Kaff 
ijfUpav than over greater matters. 

17. Tbiv a-ufairoS^fjiui'. Fellow-travellers are perhaps conceived 
here, as Bernays implies by his translation, to be sharers in 
a common purse, but this is not quite certain, for the next 
illustration is taken from a master and his servants, who would 
not have a common purse. It is enough to cause quarrels, if 

men Koivavovai tS>v iyKViCKiaiv. 

18. 8ia<t>Epofici'oi, not 8io<t)^poi'Tai. Sus.^ (Ind. Gramm. s. v. Par- 
ticipium) compares i. 5. 1254 b 23. Cp. also 4 (7). 14. 1333 a 
18, and see note on 1259 b 11. The participle expresses a habitual 
fixed characteristic, and means rather more than the indicative. 

£K rav iv TToal , . . dXXrjXois explains how their differences arise.' 

348 NOTES. 

Ik (iiKpai/. Cp. 7 (5). 4. 1303 b 18. 

20. irpooxpeineOa seems here to be used in a sense ('utor in 
aliquam rem': see Ast, Lex. Platon. 3. p. 213) more common in 
Plato than in Aristotle. 

tAs SiaKOi'ias Tols lyKUKXious. Cp. C. 3. 1261 b 36, iv rais olneri- 
Kois hioKovlms, and Plato, Theaet. 175 E, » ave/icariTov evriBti SoKeiv 
Koi oii&evl civai, orav els SovXiKa eiiircar) &iaKovf]fiaTa, own CFTpajiaro- 
hftTjiov /ifj im<TTajx(vos iTvir<cva(Ta<T6m lirfbe Syjrov ■^SCvai rj Somas \6yovs. 

22. For oc Be vSf TpoTror k.t.X. as the subject of SieveyKtu, cp. C. 2. 
1261a 13. But why is eViKocr/xijflEi; neut. .? Does it agree with 
some neut. latent in ok . . . ex", perhaps to fu/ Koivas dvai tos /crijo-ftr ? 

23. Kai before imiaxTfaiBh (add. n'') implies that severalty of 
property is not enough without fjdrj k.t.X. The use of koi is some- 
what similar in 6 (4). 16. 1300 b 22, m/nrTov t6 irepl rmv ISltov trvvcCK- 
"KayfiaTav koI ixoVTav jjiiyeBos. We have in 1263b 39 to« eBcai, Kai tJ 

<j)i\o(ro(f>ia Kai Tois vo/iois, and II* read edea-i here, but ^Bea-i. (n^) is in 
all probability the correct reading — cp. Plato, Laws 751 C, tireira ad 

Toiis ftiXXovTas aiprjtrecrBai Te6pd(j>Sai re iv rjBeai vopav c3 'neiraibeviiivovs 

TTpoS TO K.T.X. : Rep. 557 CI, TTOITIV rj8e(Tl TTeTTOlKtX/iEWJ TToXtTEia '. EphOH 

ap. Strab. p. 302, tS>v BmawraTois rjBeai p^pta/xei/iui'. 

24. efei yAp k.t.X. This implies that there is good in community 
of property. What this is, is not distinctly stated, but Aristotle 
probably means that it ensures every one having what he needs. 
See 4 (7). 10. 1330 a 2 sqq. 

26. TTus, i. e. Kara ttjv xPV'^"'- 
oXms, ' broadly, on the whole.' 

27. at (AEc yelp K.T.X. 'For when every one has a separate 
province, one main source of disputes will be removed, and work 
will prosper all the more, because each man will feel that he 
is applying himself to business of his own.' Tap explains and 
justifies the preceding sentence. Ta eyKKfipara, i.e. those men- 
tioned in 12. At (mpeXeiat appears to be nom. to cVtSmo-ouo-t (Bon. 
Ind. 271a 43). Cp. Soph. El. 33. 183 b 19 sqq., Xen. Hiero 
9. 7, ^ yiapyia air^ &v jroXir imSoirj, and Pol. 6 (4). 15. 1 299 a 38, 
KOI jSeXTioc cKacTToi' epyov Tvyxdvei T^r imp,e\eias iiovtrnpaypaTouirris fj 

29. 81' dpETi^i' is here emphatic (cp. St' dpcT^i/, 5 (8). 2. 1337b 
19, where the antithesis is 81' aXXour, which is not far removed 

in meaning from i^ aviyKrjs, 1263 b 10, epyov yap KaXov akXoTpias 
oS<rt)s dnex^aSai Sia (raxppoa-imiv, and 22, Sv oiSev ylverai fiia rfju axotva- 
vritrlav dkXa bid rfiv poxSrjpiav) : fit answers to p.ev 27. ' And on the 
other hand it will be owing to virtue, that according to the proverb, 

2. 5. 1263 a 20—35. 349 

" friends' goods " will be " common goods." ' Virtue will be called 
forth for the accomplishment of this result, and this will be a gain. 
Pythagoras was, it would seem, the original author of the saying 
(Diog. Laert. 8. 10), but Zeller doubts whether he meant it as an 
injunction to practise communism (Gr. Ph. i. 291. 3). The addi-. 
tion here of wp6s t6 xp^o-^ai (cp. em tt/v xpw'", 8 (6). 5. 1320 b 10) 
perhaps looks as if Aristotle so understood it. Epicurus certainly 

did so: cp. Diog. Laert. 10. ll, t6v re 'ErrUovpov pfi d^iovv els TO 
Koivbv KaTaTideirBai ras oixrias, Kaddwep tov Uvdayopav Koiva ra ^tKav 
"KeyovTa" amaTovvrmv yap etvai to toiovtov, el 8' diriarav, ov8e (j)i\o>v. 

31. ei'iais irdXeaii'. Tarentum (8 (6). 5. 1320 b 9 sqq.) : Carthage 
(8 (6). 5. 1320b 4 sqq.): the Lacedaemonian and Cretan States 
(1263 b 40 sq.) : Rhodes (Strabo, p. 652). Compare also Isocrates' 
picture of the earlier Athens (Areopag. § 35). For the appeal here 
made to the practice of existing States, cp. Rhet. i. i. 1354 a 18, 

et wepl Trdcras rjv Tiis Kp'ureis KaBdirep iv eviais re uvv eVri tS>v TroXeuav koI 
/idKurra tols evvofiovfievais, oibev civ elxov o ti "heyairiv. 

uiroYEYpafjifi.Ei'oi'. For the meaning of this word, cp. de Gen. 

An. 2. 6. 743 b 20—25, ®^P' °' ypa<j>els VTroypdyjfavTes raij ypappals ov- 
TCis evaXelipovai rols )^pi>iiatn to faov : it explains Tma Siopi^eiv in de 
An. 2.i.4i3aio. The fact that the institution of property assumes 
here and there in outhne the form which Aristotle wishes it to 
assume is taken as an indication that this form is not imprac- 

34. Toi flee xp^cifi'a iroici roig <f>i\ois. Vict. ' copiam quorundam 
ipsorum faciunt amicis, relinquuntque ipsis ea utenda.' Cp. Xen. 
Mem. 2. 6. 23, t6v 8e <f>66vov wavrdiracriv d(^aipov(nv (01 KoKoX KayaSoi), 
Ta pAv eavTotv dya6a Tols 0iXoc9 olKeta irape^ovTeSf Ta 8e Tcov (jiiKav eavTav, 

XprJTai Koii/ois. For the absence of as, cp. 36, Iblon: c. 3. 1261b 
24, 01 Koivals )(pi)pevoi Tois yvvai^i : Isocr. Paneg. § 181 (quoted in 
Aristot. Rhet. 3. 9. 1410 a 14). Plutarch, speaking of brothers 
(De Fraterno Amore, c. i), uses the expression, kw. to xp^f^at 
Koivas Tots Ttarpaois ^(pfjpaai Koi ^IXois koI hovkois : cp. ibid. C. II, 
Xp^o'iv Se Km KTrjfTiv iv petreo Kelo'Bat Koivrjv koX aveprjTOV dwavTav. 

35. iv AaKeSaifiOfi. See Xen. de Rep. Lac. 6 as to this Lace- 
daemonian practice. As to slaves, Xenophon there says, eVoiT/o-e 

Se (o AvKovpyos) xal olxeTais, et Ttr SetiBeirj, )(prj<r6ai, /cat toIs dWoTpioK, 

and he adds the same thing of dogs and horses. The expression 
ev AaKeSalpovi frequently recurs in the Politics (see Bon. Ind. 421 b 
7 sqq.). AoKeSaipav is used by Xenophon (Sturz, Lexic. Xeno- 
phont. s. V.) and other writers to designate both the city of Sparta 

a50 NOTES. 

and Laconia. Aristotle perhaps uses tv Aa«8ai/iiow here as he uses 
fv 'Adtjvais in 2. 8. 1268 a 10, ta-n Se Koi eV 'Adrjvais oStos 6 vojioi vvv 

Koi iv erepats toiv noKeav, where the name of the city seems to stand 
for the State. He does not seem to intend to contrast iv AojceSai- 
fiovi with iv rols dypots Kara Trjv x""?"") Or to Suggest that it was only 
in the city that men placed their slaves, horses, and dogs at each 
other's service. Nothing of the kind is said by Xenophon in the 
passage of the de Rep. Lac. (6. 3 sq.) which Aristotle seems to have 
before him here. 

36. K&c 8£T|6u)a'ii' e^JoSiCnic, i. e. kui c^oSiots, av SerjOwa-i. (cp. Xen. 
Rep. Lac. 6. 4, orrov yap hv vno 6rjpas 6-\^iir6cvTes SeqOSiai. rav eiri.Tr)- 

Seiajv). The word €(f>oSlois is caught into the construction of the 
conditional clause and must be supplied from it: cp. xpij/^roji/, i. 
8. 1256 b 29. 

37. iv Tois dypots Kara Tr|i' xiapav. This seems at first sight 
tautological, and many emendations have been suggested : see 
Susemihl's critical note (Sus.^ vol. i. p. 170). Both Busse (Sus.^) 
and Mr. Welldon suggest, ingeniously enough, the substitution of 
tv ToLs aypats for iv Tois dypoU — a change which agrees well with the 
passage of Xenophon de Rep. Lac. part of which has been quoted 
in the last note, for Xenophon makes no mention of dypoi and 
does use the words ijro Bfipas o-^ia-Bevres. The passage concludes — 

rotyapovv ovTas jueraStSdvrey aXXi^Xoiff Kat oi ra fUKpa e-)(ottT€s fieT€)(ovai 
iravrav twv ev rfj X^Pft 0Tr6Tav rivos Sct]6S>(nv. But we find iv ay pa in 

the very similar passage, [Plutarch] Inst. Lac. c. 23, and the 
meaning of iv toU dypols Kara Ttjv x^P"-" niay not improbably be 
' in the farms throughout the territory.' Sturz (Lexicon Xenophont. 
s. V. aypos) collects many passages of Xenophon in which aypol 
^ ' praedia.' The word may possibly bear this meaning in Pol. 

V (S)- 5- ^^305^ 1 9) ^'''■' '■'"" dypmv oiKfiv Toi' S^/uok aff^oXoi/ ovra Ttpos 

TOIS f^vots. In Plato, Laws 881 C, however, we have kot dypo-is 
TTjs x<"pos irov, so that there is nothing strange in the conjunction 
of the two words. The x^P^i or district attached to the city, 
included villages or even towns, as well as woods, fields, and the 

like (cp. Xen. Hiero 9. 7, kot dypoiis rj Kara Ka>iias). 

38. For the change of subject from ehai to ttoieii', see note on 
1263 a 3. As to the thought, Plato himself had said. Laws 740 A 
(while giving up community of property as impracticable in the 
absence of a complete reform of marriage, rearing, and education) 
— veptarSav S ovv roiaSe Biavot^ nas, as apa Sd t6v \axovTa t^i/ \!j^iv 
TavTijV voju^fiv fiiv Koivr/v avTrjv Tijs jroXeats ^viijrdarjs k.tX. But the 

expression used by Aristotle appears to be derived from Isocrates 

2. 5. 1263 a 36-1263 b 2. 251 

(Areopag. § 35) — Kf^aAaion 8e tou Ka\S>s aWfiXois d/uiXeii'' ai li^v 
yap KT^treis d<7<f>a\els ^(rav, ounrep Kara ro BUaiov vitfipxuv, ai Be XP'l' 
(rets Kowal waai toIs Scojuci/ou tS>v noXiTav. Cp. also Xen. Mem. 2. 

6. 23, Tov 8e (fidovov itavToiratrw d(j)aipovtnv (ol Kokoi Kciyadot), ra iiiv 
eavToii/ ayada Toll (piKois oiKcta jrapixovres, ra be tS>i> (jiiKav eavrSiV 

39. TOiouTOi, SC. &a-Te tJ XPW^'' 'toieiv Koivas ras KTrjo-eis, For the 
thought, cp. 4 (7). 13. 1332 a 31 sqq. 

40. Kttl irpos i^Soi'iii', as well as in relation to virtue, cp. 29. But 
how does the fact that a reasonable degree of self-love is natural 
prove that to regard something as one's own adds greatly to 
human pleasure? Perhaps the link is supplied by Rhet. i. ri. 

1370a 3, dvdyio] ouK fi&ii elvai to T£ els to koto xpiiriv levai as em to 

■noKv, where we learn that pleasure arises from the satisfaction of 

nature, and Pol. 5 (8). 7. 1342 a 25, woiei be ttjv rjbovrfv eieda-Tois TO 
Kara (pvatv oiKfTov (cp. 5 (8). 5- ^340 ^ 3i ^X" V^P 'I MOi'o''k^ '''V" vbovfjii 
<j>v(rtKT]v, bio Trdcais rjXLKiais Koi irdiriv rjBetnv r] p^p^trts nuT^f eWl 

7rpoa<f)CKi)s). If SO, the complete argument will be 'for the satisfaction' 
of a natural craving brings pleasure, and is not self-love in modera- 
tion natural ' ? Compare also Rhet. i. ii. 1371b 18 sq., and Hist. 

An.' 8. I. 589 a 8, to be Kara (pvcriv fjSi' Simxet be irdvTa Tr)V Kara ipia-iv 
^boi^v. Or should we complete the ellipse thus — ' for is there not 
a purpose, namely pleasure, for which we are so constituted as to 
feel love for ourselves, and is not this an ordinance of nature ' ? 
Or again — 'yes, and natural pleasure too, for is not self-love im- 
planted in us for a purpose and natural ' ? The first of these ways 
of completing the ellipse is probably the correct one. 

41. co|xi£eii' Ihiov Ti, ' to regard a thing as one's own,' for vop.l^ew 
will hardly be used here in the sense which it bears in 3. i. 1275b 

7, oiiS eKicKrjiTiav vop.l^ovcnp dWa avyKKrjTovs. 

(IT) Y^p K.T.X. See on this use of, Bon. Ind. 464 b 43 sqq. 
(' dubitanter et modestius affirmantis est '). Eucken (de Partic. Usu 
p. 57) would read exn &<" ^X" in b i, because Aristotle sometimes 
uses the subjunctive in this construction (e.g. in 6 (4). 4. 1 291 a 9, 
where all the MSS. have the subjunctive: Eth. Nic. 10. 2. 1172 b 
36 : 10. 10. 1 179 b 24), and ' in eodem libro ad eandem sententiam 
significandam modo coniunctivum, modo indicativum adhibuisse 
minima verisimile sit.' But the indicative is found under similar 
circumstances (without various reading) in Eth. Nic. lo. i. 1172 a 
34 and 10. 2. 1173a 23, and Bekker, whom Susemihl follows, is 
probably right in retaining this variation of mood. 

2. TO Se K.T,\. The connexion just established between affec- 1263 b. 

452 NOTES. 

tion for oneself and Nature reminds Aristotle of a fact which seems 
to conflict with it, that (piKavrta is blamed and justly so, and he pro- 
ceeds to explain that the epithet (j)l\avros is applied to those who 
are fonder of themselves than they should be. Herein he follows 

Plato, Laws 'J^I E sqq. (cp. 732 B, 810 vdura avBpamov xpfl (jievyfiv 
TO er^dSpa (j}iketv avTop), and he repeats the same view in Eth. Nic. 
4. 10. 1125 b 16 (cp. 3. 13. 1118 b 22 sqq.: 2. 7. 1107 b 28 sq.: 4. 
10. 1125b 9sqq.). In Eth. Nic. 9. 8. ii68b ig-23 and 1169a 
20 sq. the unfavourable use of the word is connected rather with 
the preference of money, honour, and tq irepitiaxnra ayaBa generally 
to TO Kcikov. so too in Magn. Mor. 2. 13. 1212 b 2-6. Affection 
for oneself is implied in Pol. 7 (5). 9. 1309 b 12 to be to a certain 
extent a preservative against oKpaa-la, though not a complete pre- 
servative like virtue. 

3. If here we read, with all the MSS. except P'^, Kaddwep 
Koi Tov (piXoxpriH^rov, we must explain ' as it is for this that we 
blame the money-lover,' ■^iyop.ev being supplied from i/feyeTot 2. 
To read to' for t6v undoubtedly makes the sentence far less rugged: 
its meaning will then be — ' as to be a money-lover is to be fonder 
of money than one ought to be.' Cp. Plato, Rep. 347 B, f) oiit 
olaBa, on to <pi\6nfi6v re xaX (piKdpyvpov elvai SveiSos Xeycral re Koi 
tariv ; 

4. eirei k.t.X., ' and it cannot be intended to blame men for 
loving what all love ' seems to be here suppressed. Cp. 3 iraa-i 
SoKel TOUT ehai (jiafifv, Eth. Nic. 10. 2. 1172 b 36, and Pol. 2. 8. 
1269 a 3. 

6. For the absence of the article before Poii\(lf\crai, see above on 
1263a 15. 

Ejaipois, tf rightly : cp. Rhet. 2. 4. 1381 b 34. For the thought, 

cp. Eth. Nic. 9. 9. I169 b 10 sqq. : 8. I. I155 a 7, rl yap o(j}e\os rrjs 
roiavTrjs everrjplaSj d<patpeB€i(Tr]S evfpyetrias, rj ytyV€Tat judXtora Km inaive-, 

TiBTUTi; npos (fithovs ; Aristotle possibly has in his mind some lines of 
Antiphanes (Inc. Fab. Fragm. 4: Meineke, Fr. Com. Gr. 3. 133). 
o yiverai k.t.X. shows that ;fapi'o-ao-6ai, ^orjdrj(rai must be used in 

reference to goods or money^ for it would still be possible to help 
and confer favours on friends in other ways, even though property 
were common. 

7. TttuTa, if we read ov o-un/SaiVfi, appears to refer to to vopi^eiv 
iSiov Ti and to )(°-pi<Taa6ai Kai ^orjBija-m (j)i\oi,! — ' these things do not 
come to pass for those who' etc.: cp. 2. 9. 1269b 39 sq., and 

Xen. Mem. I. 2. 11, Ka\ (poveveiv 8i Tols Totourotf rJKiOTa crv/i^aivei. 

8. epY" Suoic dpETaic. Cp. Isocr. Nicocl. § 41, o-<B0poo-i!vi;s epya 

2. 5. 1263 b 3—19. 353 

■Km Sikaioa-ivris. It would Seem from Eth. Nic. 10. 8. 11 78 a 21-b i 
that both irpoaiptiTis and npa^eis are necessary to perfect virtue. 
But the passage before us does not raise this subtle question; it 
appears to imply (cp. Magn. Mor. i. 19. 1190b i sqq. : Eth. Eud. 

2. I. 1219b 11: 2. II. 1228a 16), that men may be virtuous 
without being able to evidence their virtue. 

9. <|>ai'Epus, ' undisguisedly ' or 'visibly and unmistakably'? 
Probably the latter (cp. tfiavipdv, c. 7. 1266 b 20). 

t6 irepl Tcks ywaiKWi, sc. epyov, which comes to the surface in 
the parenthesis. 

10. K0X61', and therefore a work of virtue (cp. 4 (7). 14. 1333 

dWorpias is emphatic : no woman, it is implied, would be an- 
other's in the State described in the Republic. 

11. eorai. For the suppression of the subject, cp. de Part. An. i. 

3. 643 b 17 : Metaph. z. 12. 1038 a 13. 

13. CI' TT) ydp. For the place of yap [iv yap rfj, Aid.), cp. Sui 
TO avTi TTfpovTjs yap, de Part. An. 2. 6. 652 a 18 : iv toIs be^iois yap, 
de Part. An. 3. 9. 671 b 35. As to the thought here expressed, cp. 
Eth. Nic. 4. 2. ii2ob 27 sqq., where we find that ekevdepwrrjs has 
to do both with 8d<ris and X^t/^ii, though more with the former than 
with the latter (4. i. 1119 b 25). 

15. y.iv here seems to have no 8e to answer to it, because the 
structure of the sentence is altered at &», 22. If the sentence had 
been more regularly constructed, it would apparently have run — 
' hence, while legislation of the kind proposed wears a plausible 
look, it will in reality fail to remove the evils which it is designed 
to remove, it will involve the loss of many goods, and it will 
require men to live a life which cannot be lived by man.' 

n TOiaiirr) rojioSeo-ia. Cp. C. 4. 1262 b 20, iv rg jroKiTcia rfj 
TOiaiirri, and C. 5. 1264 a 6, r^v Touxirtjv TroKireiav. 

16. 6 Y»P &Kpoi!i^tvo<i K.T.X. Aristotle is probably thinking here 
of communism in relation to property: cp. t^k ovaUv, 20. Yet 
Ephorus seems, if we may judge by his eulogistic remarks on 
some Scythian races which had women children and property in 
common, to have been, in their case at all events, well pleased 
with the institution (Strabo, p. 302), to say nothing of Cynics and 
half-Cynics, like Diogenes of Sinope and Zeno of Citium (Diog. 
Laert. 6. 72 : 7. 33, 131). Plato had not been sanguine of 
support (Rep. 450). 

18. oral' K.T.X. So Plato, Rep. 464 D-465 C. 

19. ei* TOis iroXiTEiais. Cp. 5 (8). I. 1337 a 13, ^Xamfi rdif icoXiTelas. 

354 NOTES. 

21. ircpl o-ufiPoXaio)!'. Compare Strabo p. 702, quoted below 
on 1267b 37. These suits would be brought within narrow 
limits in the State of the Laws (742 C : cp. Rep. 556 A); there 
were indeed some actual States in which they were not permitted 
(Eth. Nic. 9. I. 1164 b 13 sqq.). Theophrastus recommended 
the registration of property and of contracts [avii^oKma) in the 
hope of avoiding suits on this subject or diminishing their number 
(Fr. 97). Such a register appears to have existed in some States 
(see C. F. Hermann, Gr. Ant. 3. § 49. 10). Zeno of Citium, 
the founder of Stoicism, was for getting rid of law-courts altogether 
in his ideal State (Diog. Laert. 7. 33). It is evident that Greek 
society had more than enough of litigation. As to actions for false 
evidence, it is obvious that the adoption of community of property 
would remove only one of their occasions. 

23. Kol T0U9 KoicA, KEKT>|[i^i'ous K.T.X. Sus. ' dass gerade Leute 
welche Etwas gemeinschaftlich besitzen und benutzen . . . ' Here 
Kai is perhaps rightly rendered by ' gerade ' : 'it is just those who 
possess and enjoy things in common, whom ' etc. Among the 
cases referred to here would be that of brothers holding undivided 
property, which seems to have been not uncommon at Athens (see 
Caillemer, Succession legitime k Athfenes, p. 34 sqq.) and elsewhere 
(Jannet, Les institutions sociales \ Sparte, p. 88 sqq.). ' Les en- 
fants, aprfes la mort de leur pere, au lieu de partager entre eux sa. 
fortune, restaient quelquefois dans I'indi vision' (Caillemer, ubi supra). 
See C. F. Hermann, Gr. Ant. (ed. Thalheim), Rechtsalt. p. 54. 2. 

25. dXXA 6E(i>pou|jiEf K.T.X. ' Beiopuv is here synonymous with 
opau ' (Bon. Ind. 328 a 36). ' But those who fall out in consequence 
of owning common property look to us to be few in number, 
because we compare them with the large number of those who 
own property in severalty.' 

28. orepi^cfoiTai. The fut. med. of a-rtpia, like that of several 
other verbs [BpeijrovTai., c. 6. 1265 a 16 : Sp^ovrm, 8 (6). 4. 1318 b 
36), is often used in a passive sense. 

Koiv<i)vr{a-avT€i (cp. Koivtovovvras, 23), 'having made common stock': 
so we have XPVH-"''''^'' i»yiva>vri(ravTas, Xen. Oecon. 6. 3. For the tense, 
see below on 1270a 4 and 1271 b 4. 

29. Vict. ' tot autem tantaque sunt (bona quibus spoliantur), ut 
plane cognoscatur non posse ullo pacto vitam traduci ilia lege.' 
The life which the members of Plato's State are to live is in 
such flagrant opposition to well-ascertained tendencies of human 
nature — so starved and poor in pleasure, aifection, and virtue, and 
so wanting in concord — that it will be unliveable. 

2. 5. 1263 b 21—41. ^S5 

30. TrapaKpou'o-60)s is usually rendered 'error,' but perhaps' 
Liddell and Scott, who compare Soph. El. 17. 175 b i, are right in 
rendering it ' fallacy.' 

31 sqq. Compare the argument in 7 (5). 9. 1309 b 21 sqq. 

33. irpoiouo'a. Cp. C. 2. 1261a 17, Trpoiovtra (col ytvofiivri fi!a 

33 sq. Cp. 8 (6). I. 1317a 27, ou fiovov 8ia(j)epci ra /SfXWu xaX 
^ei'po) yivetrdai ttjv br]fxoKpar'iav, aWa Kai t^ fir] Trjv avrfiv. 

34. &(nTep K&y el k.t.X. ' Just as you would spoil a harmony or 
a rhythm, if (Mr. Wellddn). 

35. rhv pu6|j,di< ^Airiy p.iai'. The unit of a rhythm — the aavvdemv 
of which it is composed — is the ^da-tt or else the syllable (Metaph. 
N. I. 1087b 36). The pdms is in dancing the 'step,' in verse the 
metrical foot. Thus to make the State absolutely and in every 
way one is here compared to dwarfing a long rhythm to one single 
jSderiy, i.e. to One of its component parts: cp. c. 2. 1261 a 19, oUia 
cK ffoXfcBf, SvBpmnos 8* e^ oIkios, where avBpwTTos answers to jSacrir. 

36. irpiSTepof, c. 2. 1261 a 18. 

Sicl T>)v TraiSsiai'. Eucken (Praep. p. 39) explains Sta with the 
ace. here 'by means of (' durch, vermittelst'), comparing de Caelo 3. 

2. 301 a 18, (TvyKptaiv Se jToiav bia rfju (jyiXorriTa : Meteor. 2. 8. 366 b 5 • 

Phys. 4. II. 219b 29, cp. b23 sq. So Bonitz remarks (Ind. 177a 
45), ' Sm cum ace. coniunctum legitur, ubi genetivum exspectes,' 
instancing this passage and referring to fim ravrr)!, 38. 

37. Koii^i' Kttl fiiav. Bern, 'zum einigen und Einen Staat ma- 
chen:' Sus. 'zur Gemeinschaft und Einheit gestalten.' Perhaps the 
latter translation comes nearest to the sense. There is no English 
word which adequately represents Koivriv : ' to make it social and so 
one ' is an approach to the meaning of the words. 

38. 81A Tou'-njs. Cp. 4 (7). 13. 1332 b 31 sqq. 

39. Tois ToiouTois, i.e. 'by the measures which we have de- 
scribed,' measures which do not unite the State by improving the 
character of the citizens. 

40. TJj <|>i\oao(|>ia, distinguished here from rois Wca-i, as from 
dvSpia, Kaprepia, and Other ethical virtues in 4 (7). 15. 1334 a 23, 32, 
where Bonitz (Ind. 821 a 6) explains the meaning of the word to be 
'virtus intellectualis ' : cp. Eth. Nic. 2. i. 1103a 17, 17 8' rjBiKrj dperfi 
i^ Wov! rrepiytvirat. Here perhaps 'intellectual culture' (Mr. Welldon) 
is the meaning. 

41. Tois o-uo-o-iTiois, adduced appareiitly as an instance of a law 
acting on the character. Compare Aristotle's language as to syssitia 
in 4 (7). 10. 1330 a I sqq. 

a5<5 NOTES. 

1264 a. 1. TouTo auT^, 'this by itself: cp. airo tovto, i. 6. 1255 a 18. 

2. Tw TToXXu \povia K.T.X. Plato himself appeals (Rep. 376 E) to 
the testimony of Time in favour of yvfivaaTiKij and nova-iio]. For 
tTe<ri.v Bernays (Gesammelte Abhandlungen i. 177) conjectures 
eSveaiv (comparing Simonides Ceus, Fragm. 193 Bergk: he might 
have added to his citations Plato, Laws 638 E, fV«8^ kcu fivpla 

fVl fivplois i'dfrj nepl avr&v dp<j>iiT^r)TovvTa vpiv TrdXecri hveiv t& Xoyo) 
biapaxoiT Sv, for the saying of Simonides appears to be present to 
Plato's mind in this passage of the Laws), and the suggestion of 
a reminiscence of this bit of Simonides here is brilliant and 
ingenious, but we find « ttoWSiv erSiv kcH wdKaiov xp^""^ in Aristot. 
Fragm. 40. 1481 a 41, and tautological expressions are not rare in 
Aristotle's writings (see Vahlen, Poet. p. 87, on Poet. i. 1447 a 17, 
ercpcDs Kol pfj tov aiirov rponov) : besides, iv oh suits treaiv better 
than e6vf(riv. 

4. «upr]TOi. Cp. 4 (7). 10. 1329 b 25, (TxeSov p,ev ovv Koi m aXXa 
del vopi^eiv evprjtrdai ttoWokis iv T(5 ttoXXw ;^poi/6), /xaXXoj/ 8* airetpaKis. 

Aristotle held that the world existed from everlasting (Zeller, 
Gr. Ph. 2. 2. 432 sq.) and mankind too (ibid. 508. i), and that 
in the infinity of past time everything has been discovered, and, 
if lost, discovered over again. Hence he advises inquirers rather 
to avail themselves of what has been already made out and to 
investigate what has been insufiHciently investigated, than to seek 
to strike out something altogether new (4 (7). 10. 1329 b 33 sq.). 
There seem, however, to have been subjects on which Aristotle 
claims to have inherited little or nothing from his predecessors 
(see Eucken, Methode d. Aristot. Forschung, p. 5, who refers to 
Phys. 4. I. 208 a 34 : de Gen. et Corr. i. 2. 315 a 34 : Meteor, i. 

13- 349 a 14)- . 

o-ui/iiKTai, ' gathered together for scientific use ' : cp. Metaph. A. 

9. 991 a 18 and 5. 986 a 3, &aa elxov 6p6\oyoiipeva teiKVVvat ev re TOis 
aptdpois Koi rats appoviais irpos to. tov ovpavov iraBt] koi pepr) Koi jrpos •nji' 
oXt/i/ dwKotrprjo-iv, ravTa (TvvdyovTes i^ijppoTTOV. The word is already 

used by Isocrates, de Antid. §§ 83, 45. 

5. fidXicTTa 8' Av K.T.X. Thurot (£tudes, p. 28) would supply 
' rimpossibilitd de I'unit^ sociale, telle que la veut Platon,' but 
perhaps it is more natural to supply d Tavra koKSis ?x" from 3. 

7. Sui/i^o-eTai. For this use of the third person ' non addito riy,' 
see Bon. Ind. 589b 47. For the future, see above on 1261 a 22. 
According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 2. 7) Romulus' 
first step was to effect divisions of the kind here referred to. Cp. 

also Xen. Hiero C, 9. 5) Sinpijvrai p^v yap anatrai ai TrdXfir ai pev 

2. 5. 1264 a 1—10. 257 

Kara <fiv\ds, at 8e Kara fi6pas, al 8c Kara Xop^ov;, Aristotle probably 

remembers Nestor's advice (II. 2. 362) — 

Kpiv avSpas Kara (jjvKa, xarai ^pfjTpas, 'Ayd/iepvov, 
i)S (jjprjTpT] ^prfrpjii<piv apfiyrj, (ftvKa fie 0v\oif, 

and the line (11. 9. 63) which associates the a^p^rtap with the d6e- 

ftuTTOs and the dviarios. 

ouTd = ' cives,' Sus.^, Ind. Gramm. s. v. (who however doubts the 
correctness of the reading), or perhaps in a somewhat vaguer sense 
' the materials of the State ' : so Camerarius (Schn. 2. 88) ' ea quae 
Socraticis rationibus contrahuntur et fiunt unum.' For the neuter, 
cp. (Kttva, 1263 a I. 

Xupi^uf. Bonitz (Ind. 860 a 10) compares Eth. Nic. 4. 3. 
1121 b 19. 

8. tA fikv . . . T& 8^, ' on the one hand ' — ' on the other.' Plato, in 
fact, adopts syssitia in the Republic (416 E: cp. 458 C), and syssitia 
(Laws 842 B), phratries (785 A), and tribes (745 E) in the Laws. 
Syssitia differ from phratries and tribes in not being based on 
relationship : Herodotus also regards them as belonging to to « 
noKepov fxovra (i. 65 : see Trieber, Forschungen zur spartanischen 
Verfassungsgeschichte, pp. 15, 18 sqq.). Dosiadas (ap. Athen. 
Deipn. 143 b) says of Lyctus in Crete, Bi^prjvToi 8" oj n-oXIrat ndvres 
Koff eTotplaSf KoKovfTt fie ravras avfipeta (= cruffcrma). 

9. &<rre k.t.X. "Qore with the indicative ('and so') draws an 
emphatic conclusion: cp. c. 8. 1268a 20. Plato will not succeed 
in making his guardians an undivided unity ; he will only succeed 
in forbidding them to cultivate the soil. But this is nothing new 
(cp. Pol. 4 (7). 10. 1329 a 40 sqq.). Thus what is new in Plato's 
scheme is not practicable, and what is practicable is not new. 
The mention of the prohibition of agriculture to the guardians 
reminds Aristotle that two classes will exist in Plato's State, 
guardians and cultivators, and he now turns to consider their 
mutual relations. 

10. KOI vOr, ' as it is.' 

AaKeSatftii'ioi. For the absence of the article, see Meisterhans, 
Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, p. 90, who remarks that the 
article is commonly absent in Attic Inscriptions before names 
of peoples in the plural, though exceptions to this rule occur even 
in inscriptions of an early date. Aristotle sometimes omits and 
sometimes adds the article (see, for instance, 1264a 20, and c. 9. 
1269 a 29 — b 7). The references given in the Index Aristotelicus 
suggest the view that Aristotle uses the word AaKeSai/ionoi of the 
Lacedaemonians in their public capacity as constituting a State, 


358 NOTES. 

while 'he uses AaKwi/es both of the State (as in 7 (5). 7. 1307 b 23, 
01 Se AaKfflws Totis Srjfiovs KoreKvov) and of the people, but more often 
of the latter. See Gilbert, Gr. Staatsalt. i. 40. i. 

ETrix«ipouo-ii', ' attempt to bring about.' Schiller (Sclaverei, p. 21, 
n. 72) remarks on this word. Some Spartans were probably com- 
pelled by need to till the soil. Cp. 2. 9. 1270b 6, jroXXous jrevi^rar, 
and Plutarch, Agis 5. 3, irevla da-xoKiav tS>v KciKau Kol aveXeudepiav 

eTTUjjepovcra. Prof. Jowett points out that emx^ipilv is often used 
pleonastically by Plato, though he does not adopt the view that it 
is pleonastic here, but translates ' try to enforce.' Cp. c. 9. 1270 a 

6, ayeiv i'jTi.)(eipri(rai, 

11. ou (IT)!' dXXd. Why ' not but that ' ? How is this sentence in 
opposition to that which precedes ? Perhaps Aiistotle's meaning 
is — ' but indeed it is not only in this respect that the constitution is 
in fault, for the whole scheme of it is hard to make out.' 

6 TpoTTos K.T.X., i. e. the whole o-uvdea-is of guardians and culti- 
vators, as distinguished from the arrangements as to the guardians 
with which Aristotle has hitherto been occupied. Cp. c. 7. 1267 a 
17, o Tp6nos Tris ^oXeov jroXireias, C. 9. 1271 b 2, rj iracra truvra^is 
tZv vdficov, and Polyb. 4. 20. 7, t^k oKrjv TToKireiav. Much pains 
have been taken to secure the internal unity of the guardians, but 
none to secure the harmony of the whole State, which includes 
the third class as well as the two upper ones. Cp. Plato, Rep. 

421 A, aWa T&v piv aWaiv ikarrav Xdyos k,t.\. 

12. TOis KOicucouCTii', i.e. Tois TToKiTais : cp. I. 13. 1260 b 19,01 

Koiviovol rris TroXtxeujs. Bern. ' fiir alle Angehorigen eines solchen 

13. T<5 ye irX'^Gos. Cp. Rep. 442 C, t^ a-fUKpa fiepei: 428 D-E, 
r^ (rpiKpoTora edvei xai pipci iavTijs, 

14. yiverai, 'results in being,' cp. i. 2. 1252 b 7: Rhet. 3. 9. 
1409 b 26 : Strabo, p. 653, «£ 8' . . . i^'hpyavs mX TipwBos art^pev 6 
TXijTrdXffior, oiS' ovtoi AapiK^ yiyerai rj cKeiSev aTTOtxia. 

irepl <Si' K.T.X. ' Immemor fuit Aristoteles locorum, quales sunt 
de Rep. iii. p. 417 A: iv. p. 419, quibus certe possessiones eorum 
non constituendas esse communes disertis verbis dixit Plato, et 
profecto per se satis superque apparet uxorum, liberorum, posses- 
sionum communionem ex eius sententia propriam esse debere 
custodum,' Sus.^ (cp. Sus.'*, Note 170). See also Tim. 18 B. As 
Suisemihl remarks, Aristotle seems to take it for granted above, c. 
4. 1262 a 40, that community of women and children is to be con- 
fined to the guardians. 

15. i^ Kot often means 'or even' (e.g. in Plato, Phileb. 61 A) : 

2. 5. 1264 a 11—21. 359 

elsewhere, however, and perhaps here, it seems to mean ' or also,' 
'or again' (e. g. in de Gen. An. i. i8. 723 a 29, iv ra <riiiii(Tpov rj 

davfifieTpov eivai § «"' 8'' SWrjv raia TOtauri/i/ alriav: ibid. I. 18. 724 b 
5, irorepov as vXrjv Kal Ttaa)(Ov rj as elbos ti nai ;rowvl>, fj Km ajxtpco^. 

17. el (lef yo'P K-T.X. Three alternatives are considered: i. the 
case of the yeapyol having women, children, and property in 
common (17—22): 2. the opposite case (22-40): 3. the case of 
their having women and children in common but not property (40 
sq.). The other case of property being common and women and 
children not so, is not considered. 

18. Ti Sioiaouo'ii' K.T.X. Cp. c. 4. 1262 a 40 sqq. If a commu- 
nity in women, children, and property produces close friendship, it 
will do so among the cultivators no less than among the guardians. 
The two classes will be, it is implied, on a par in point of unity, 
and in whatever excellence flows from community in these things. 
Yet rulers ought to differ from those they rule (cp. c. 6. 1265b 18), 
and this is the opinion of Plato. Evidently, however, it does not 
follow, if women, children, and property are common in both classes, 
that the two will be absolutely alike, as Aristotle's argument implies. 

^ Ti ttXeioi' K.T.X. The argument seems to be that if the culti- 
vators are in no way dissimilar to the guardians, the former will 
gain nothing by obeying the latter. In Aristotle's view, the ruled, 
if inferior to the ruler, profit by their obedience: so the slave, i. 2. 
1252 a 30 sqq. — domestic animals, i. 5. 1254 b 10 sqq. — the 
subjects of the nap^aaCKevs, 3. 13. 1284 b 33. Bernays omits ^ — 
airav, but this clause seems to be in place, and not superfluous. 

19. ^ Ti fjiaOiSin-Es K.T.X. ' Or what is to make them ' etc. ? The 
use of Ti imOovres perhaps implies that their submission to Sixoioi 
would be a mistake. ' Ti /taBav signifies an intentionally, ti TraBav 
an accidentally, wrong action,' Jelf, Greek Grammar, § 872. 2 k. 

21. ToXXa TauTi k.t.X. Cp. c. 6. 1265 a 5j to aWa Taira ciTrobi- 

For c<|)^iT«s, cp. c. 6. 1265 b 22, e^ujo-t. 

Tois SoiiXois probably includes those elsewhere called TrepioiKoi by 
Aristotle (e.g. in c. 10. 1272 b 18), though a distinction seems to be 
made between the terms fioCXos and nepiomos in 4 (7). 10. 1330 a 
25 sqq. Aristotle's account of the status of the Cretan slaves is 
confirmed by the tenour of the recently discovered inscription con- 
taining a portion of the laws of Gortyna. See Biicheler und Zitel-. 
mann, Das Recht von Gortyn, p. 64 : ' their legal status appears to 
have been good . . . they have property of their own (col. 3. 42), a 
well-developed family-law, are capable of marriage with free women 

s a 

a6o NOTES. 

(col. 7. 3) : nay, they even have a remote and contingent right of 
succession to the property of their master' (col. 5. 27 : see also 
Biicheler und Zitelmann, p. 144). 

dircipiriKacri. Compare the well-known scolion of Hybrias the 
Cretan (Bergk, Poet. Lyr. Gr.) : 

'EoTt yxti jrXoCros /leyas Sipv /cat ^Itjios 
Koi TO KoKhv \auri)iov, 7rpo/3X?j/ia ^(paTos' 

* * * 

Toira SeirnoTas /tvolas KeKKfjiiat. 
Toi 8e firj toKiuovt ex^'" 80/"' "at ^icjjos 
Koi t6 KaXov Xato^toK, 7rp(5(3Xj/f4a xP""™^? 
TrdvTes yovv wcTmjSTfff dfiov 

(7rpoo')(cvi'fvi'rt (lie) SeiTiroTav 

Koi ijtcyav jSao'tXea (j)u>veovTes. 

Compare also 6 (4). 13. 1297 a 29 sqq., and what Xenophon says 

of Cyrus (Cyrop. 8. I. 43) — otis 8' aS Karea-Keia^fv els to SovXeveiv, 
TovTovs ovTe fieXeTav Ttdv e\ev6epiav ttovcov ovBeva napatpixa oiiff OTrXa 
KeKTijo'daL eireTpeirev' eirep-eKeTO 8e ottibs F^'^e atriTot, firjre airoTol noTe 
etroivTO IKevBeplav evexa iieXeTrjparav. Plato (Laws 625 D) speaks 
of bows and arrows as the arms most suitable to Crete, but he 
no doubt does not intend to imply that the Cretans did not possess 
and use oTrXa of a heavier kind. 

22. el hi, KaOdiTEp k.t.X. Sepulv. ' sin autem eodem modo, 
quo in aliis civitatibus, haec' (i.e. households and property) 
' fuerint apud ipsos constituta, qui erit comnmnitatis modus ? ' It 
should be noted that the expression, Ws 6 rpon-os ttjs Koivavias, is 
used by Adeimantus in Rep. 449 C, though in reference to the 
guardians alone. 

25. 8uo irciXeis. Aristotle retorts on Plato the charge which he 
had brought (Rep. 422 E sqq.) against most large States of his 
own day. 

26. TToiei yip k.t.X. Cp. Rep. 419 : 415D-417B: 543 B-C. 
^vXoKri was a common euphemism at Athens for the garrison of a 
dependent city (Plutarch, Solon c. 15): cp. 7 (5). 11. 1314 b 16 
sqq. Yet the term ^vKwces must have had a somewhat unpleasant 
sound in the ears of Greeks, for the Athenians gave this name to 
the officials whom the Lacedaemonians called harmosts (Theophr. 
Fragm. 129 Wimmer: Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens E. T. 
p. 156). noXiVar, 27, is the predicate. 

29. Kal ToiJTois, to the cultivators and artisans who are the real 
citizens of Plato's State, no less than to the citizens of actual 

2. 6. 1264 a 22—39. . 361 

6 SwKpdnis, Rep. 425 C-D. 

32. diroSiSoiJs. Vict. ' cum tamen tribuerit ' : cp. 1265 a3,0ovX(5- 

fuvos. Movov qualifies tow (j)v\a^iv. 

eTi 0£ K.T.V. Rep. 464 ^) "^'"^ oIk'uxs oiire yrjv oilre ti KTrj/ia. 

33. diroijiopd is the technical term for ' the money which slaves 
let out to hire paid to their master' (LiddeU and Scott): see 
Biichsenschtitz, Besitz und Erwerb p. 195. The contribution in 
kind which the Helots rendered to their masters went by this name 
(Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 8 : Inst. Lac. c. 40). Plato's designation for 
the contribution of oi aWot jroXIrai to the support of the guardians 
is, however, not cmo^opa (for this would imply that they were 
slaves), but iuo-6hs ttjs ([>v\aKrjs (Rep. 416 E). 

34. iroXir {lilKXoi', because they are free and citizens, and have 
the land in their hands. 

35. ciXuTcios, ' bodies of Helots,' just as iroXircia is used by 
Aristotle occasionally (Bon. Ind. 612 b losqq.) in the sense of 'a 
body of citizens.' So hovKelas, 36 : cp. Thuc. 5. 23, fp) fi SovXem 


36. ' Whether a definite settlement of the question as to property 
and the family is as necessary in relation to the cultivators as it is 
in relation to the guardians or not, at present at all events nothing 
definite has been laid down.' 

37. Kai, ' nor.' 

38. T£ here as elsewhere ' ei vocabulo additur, quod utrique mem- 
bro commune est,' Bon. Ind. 749 b 44 sqq. The meaning of 
TToXiTEia here is not absolutely certain; it might possibly be 'par- 
ticipation in political power' — cp. 4 (7). 9. 1329 a 13, a/ufioTepois 
diroSiSovai Trjv ■noKiTfiav TavTtjv (' hanc partem reipublicae adminis- 
trandae,' Bon. Ind. 612 b 47). See Bon. Ind. 612 b 38 sqq. in 
illustration of the sense ' ius civitatis, potestas in civitate.' But 
Bonitz does not appear to attach this sense to the word in this 
passage, and perhaps the ordinary meaning of ' political constitu- 
tion ' is more probable here. Aristotle has been speaking of this 
class as a separate iroXts (24), and he would like to know what its 
jToXtTfia is to be, because it is essential that its character should be 
suitable to its position, and the noKvrcia is a main determinant of 

eari 8' . . . paSiof, SC. tis ij Tovrav re woXiTeia k.t.\. 

39. ouT£ . . . Koii'unai'. 'Nor is their character of slight importance 
in relation to the preservation of the guardians' society.' For the 
construction, cp. Eryxias 394 D, ^ ttjs pev olKias ^ re XPW^' ttoXX^ 

Tvyxovfi ovira Kai avayKoia, kcu peyaKa r^ avBpamia xa dia^epovra to npos 

262 NOTES. 

TOP ^lov iv Tjj roiavrrj olxia oIkuv fiaWov rj iv cfUKpca Koi <j}av\(o oIklSico' 
TTJs Si (rotfilas i\ re XP^'" o^'yu a^tci xal ra Suupepovra irfUKpa rj (rtxpa j) 
OfiaBel ehai irep\ tS>v ixeyia-ratv ; In the passage before US we have TO 

TToiovs Tivas eivai tovtovs instead of the simple infinitive ohelv. lloiovs 
Tivas (cp. 5 (8). 5. 1340 a 7, 8 : 5 (8). 6. 1341 b 18) includes what 
is often expressed by two alternatives, as (e.g.) in Rhet. 3. i. 1404 

a 9, 8ta(j}epet yap ri TTpoff to SrjKaxrat ojSt tj a>St eliretv, 
1264 b. 2. tA lirl tGi' &ypSiv. A verb must be supplied from olKovo/i^a-ei. 
(see above on 1257 a 21 and 1258b 19); perhaps, however, oUovo- 
IxTjo-ei itself will do (cp. 3. 18. 1288 a 34). 

3. K&v El . . . yucaiKEs. ' And who will keep house, if . . . ? ' This 
clause has much exercised the commentators (' secluserunt Sylbur- 
gius, Bekkerus, ante tLs 2 traiecerunt Schneiderus et Coraes, lacunam 
post haec verba statuit ante Sus. iam Thurotus' Sus.'), but a similarly 
constructed sentence is to be found in Phys. 8. 3. 254 a 27, f'lirep 

ovv eVtI So^a ^jfcvSris fj o\a>s So^a, Koi Kivrjirls fori, K&v el (j)aVTaiTia, K&v fl 

ore fiev ovrios SoKfi eipai ore 8' hepats. Gottling : ' Deinde verba Kov 

el Koaiai k.tX. sic intelligenda sunt : kw. to ovto aTropfjo-eifv av ns (sc. 
Ti'y olKOVop,f)<Tei avTOv;), el KOivdX ai K.Tr]iTeis km ai tS>v yeapy&v ywaiKes 

ela-ai.' So Vict, 'idem etiam incommodum illic nascetur, si' etc. 
But no fresh apodosis need be supplied : tIs olKovop,ria-ei is the com- 
mon apodosis of the whole sentence. (If in the much-debated 
passage. Soph. O. T. 227-8, we retain the reading of all the MSS. 

xme^eXav airos Kaff avTOv, the apodosis (xeXfwo) navTa aTj/iaivetv c/iot) 

must be obtained from the preceding line (226) in much the same 
way as in the passage before us and in the passage just quoted from 
the Physics.) If women are common, the question will arise who 
is to keep house, whether property is also common or not, for 
' nulla certam aut suam domum habebit' (Giph. p. 187). Whether 
Aristotle's objection holds, is another matter. 

4. aroiroi' 8e k.t.X. Cp. Rep. 451D. In the Laws, however (804 
E), Plato appeals to the example of the women of the Sauromatae 
to show that women's pursuits should be the same as men's. Still 
Plutarch (de Amore Prolis, c. i) found men even in his day inclined 
to regard the lower animals as furnishing a standard of that which is 
natural in matters relating to marriage and the begetting and rearing 
of offspring ; he himself seems to think that they follow nature more 
closely than man. This short treatise is well worth reading even 
in the abbreviated and imperfect form in which we have it. 

e. ots probably refers to ^VpiW : Bonitz, however (Ind. 500 b 22), 
refers it to dvlipairtv. oh is here used in a pregnant sense, as in i. 
5. 1254 b 19, and Isocr. Paneg. § 123. 

2. 5. 1264 b 2—16. 0,6$ 

•7. Tous auToiJs, i. e. as Vict, points out, not ' eosdem homines,' 
but ' eundem ordinem.' 

8. aT({o'6(ds oiTioi'. Cp. 4 (7). 9. 1329 a 9 sqq. Sus." (Note 182) 
explains the difference between the schemes of Plato and Aristotle 
in regard to this matter. 

9. d|ib)|i,a. Cp. Eth. Nic. 3. ir. 1117a 22, auhpeioi 8e ^almvrat Koi 
ol ayvoovirres, Kai elaiv ov jToppa tS>v cvf\m8ajv, x^'poT 8' o(r(o a^iaiia 
oiSfv e^ovo-iv (i. e. oiiScpos iavToiis a.^loviTi.v, Bon. Ind. 'JO a 43), eKe'ivoi 

riTTovQev 8ii. So n, except that accentuation varies and Vet. Int. 
•with Ms reads eXiroveei/ 8^. 'H wov ye 8tj Bekk.^ (following Vict. Schn. 
Cor. with some differences of accentuation) : ijirovBev 8^ Bekk.". 
"HnovBev Sfj does not appear to occur elsewhere, though ^iroi wv . , . 
617 occurs in Eurip. Troad. 59, and ^ttov 81) ibid. 158, and Thucydides 
has ^wov 81J 1. 142. 3, and ^ttov ye 8ri, 6. 37. 2, and Aeschines de Falsa 
Legatione, § 88, rJTrov . . . ye. The particle rj is nowhere found in 
Aristotle, if we except this passage (Eucken de Partic. Usu p. 69). 
AriircwBev is common enough, though it is not found apparently in 

OuixoEiSccri Kal TroXEfiiKoTs. The members of the second class of 
Plato's Republic are referred to, who are thus designated in Rep. 
• 375 A, 376 C (Eaton). 

11. SXXois is governed by /leniKrai : rats ij/vxats is added to give 
the place of mingling: cp. Rep. 415 B, n airois Tovrav e'v toIs 

■^v^ais napaiifniKrai, 

13. <|)Tj<ri, Rep. 415 A. 

Eudus YiTOjiECOis, cp. Rep. 4 1 5 A, ev tJ yevecrei. 

14. filial, SC. Tov 6e6v. 

15. Kttl T^v EuSaifjioi'iai', ' even the happiness of the guardians ' 
(Sus. ' selbst die Gluckseligkeit der Wachter '). Is the meaning, ' not 
only wives children and property, but even happiness ' ? Or is it 
' even their happiness, which is the last thing one would expect him 
to take away ' ? 

16. <|ni<ri, 'Rep. iv. p. 419 sq., at immemor fuit Aristoteles 
alterius loci v. p. 465 sq. neque respexit quae Plato docuit 
ix. p. 580-592 B, et sic baud intellexit non eam quam ei tribuit, 
sed plane contrariam esse veram Platonis sententiam ' (Sus.^). There 
is, however, as Zeller observes (Gr. Ph. 2. 2. 698. 2) a real 
difference between the views of Plato and Aristotle on this point, 
'for Plato is in principle opposed to the contention of Aristotle 
that the happiness of the individual as such is to be a decisive 
consideration in framing the institutions of the State, and be insists 

364 NOTES. 

for precisely this reason (Rep. 420 B sqq.) that the individual must 
find his highest happiness in a self'forgetting (selbstlosen) devotion 
to the Whole.' 

17. dSiSraroc 8e k.t.X. Cp. 4 (7). 9. 1329 a 23, eiSaifiova 8e ttoKiv 
ovK fls fiepos Ti ^\e^jfavTas Set \eyeiv avrfis, aW els iravrai tovs irokiras, 
and 4 (7). 13. 1332 a 36, xal yap el irdvTas ivSe^^erai irirovSaiovs eivai, 
fifj Ka6 eKatTTOv 5e rav ttoXitSiVj ovTas aipeTaTcpov. 

18. fi^ T&y irXeiffTUi' k.t.X. One expects /ifj wdmav ^ tS>v jrXetV- 
Tav ^ nvmv, but a not very dissimilar displacement occurs in 4 (7). 
II. 1330b 37, ene\ be kw. fruft^aivei. Koi ivhexerai K.rX. : cp. also 
Magn. Mor. I. 20. 1190 b 19, Xey<a 8e a oi ttoXXoI (l>oPovvTai ^ oi 

iravTes. Zeller (Gr. Ph. 2. 2. 698. 2) would like to get rid of the 
second p-f), but cp. Laws 766 A, p-ri iKavas Se § nfj uoXSr Tpa(f>ev K.T.\. 

19. ou yAp K.T.X. Cp. 7 (5). 8. 1307 b 35, wapdKoyiCeTtu yap f) 
hidvoia VTT avraVj aairep 6 o'ofjitaTiKos \6yos' ei eKatrrov pLKpov^ Kat navra, 
•TOVTO S" eon pev &s, eari 8' o>s oS' to yap oXov Koi ra navra ov puKpov, 
dKka avyxeirai ex piKp&u, and also Plato, Protag. 349 C. 

24. rf HCf 031/ iroXiTEia (cp. ev rg iroXirela, 28) gives the title of 
Plato's noXireia (mistranslated ' Republic ') as we have it : so tovs 
v6pMvs 26 agrees with the title of the Laws. Aristotle's testimony 
supports not only the authenticity of both dialogues, but also that of 

their titles : cp. Athen. Deipn. 507 f, o£ 8e avvreBevres vtt airov vopoi Kol 
Tovriov en Trporepov i) iroXirela ti irejroirjKaa-iv ; The plural, al jroXtreiai, 
seems, however, to have been sometimes used: see note on 
1260 b 12. The object of the criticisms on the Republic which 
we have been perusing is, we see from this sentence, in the main 
to point out airopim enotjgh in connexion with the work to show 
that there is still room for another attempt to depict a 'best 
constitution' (cp. 2. i. 1260b 32 sqq.). The same may be said 
of the somewhat grumbling criticism of the Laws which follows. 
Aristotle's real opinion of the two works must be gathered from the 
Politics as a whole ; we shall best be able to gather it, if we note, 
as we have sought to do in vol. i, the points in which his political 
teaching and method depart from those of Plato. 
C. 6. 26. Zx^^oi* 8^ irapoirXr)<ri(i)s k.t.X. . . . 8t6. Giph. ' Reddit initio 
rationem, cur et in secundam Platonis Rempublicam disserat banc : 
quia ut primae, item et secundae sua sint vitia et incommoda.' To 
study the rocks on which other voyagers, have been wrecked is the 
best means of avoiding similar disasters. A further reason seems 
to be introduced by koi yAp 28. 

31. rfis iroXiTEias t^ jdjic. Probably not after nepl, but ace. 
after biapiKtv, The expression seems to refer especially to the 

2. 5. 1264 b 17—6. 1265 a 3. 36.5 

distribution of political power (cp. 2. 10. 1272 a 4: 3. 11. 
1281b 39: 7 (5). 7. 1307 b 18); thus in what follows we are 
told in what hands Plato has placed the supreme authority of 
the State. 

33. TpiToc 8' i< to6tiiiv, ' and third recruited from these last ' 

(i. e. from rd irpcmoKfiiovv /xfpos] : cp. Plato, Rep. 412 D, eiCKeKTeov ap 
cK T&v oKKwv (jivKaKav toiovtovs avSpas, ot av k.t.X. For the expression, 
cp. de Part. An. 2. I. 646 a 20, Sevrepa 8e a-ia-Tatris ix tSiv npiyrav 

{) tS)v 6p,oiofiep5iv <j>vtris : Plato, Laws 89 1 C, V'^XV" ^^ ''" '■<>'''■''"' (earth, 
air, fire, and water) varepov. Phileb. 27 B, frpSn-ov p,h rolvvv Sirtipov 

Xcya), Sevrepov Si irepas, eneiT ix. Toirav rplrov pj.KTrjV xal yeyemjfievrjv 

ovtrlav. For the identification of to ^ov\€v6p,euov and t6 Kvpiov, cp. 6 
{4). 14. 1299 a I. 

34. irepl Se . . . fi-ff. ' Reapse haec non praetermissa esse 
a Platone invitus ipse testatur Aristoteles 6-10 et 31-34 ' (Sus.^). 
But perhaps the recognition of the first class as apxovrcs and of 
the second as to wpoTroXep^vv pepos does not absolutely involve the 
denial of all office and all share in military service to the third 
class. That Aristotle did not understand Plato to have pro- 
nounced dearly for the denial of on-Xa to the third class appears 
from c. 5. 1264 a 20 sq. 

S7. r&s ii.ey ywaWas k.tX. Plato, Rep. 451 E-452 A. Aristotle 
hints his surprise that Plato should say so little about the yeapyoi 
and Texi'^Tai, and so much about the women. 

39. tA 8' aX\a K.T.X., ' but for the rest ' (for to SXKa, cp. 7 (5). 
II. 1314 a 39 : Plato, Rep. 403 B : Laws 763 E), ' we find that he 
has filled the dialogue with extraneous discussions ' (cp. Demosth. de 
Cor. c. 9), ' and with discourse about the education of the guardians.' 
A somewhat similarly constructed sentence occurs in c. 1 1. 1273 a 9, 

& ^ &v et(T(l)€pa>(rw oStoc, ov StaKoiiaai ftovov anohihoaai ra Srjpa tci 

ho^avra roh apxovtriv. What extraneous matters are here referred 
to ? Among other things perhaps, as Sus. conjectures, ' ilia quae 
608C-621D de animorum immortalitate proponuntur,' but also 
probably the ethical discussions, such as that on justice, which 
Aristotle himself deals with in a separate treatise (cp. 4 (7). i. 

1323 b 39, eTEJoar yap ianv epyov (rxoKrjs TauTa). The Same complaint 

as to extraneous matter in the Republic is made by Dio Chry- 
sostom. Or. 7. 267 R. The juxtaposition of Xo'yotr and toi' Xoyoi* 
here is awkward, but not much more so than that of Xeyerai and 
\ex6fjvai in de Gen. An. 2. 7. 746 b 7 sqq. 

3. rauTnv ^ouXiSfj.ei'Gs k.t.X. 'Though wishing': cp. c. 5.1265a 
1264a 32. KoiuoTepav rah TroXetrt probably means, not 'having 

266 NOTES. 

more affinity to existing States,' but ' more suitable to them ' or, 
' more within their reach ' : cp. 6 (4). 1. 1288 b 38, where (as Bonitz 

points out, Ind. 399 b I5Sqq.) rifv paa> kuX Koaiorepav iiraams {rals 

TvoKfo-i noKiTfiav) is apparently used in the same sense as ttjv naKia-Ta 
TTCKTais Tols 7r6\e(riv ap/ioTTOva-av 34, For the fact, cp. Laws 739 E. 
4. CIS. Cp. 3. 3. 1276 b 14, oTav els irepav fierajSaXXi; iroXiTelav rj 

rroKis, and 7 (5). I. 1301 b 14 sq. 

6. diroSiSuo'll'. Cp. 6 {4). II. izg6 a, 40, ravTTjV anoSovvaiT^vTa^iv 

(sc. Tois iroXea-iv) i 2. II. 1273 a 10 : 2. 12. 1274 a 15 sq. 

7. TTcuSeioc TTji' adTl]v. The subjects of education prescribed 
in the two dialogues are much the same — yvfivacmK^, p^va-iKi), 
arithmetic, geometry, astronomy ; even dialectic reappears, for this 
study seems to be required in the Laws {965 B sqq.) of the 
members of the Nocturnal Council, as it is required of select 
individuals in the Republic. 'The main principles of education 
are essentially the same as in the Republic' (Zeller, Plato E. T. 
p. 542). But as the education prescribed in the Laws is in the 
main designed for the whole body of citizens and not for a few of 
them only, like that of the Republic, it must probably be intended 
by Plato to be less arduous and exacting. 

t6 . . . ly\v. ' Plat. Legg. 741 E : 806 D-807 D : 842 D : 
846 D: 9i9Dsq.' (Sus.'). 

8. KOI . . . Yui'oiKui'. 'Plat. Legg. 780 D sqq.: 806 E : cf. 842 B' 
(Sus.^). We are not expressly told in the Republic that women 
are to take part in the syssitia, though, as Sus. remarks (Sus.", Note 
153)1 they are probably intended to do so, but in the Laws this is 
distinctly insisted upon. Giph., however (p. 194), takes Aristotle's 
meaning to be, that while in the Republic men and women are in- 
tended to take their meals at the same tables, in the Laws separate 
mess-tables are instituted for women. The notion of syssitia for 
women would be all the more surprising to Greeks, as one name 
for the syssitia was Andreia and the institution was regarded as an 
essentially military one (Hdt. i. 65). ' 

9. T^c fieV. ' He makes to consist ' seems to be suppressed, 
unless we suppose <^j)o-i Se'tu eivai to be carried on, which is perhaps 
less likely. 

^(iXudr. Cp. Rep. 4 2 3 A, a>s a\ridS)s p,eyicrrrj, Koi eav pAvov rj ^CKiav rav 

7rpo7To\eitovvT<ov. For the total of the citizens of the Republic, the 
number of the first class and that of the third (far the largest) must 
be added. 

10. Tren-aKtoxiXiui'. ' Accuratius jrciraKto'X'Xio"' kcu TerrapoKovra, 
V. Plat. Legg. 737 E : 740 C sq. : 745 B sqq. etc' (Sus.^). 

2. 6. 1265 a 4—15. 267 

(lei* ouf, ' it is true that,' as in 1 7. We pass with nev ovv from 
description to criticism, as in c. 10. 1272 a 12. 

11. ■nepi.Tr6v, ' uncommon, out of the common,' but no English 
word adequately translates it. The epithet suggests an aspiring 
wisdom which follows paths of its own — which has something of 
greatness, but also of superfluity: cp. 5 (8). 2. 1337a 42, 2. 8. 

1267 b 24, and irepccpyorepov, 25. So irepiTrfi t5>v oiKKav, Poet. 24, 

^459^' 36 seems to be represented by <rep.vbv Koi ailSades, Rhet. 3. 
3. 1406 b 3 (Vahlen, Beitr. zu Poet. 3. 291 : Bon. Ind. 583 a 59). 
UfpiTTos is often joined with tSios, but is less wide and more subtle 
in meaning. 

Tou SuKfxiTous. Aristotle identifies with Socrates the 'Adrjvaios ^evos 
of the Laws. Grote (Plato 3. 301 n.) conjectures that the latter 
name was preferred by Plato to avoid the difficulty of implying the 
presence of Socrates in Crete. In c. 7. 1266 b 5 we have itXarmv 

8c Toiis v6p.ovs ypatjiav, and in C. 9. 1271 b I, onep leal nXdriBi' iv Tois 


12. Kop.ilroi', ' clever,' opposed to dnXovvTipa^ in de Caelo 3. 5. 
304 a 13 : to 'iKavms in Pol. 6 (4). 4. 1291 a 11. 

KaifOTOfiQi', 'novelty of view,' cp. c. 7. 1266 a 35. 
JitiTtiTiKoi', ' the spirit of inquiry ' — love of inquiry and keenness 
in inquiry. 

KaXus 8e irdtTa, sc. exew. see Bon. Ind. 306 a 16. 

13. Kai introduces an instance of iravra : cp. So-n-ep xal 'Afiaa-is, 
I. 12. 1259 b 8. 

irXijOos. For the ace. cp. c. 9. 1271 a 9, and see Dr. Holden's note 
on Xen. Oecon. 13. 3, to epya pdBt; as ea-nv ipyaarea. In the Criti- 
cisms on constitutions contained in the Second Book Aristotle 
commonly notices first, or at any rate before he has gone very far, 
their arrangements vdth respect to what he terms in the Fourth 
Book the wrofleVew of the State — the number of the citizens and the 
extent of the territory (cp. 4 (7). 4. 1325 b 38, 816 Set iroWa. irpoij- 
TroTe6ct<T6ai. Ka6direp ev^opAvaus, elvai pevroi nr]8ev Tourmi' dSivarov' \eya 
Se ailov Ttepl re ttK^Bovs ttoXitSiv kol ;f<Bpas). 

14. BaPuXui'ias. Cp. 3. 3. 1276 a 28. 

15. Yet the territory of the Spartans (is Aristotle thinking of his 
own time, when Messenia had been lost?) is said in 2. 9. 1270a 
29 to be capable of supporting 30,000 hoplites and 1500 horse- 
men, who, if Spartans, would be dpyoL But perhaps this is not 
present to Aristotle's mind. He does not probably mean to assert 
that it would be capable of supporting 31,300 dpyol. See note on 
1270a 39. 

a68 NOTES. 

16. 6p£i|<orrot. See note on orepfia-ovrai, 1263 b 28. 

17. y-kv ouK (here answered by fievroi, asini257a28 and 1259 a 
28) prepares the way for and helps to emphasize the correction 
introduced by fievroi, ' True, it is right to presuppose freely, but 
one must not presuppose anything impossible.' Plato had, in 
effect, said much the same thing (Laws 709 D : 742 E : Rep. 
456 C). Aristotle repeats this remark in 4 (7). 4. 1325 b 38, with- 
out any indication that he is conscious of the repetition. 

18. Xiyerai. 'Expressis quidem verbis hoc non fit in Legibus 
Platonicis, sed recte hanc sententiam e iv. p. 704-709 et v. p. 747 D 
eruere potuit Aristoteles' (Sus.^). Add 625 C sqq. and 842 C-E. In 
Laws 705 D-E the Cretan laws are censured for looking only to 
war (i. e. npos tovs yeiTviSavras towovs), whereas the Athenian Stranger 
claims that he legislates looking to nothing but the virtue of his 
citizens. For this reason he dispenses with a fleet. Aristotle does 
not approve of this (cp. 4 (7). 6. 1327 a 21 sqq.). If, as Susemihl 
following Schlosser points out (Sus.'*, Note 204), Plato pays regard 
to considerations of defence against neighbours in fixing the num- 
ber of the citizens (Laws 737 C-D: cp. 628 D), Aristotle would 
no doubt ask why he does not keep them in view when dealing 
with other matters. See also c. 7. 1267a 17 sqq. and 6 (4). 4. 
1291 a 6-22. 

22. iroXiTiKif, i. e. a life of intercourse with other States : cp. 4 
(7). 6. 1327 b 3 sqq., where we have fiyefioviKov koI jtoKitikov ^iov. 

ToiouTois ... a. Cp. c. 7. 1266 b 36 : 1267 a 24. 

23. oirXois. Is there not a reference here to Plato, Laws 625 C 
sqq., where the Cretan lawgiver is said to have chosen for the 
Cretans such arms as were most suitable to swift runners in a hilly 
country like Crete — bows and arrows, in fact ? Aristofle urges 
that the arms used by a nation should be such as to enable it not 
only to cope with its foes in its own territory, but also to retaliate 
on them in theirs, which bows and arrows would not enable it to 
do. He dwells elsewhere on the importance of a fleet for this 
purpose (4 (7). 6. 1327 a 23 sqq.). 

28. Kal TO irXriOos Sc k.t.X. The connexion of this with what 
precedes is illustrated by the similar sequence of topics in c. 7. 
1267a 17-27. The amount of the collective wealth, no less than 
the nature of the SirXa at the command of the State, must be fixed 
in relation to perils from without. The verb after fifprore is sup- 
pressed and ' must be supplied in the indicative, not the subjunctive, 
as the idea of "warding off" (Abwehr) is here absent' (Weber, 
Die Absichtssatze bei Aristoteles, p. 1 7). 

2. 6. 1265 a 16—37. 369 

29. p^Tioc K.T.X. T^ (ra(f)as fiSXXov explains irepas — ' in a way 
which differs through being clearer ' : cp. de Part. An. 4. 5. 

681 a 18, ere pa touwt iv rg doKdrrri /UKpov 8m(j)ep€i rovrav ra'airo- 

'KcXiKTdai. Lamb, 'aliter definire, hoc est, planius atque apertius.' 
Bern, however seems to take it as explaining ^eXnov : ' ob nicht 
vielleicht eine andere Begrenzung besser, weil deutlicher, ist.' 

30. (j>ri<Ti. Cp. Laws 737 D. Ephorus also (ap. Strab. p. 480) 
had praised the Cretans for living a-a<pp6vais kcu XirSr. I do not feel 
the difficulty which Susemihl follows others in raising (see Sus.^ 
Critical Note, and Qu. Crit. p. 368 sq.) with regard to toOto — ^v 
at all as strongly as he does. Aristotle makes two objections to 
Plato's opos — I. that it is too vague and fails to enlighten: 2. that 
it tends to mislead. For other instances in which iiSWov is used 
in the sense of \iau, see Bon. Ind. 445 a i sqq. In de Gen. An. 

2. 8. 748 a 7 we have, ovtos niv oSv 6 Xdyor KadoKov Xiav Koi Ktvos. 
To€ro — f^K gives the reason for Aristotle's suggestion in 28 sq. 
that a clearer definition should be substituted. 

33. aia^poviiK Kal EXEuOepicds. Cp. 4 (7). 5. 1326 b 30 Sqq., a 

passage which shows that Aristotle intended fully to discuss in a later 
part of his work the question of the true mode of using property. 

Xupls yAp K.T.X., ' for if we part the one from the other, liberal 
living will accompany luxurious life, and temperate living a life of 
hardship.' For aKoKovBdv as here used, Bonitz (Ind. 26 a 44) com- 
pares 3. 13. 1285 a 39 and Eth. Eud. 3. 5. 1232 a 31. Cp. also 
Theopomp. fragm. no (MuUer, Fr. Hist. Gr. i. 295), tSk ayaBav 

Koi tS)V kox&v oiSfV avrh Kaff aiiro jrapayiyveTai rots av6pimois, oKKa 
mivTcTaierai Kal <TvvaKo\ovdei Tois ftev jiKoirrois Ka\ rals Svvaarciais Svoia, 
Kal iiera rair-qv aKoKacrla, rals 8' ivheiais Kal rals Taireworrfai aa^poavvr} 
Koi. lUTpioTijs. In c. 7. 1266 b 26 and in 4 (7). 5. 1326 b 37 sqq. 
the alternative to rpv^av is yKuTxpi^s, not imirovas, ^v. 

34. TM EiriiT^i'us, sc. Crjv, suppressed as already implicitly ex- 
pressed in Tpvcl)av (cp. I. II. 1258 b 19). 

35. IS«is oipETai (see critical note and cp. Eth. Nic. 6. 13. 
1144a I sq.) is a wider term than dperai: iyKpareia (e.g.) is a 
inrovSala e^is, but not an apcnj in the strict sense of the word (see 
the references in Zeller, Gr. Ph. 2. 2. 627. 2). Those who reject 
Victorius' conjecture of alperai for aperm, which is the reading of 
all the MSS., and prefer to strike out one of the two words e^eis 
and aptral, should probably strike out the former, for the illustra- 
tions which follow (35 sq.) show that good e|«if are alone referred 

37. tAs xP'^<''*''S» i- 6- ™* evepyeias, in contradistinction to ras e^eis 

370 NOTES. 

(see Bon. Ind. 854 b 37 sqq. for instances. of this use of the word). 
Here also Aristotle would seem to refer to commendable xp")"'* 

38. Tos KTiiffeis, 'landed property,' as in 4 (7). 9. 1329 a 18. Plato 
does not equalize all kinds of property (cp. 1265b 22). The 
lots of land, however, are evidently intended by him to be equal 
or virtually equal (Laws 737). 

39. KaTao'KEud^eii', ' de placitis philosophicis (cf. irouiv, riBeaBm) 
dicitur,' Bon. Ind. 374 b 17 sq. 

d<f>£ii'ai K.T.X. It is not the case that Plato trusts to ariKvLa alone 
to maintain the numbers of his citizen-body unaltered : see Laws 
740 D-E, 923 D. Aristotle, however, desires a limitation of 
TeKvoiroua : he wishes the State to fix a definite number of children, 
not to be exceeded, in the case of every marriage (4 (7). 16. 1335 b 
22). Aristotle must be quite aware that Plato intends to fix the 
number of citizens in the Laws, but he appears to think that Plato 
takes no eflfectual means to secure that the number named shall 
not be exceeded. 

40. a.i' 6(Aa\i(r6i)<roneVi]i'. On av with the Future Participle, see 
Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, § 41. 4. Madvig (Adversaria Critica 
I. 463) would read dTO/iaXio-ftjo-ofie'wji/, but this verb appears only 
to occur elsewhere in a single passage, Rhet. 3. 11. 1412 a 16, (eat 
TO avaifiaKiaBaL ras noXeis, 

41. StA. Tcls drcKi'ias, ' by means of : see note on 1263 b 36. 
1265 b. 1. oTt SoKEi K.T.X. Plato does not give this reason. The fact 

mentioned by Aristotle is interesting. 

Set 8e K.T.X., 'this stationariness of numbers will need to be 
maintained with greater accuracy in the State of the Laws than it 
is now,' for in this State those over the right number will be 
starved, which now is not the case. This remark was perhaps 
suggested by an observation in the Laws (928 E) — iv (xex ovv aXXri 

TToKiTeia. Ttais dnoKeKTjpvyiicvos ovk &» i^ avdyKrjt airoKis etrj, Tairrjs Be, 
§s otSc 01 vofioi (O-ovrai, avayKalas ex*' ''* aXXijK \apav e^oiKi^etrBai tod 
mrdropa' wpos yap rots TerrapaKovra (cai TrevTUKCiT/^iKiois oikou ovk tariv 
€va ^poayevitrOai, 

3. diropei, ' is destitute ' (cp. liijSev txeiv 5). 

For |X£pi^Ecr6ai tAs ouaias £is oiroaoi'oGi' irXijSos, where eir seems 
to be used of the recipients, cp. c. 9. 1270 a 18, els oKiyovs ^Kev fj 
xaipa, and de Part. An. 3. 3. 664 a 27 sq. 

4. ASiaip^TUf, indivisible by testation (Laws 740 B) : by sale 
(741 B) : in other ways (742 C) : not divisible even by the action of 
the State (855 A sq. : 856 D-E : 909 C sq. : 877 D). 

2. 6. 1265 a 38— 1265 b 12. 371 

ToJs TtapAluya.'s, 'eos qui praeter numerum et extra ordinem 
accessissent ' Lamb. (cp. rots irepiyevojilvois, Laws 740 D). 

7. r^v TCKTO-iroiioc, ' reproductive intercourse.' Compare on this 
subject 4 (7). 16. 1335 b 22 sq. 

10. Tflf aXXuc, i. e. other than t5>v yewrjadm-av implied in rav 


If with P^ n" Bekk. we read toTs irXeicrrais, we must infer that 
in some States a check of some kind on the procreation of 
children existed. Aristotle's suggestion in 7-10 much resembles 

that of Plato, Rep. 460 A, r6 8e wX^fe rStv yajiav im Tois apxovai 
woirjaofiev, tv i>s /idKiaTa Siatra^axri tov aiiTov api6jiov tS>v avhpav, irpos 
jToSipovs re koX votxovs koI isavra to. roiavra airoanotrovvTes. 

12. KaKoupyiai'. Vict. ' alii autem in minutioribus rebus exercent 
malitiam suam, qui multis locis in his libris vocantur ab ipso 
KOKovpyoi, id est, fraudulenti.' KoKoCpyot and /uKpoirovripoi are con- 
joined, it is true, in 6 (4). 11. 1295 b 10, and contrasted with v^pmrai, 
KOI fieydKoKomipoi. (cp. Rhet. 2. 16. 1 39 1 a 18), but in Pol. 7 (5). 8. 
1308 a 19 the malpractices ending in tyranny which long terms of 
office favour are spoken of by this name, and these cannot be said 
to be ' in minutioribus rebus,' ' Knavery ' perhaps comes near 
the meaning. For the thought here expressed, Sus.^ compares c. 7. 
1266 b 13 (cp. also Isocr. Areopag. § 44); yet Aristotle seems to 
make less of this danger in 7 (5). 12. 1316 b 18 sqq. 

<l>ei8a>i' jjiec oZv k.t.X. ' Pheidon, in fact.' Here, as in ewot fixu 
o?v, 1265 b 33 sqq., and also in 3. 5. 1278 a 6 sq., p.€v olv 
introduces a confirmation of what has preceded, in order to 
emphasize the sentence introduced by hi. The arrangements of 
the Laws are said to be the opposite of those of Pheidon, 
because Pheidon, though careless as to the equality of the lots, fixed 
for ever both the number of households in his city and the 
number of citizens, whereas Plato equalizes the lots and fixes the 
number of households, but does not effectually fix the number of 

citizens (cp. 1265 a 38, axonov 8e koI t6 ras KTTiaeis icrafowa to TTepl to 
TrXrjBos tS)V iroKiToiv p,rj KaTaaxeva^eiv, dXX' a(f)elvai t^v TeKvoirodav ddpiiTTouj. 

Under Pheidon's scheme no pauper citizens would exist : Plato, on 
the contrary, takes no effectual means for preventing their existence. 
Is Pheidon's early date mentioned to indicate surprise that Plato 
took no better means than he did of preventing the existence of 
paupers within the citizen-body ? If Pheidon legislated for Corinth, 
we can understand how it came to send forth so many colonies in 
early days. Aristotle would go farther, however, than Pheidon; 
he would not be content with excluding the over-plus from citizen- 

37a NOTES. 

ship, but would prevent it from coining into existence. 'O Ko/jiV- 
Bios is probably added to distinguish this Pheidon from the better 
known tyrant of Argos (7 (5). 10. 1310 b 26). Compare with the 
aims of Pheidon those of Philolaus, who also was a Corinthian 
(c. 12. 1274 b 4 sq.). We learn from Isaeus de Apollodori 
Hereditate § 30 (quoted by Caillemer, Succession legitime k 
Athfenes, p. 133), that the Attic law required the Archon to 
take care that no house was left without a representative (koI ah 

/iovov I8ia TavTO yivdj<TKQV<nv, dXKa Koi brjfiotria to koivov ttjs irSKeas ovTta 
ravT tyvaKs' vo/ia yap tm ap^ovn tS>v oIk<ov, Snas &v firi e^eprifiavTiu, 
irpoa-Tarrei rfjv enifieXeiav). But Pheidon went much further than 
this; he fixed not only the number of households, but also the 
number of the lots and the number of the citizens. Lycurgus is 
conceived to have fixed the number of households and lots in 
Plutarch, Agis 5. i. 

13. tliv co(io9^TT|s Tui' dpxo.ioTciTui'. For the gen. see Jelf, Gr. 
Gr. § 533. I. 

14. oTkous, used of households especially as owning property : 
see Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, E. T. p. 142 n. (who refers 
to Xen. Oecon. i. 4—5), and Holden's Index to the Oeconomicus, 
p. 95*. Here perhaps something of this meaning is present; 
elsewhere, however, e.g. in i. 7. 1255b 19 and i. 2. 1252 b 14, 
the difiference between oIkos and olxia seems hardly traceable. 

laous, ' as they originally were ' ? or ' at their original number ' ? 
If the former, the primitive distribution of property, as well as the 
primitive number of households, would be stereotyped ; if the latter, 
only the primitive number of households. Perhaps this is all that 
is meant. 

15. difio-ous . . . kotA fiiyeOo^. For the severance, cp. de Part. An. 

4. 8. 683b 28, TOVTo>v S' cKd<TTOv nXe'ici) €tSi) eoTi SuKJtipovra ov /lofov Kara 

TTjv fiop^fiv dXKa Ka\ Kara to p.iye6os TTo\v, and See below on 1265 b 29. 

16. ToTs i'<S|ji,ois ToijTois recurs in 18, and also in 1266 a i. 
Toui'oi'Tioi'. See above on 12. 

17. fiorepoi', 4 (7). 10. 1330 a 2-23 : 4 (7). 16. 1335 b 19-26 

18. eWAeiirrai 8e k.t.X. At first sight it seems surprising that 
Aristotle digresses here to the subject of ol ap^ovres from that of the 
property and numbers of the citizens, with which he has been 
dealing, for he returns to the subject of their property in 21, but 
the reason for this is that he has just been mentioning an omission 
(a 38-b 17), the omission to regulate TiKvonoda, and now he has 
another omission to mention, the omission to explain distinctly 

2. 6. 1265 b 13—22. 273 

in what way the rulers are to be different from the ruled. Hence 

the Kal before to wtpi rms Spxovras. 

19. Situs. So H^ Bekk. : M^ P^ irSs. In either case ' how' will 
be the translation. Giph. (p. 201) : ' hoc tantum Plato . . . magis- 
tratus privatis antecellere et meliores esse debere, universe et confuse^ 
similitudine suo more adhibita, monuit.' Aristotle would have been 
glad if Plato had spoken more definitely and in detail on this 

lo-orrai 8ia<|>^porr£$. See above on 1259b 11. 

<jn]<ri. 'Plato, Legg. 734 E: non tamen prorsus neglegere 
debuit Aristoteles quae Plato disseruit 961 A sq. : 951 E sqq.' 
(Sus.^). Some few of the citizens are to receive a more scientific 
training in arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy than the rest 
(Laws 818 A). In 632 C we find the guardians of the State 

described as of two kinds — (jlvKcucas eVtor^o-et, roiis jiiv hia (jipovfivcios, 

Toiis fie fit' aKr]6ovs So^jjs lovras — SO that even the ' warp ' of the State 
will apparendy be of two textures, and this is confirmed by 961 A 
sq. and 951 E sqq. 

20. Tijs kp<5ktis, called i^^ in Laws 734 E. 

21. For the repetition of Seii-, compare the repetition of hrjKov in 
3. 13. 1283 b 16 sqq,, of epyov in 8 (6). 5. 1319 b 33 sqq., and the 
addition of Srepos in 7 (5). 4. 1304 a 16 and iKeivov in 7 (5). 10. 
1312 b 17. See also above on 1261 b 8. 

22. irerrairXao-ios. Sepulv. p. 43 b — ' mirum est Aristotelem ad 
quintuplum dicere, cum in libro quinto de legibus Plato ad quadru- 
plum dicat, nisi forte, quod suspicor, vitio librariorum factum est ut 
in Aristotelicis exemplaribus nevTmrXaxrlas scriptum sit pro rerpa- 

trKairlas' : Sus.^ — ' immo nTpmrKaa-lai, V. Plat. Legg. 744 E, cf. 

754D sqq.: errorem ipsius Aristotelis esse, non librariorum, 
inde apparet quod idem repetitur 7. 1266b 5 sqq.' Plato's 

words, Laws 7 44 E, are — fierpov fie airov (i. e. tok Spov = tt/v tov' 
KKr/pov Tifxriv) Bejupoi 6 vo/ioBerris &iwKd<Tiov ecio'et rovrou lerairBM Kal 

TprnKaaiov Koi fie^pt TCTpaTrKaaiov. He would Seem therefore, as 
Prof. Jowett points out (Politics of Aristotle 2. i. 63), to permit 
the acquisition of property four times the value of the lot in 
addition to the lot, so that the richest man in the State would be,' 
as Aristotle says (c. 7. 1266 b 5 sqq.), five times as rich as the 
poorest, who has nothing but the lot. The passage 754 D sqq., to 
which Sus. refers, does not seem to bear on the subject, if Stallbaum's 
interpretation of it is correct. Meifora 22 appears (cp. i^t iKaxianjs, 
1266b 6) to mean 'greater than the minimum with which every 
citizen starts ' (i. e. the lot). 1 


a74 NOTES. 

23. 8iA Ti K.T.V. 'Why should not an increase be allowed in 
respect of land up to a certain point ? ' The answer is ' because if 
a citizen were allowed to add to his landed property^ what he gains 
other citizens must lose; their lots must pass from them or be 
diminished, and thus, besides an infraction of the laws, the main 
security against pauperism within the citizen-body, itself not 
complete (cp. 1265 b 4 sq.), would be still further weakened.' 

25. CTU(jM|>^p£i. Eucken de Partic. Usu p. 58 : ' particula ita 
adhibita (i. e. in oratione obliqua) vulgo cum indicative construitur, 
ita ut /i^ indicet eum qui dicat expectare ut aflHrmetur sententia, /xjJ 
bh ut negetur— cf Pol. 5 (8). 5. 1339 b 42 : Phys. 8. 6. 259 b 3 : 
Eth. Nic. 8. 9. 1 1 59 a 6.' Some MSS. (not the best) have avfin^ipy, 
and it is possible that the Vet. Int. (' ne forte non expediat ') found 
it in his Greek text The subjunctive occurs in this construction 
in only four other passages of Aristotle, if we exclude the Rhetorica 
ad Alexandrum : these are Rhet. 2. 20. 1393 b 19 : Top. 6. 9. 147 a 
21 : Metaph. M. 4. 1079 b 6: Metaph. N. 3. 1090 b 8 (Weber, Die 
Absichtssatze bei Aristoteles, p. 16 : see also Eucken, ubi supra). 

IfciHe. ' Plat. Legg. 745 E : 775E sqq., cf. 848 : at minim est 
hoc loco idem in Platone ab Aristotele reprehendi, quod ipse in- 
stituit, 4 (7). 10. 1330 a 14 sqq.' (Sus.^). But Aristotle's words in 
that passage are Suo kXijp&ik kiaarr<^ vciitjBivrav — two lots, not neces- 
sarily two houses. The object of Plato in this arrangement 
seems to have been to provide a means of settling the married son 
in a separate household of his own (Laws 776 A). Aristotle would 
probably approve the separation, but perhaps in his State there 
would be little need for the arrangement, for if the father were 
37 years of age when he married, and the son waited to marry till 
he was 37, he would not be very likely to marry in his father's 
lifetime. At any rate, Aristotle does not provide for the con-> 
tingency in what we have of the Politics. 

26. SisXo)!' x^pis. Vict. ' distinctas separatasque.' 

XoX.Eitoi' Se oiKias 8iio oikeTi/. Cp. Demosth. in Boeot. de Nomine, 

C. 26, el yap ovra Sanavripbs Jjv Sore yafua yeyaftrjKms r^f c/x^v nr/rcpa 
erepav eix^ yvviuKa, §r Vfiels eare, fcat Sv oiKias ^k«, tSs fie apyipiov rotouTor 
&>v KareXmev ; 

26 sqq. Here Aristotle passes from the subject of the citizens, 
their numbers and property, to that of the constitution. His objec- 
tions to the constitution described in the Laws are as follows. It 
is not the next best after that which Plato places first, for it aims at 
being a polity, which is a constitution compounded of two constitu- 
tions, whereas an apurroKparia like the Lacedaemonian, which is' 

2. 6. 1265 fa 23—33. 275 

coitlpbunded of three, is better. Nor agaiii (ii66 a g sqq.) does it 
answer to Plato's 0*n afcCount of the bfest cbnStitutioh, for this is 
compounded, accoirdihg tb hiih, of monarchy and democracy, 
whereas the constitution of the Laws is a inixture of oligarchy and 
democracy ind leans rathei: to oligarchy. 

27. PdiSXcrai (leV. This /le'v ippeairs tb emphasize ^ovKcrm and to 
iniply that success is iiot attained; we see, however, from 1266 a 7, 
liShXov &' iyKKivuv jSovXerai irphs t^v oKiyapxiav, that, in Aristotle's vievtf, 
the constitution of the Laws hardly remains true even in aim to a 
inidway course between oligarchy and democracy. 

28. cK ■yAp K.T.X. Cp. 3. 7. 127^ b r. See Laws 753 B. 'fetfrii/, 

SC; fj dvlna^is SKrj, 

29. «i (iec oSi' K.T.X. Mh aSp (' now while ') here introduces an 
admission which does not exclude, but rather lelids fresh emphasis 
to, a coming criticism introduced by St. Translate : ' now while, 
if his vie^ in cbnstrtictihg (1265a 39) this cbnstitiitibn is that it 
is the constitutibn tnost readily attaliiable by States.' 'iJs KoiuoTdrrju 
must be taken With rais n-o^ecrt and with noKtreiai'. For the sever- 
ance of 7roXimai> from as itoivordT7]v, cp. 2. 2. 1261 a 15, and see 
above onii255sl, 21. For KotvOTaTriv t&v a)tXai>, see Boh. Ind. 403 i 
3 sq. (' superlativus comparativi viin in se continet, ita tit vel ipse 
coniungatur cum genetivo comparative '). 

31. ei 8' &s K.T.X. This is Plato's meaning (Laws 739 E, iddva- 
alas eyyvTara Koi t) jxta Seurfpas). ' Ita tamen cum Platone agit 
Aristbteles, ut videatur id compertum fee non habere ; hoc autem 
facit, ut aequior ipsi videatiir' (Vict,). For r^v wp'iri;!' itoKuruav, 
cp. Laws 739 B. 

33. dpioTOKpaTiKtoT^poif, ' mbre aristocratic than the State of the 
Laws ' is prdbibly the meaning, nbt than the Lacedaeriionian State. 
Aristotle is inclined to regard the State Of the Laws as lekriirig tob 
much to oligairchy (1266 a 7). 

evioi (lEfoui^, ' sbme, in fact ' : see note on i265bi2. Who these 
inquiters were, is not known ; they seem to have recognized bnly 
three constitutions, monarchy, oligarchy, aiid democracy ; neither 
Socrates nor Plato, therefore, can well be referred to, thbtigh Plato 
(Laws 691 C-693 E: cp. 773 C-D) praises the Lacedaemonian 
constitution for teinpenrtg the 'strong wine' of rbyalty with a 
senate representing age and sobriety, and with the Ephorate repfd- 
senting the detnocratic principle of the lot or solnething like it. 
There is a nearer approach to the views of these hmi in the doubt 
expressed by Megillus, the Spartan interlocutor in the Laws (712 
D), whether to call the Lacedaemonian constitution a tyranny 

T % 

37<5 NOTES. 

(because of the Ephorate) or a democracy or an aristocracy or a 
kingship. On the difference between their conception of mixed 
government and that of Aristotle something has already been said, 
vol. i. p. 264, and above, p. xiii. Whether Aristotle agrees with 
them in regarding the senate as an oligarchical element in the 
constitution, is not quite clear, for though in 7 (5). 6. 1306 a 
1 8 sq. he describes the mode of electing the senators as hwaxrreaTua\, 
he elsewhere says of the senate, MKov t\ apxri avrt] r^s dper^s imiv (2. 
9. 1270 b 24). He clearly, however, did not agree with them in 
their view that the Lacedaemonian constitution was a mixture of 
monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy, for he speaks of it as a 
mixture of virtue (or aristocracy) and democracy in 6 (4). 7. 1293 b 
16 sq. With the passage before us 6 (4). 9. 1294b 18-34 should 
be compared, where other grounds for finding a democratical and 
an oligarchical element in this constitution are mentioned. 

38. SiDioKpaTEiaOai. Bonitz remarks on this passage (Ind. 174 
b 54), ' ubi subiectum non additur, SrifioKpaTiurBai non multum 
differt a SrnwKpariav elvai,' and he refers to 40 and to 7 (5). 1. 1301 b 
16. It is not, however, quite certain that rfiv TroXmtav should not 
be supplied : cp. 2. 11. i273a4i, where n' are probably right in 

reading Taim/v ov\ oI6v re ^efiaias apiaTottpareitrBw, Tr)V woKireiav, and 

7 (5). I. 1301 b 14 sqq. 

39. KOrd, 'in respect of: cp. rSw kut dper^v fiyeiioviKav, 3. 1 7. 

1288 a II. 

Ik toO S:^)iou. For this mention of a demos in the Lacedaemo- 
nian State, cp. c. 9. 1270b 8, 18, 25: 6 (4). 9. 1294b 30. It is 
not meant that the ephors were always taken from the demos, but 
that all citizens were eligible (cp. c. 9. 1270 b 25, KaBia-TaToi yap i^ 
Arnvrav). As to the distinction between ' people ' (or 01 tvx6vt(s, c. 
9. 1270 b 29) and KoKoi KayaBoi (1270 b 24), see Schomann, Opusc. 
Acad. I. 108 sqq.: 'non Homoeos iUis qui vnopfioves erant op- 
ponit, sed in ipsis Homoeis alios koKovs KayaBois esse innuit, alios 
autem in quos haec appellatio non conveniat . . . Dignitatis tan- 
tum atque existimationis discrimen est' (p. 138). See 6 (4) 9. 
1294 b 29 sq. 

40. SrnxoKpaTEicrOai 8^. Cp. c. 9. 1271 a 32 : 6 (4). 9. 1294 b 
19 sqq.: 6 (4). 5. 1292b 11 sqq. Cp. also Isocr. Areopag. § 61 : 
Thuc. I. 6. 4. 

1266 a. 1- i*' Se k.t.X. ' Aristotle understands this last principle ' (that 
the best constitution should be a compound of monarchy and 
democracy) 'somewhat differently from what Plato seems to 
have intended ' (Grote, Plato 3. 363 n.). Plato says (Laws 693 D) 

2. 6. 1265 b 38— 1266 a 4. 377 

that fiovapxia (not Tvpawis) and SijiioKpdTca are the two mother- 
forms of constitution, Persia being an extreme example of the 
former, and Athens of the latter : 8ei 8;j ovv koI avayKoiov lUToKafielv 

aiupolv TovToiv, emep ikevOepia t (otoi Koi (^iXi'a jUfTO ^povrjireas : 

that is to say, a good constitution should partake of each of 
the two mother-forms (not of their extreme phases), or as he 
expresses it in 692 A, the fiery self-willed strength of birth (17 nara 
yams aidd&tjs pufiij) must be tempered by the sobriety of age and 
checked by an approach to the principle of the lot. In other 
words, the force of authoritative hereditary government and the 
tempering element of freedom ought to find a place in every good 
State. It is doubtful from the sequel whether Plato intended to 
represent monarchy, even in its milder form, as an essential ingre- 
dient. Thus in Laws 756 E he describes his scheme for the 
election of councillors as ' a mode rf election midway between 
monarchy and democracy,' though it is hard to see anything in it 
which could in strictness be called monarchical. He certainly 
never meant that a good State must be an union of tyranny and 
extreme democracy, of which forms alone it could be said that they 
are the worst of constitutions or not constitutions at all. Aristotle 
here seems to confound democracy with extreme democracy, for he 
elsewhere speaks of democracy in general as the least bad of the 

irapeK^cureis (Eth. Nic, 8. 12. Il6ob- 19: Pol. 6 (4). 2. 1289b 

4 sqq.). 

hior. It is possible that tori should be suppUed with Bcov here, 
as in Eth. Nic. 2. 7. 1107 a 32 and 7. 3. 1145 b 28. Bonitz, however, 
is apparently inclined to emend the latter passage and to adopt a 
different reading from that of Bekker in the former (see Ind. 168 a 
50 sqq.). 

3. As to tyranny, cp. 6 (4). 8. 1293 b 28 sq.: 6 (4). 2. 1289 b 
2. Aristotle must refer, as has been said already, to the extreme 
democracy (cp. 6 (4). 14. 1298 a 31 : 7 (5). 10. 1312 b 36), which 

is called in 6 (4). 14. 1298 b 14 ^ paKiarr etvai doKovtra Sij/xoKpaWa, but 

he nowhere else seems to treat the extreme democracy as worse 
than the extreme oligarchy : both are SuupeTot rvpavpiSes, 7 (5). 10, 
1312b 37. 

4. iq y&p K.T.V. The dpaTTOKparia, which is a mixture of oi ethropoCf 
ot awopoi, and 01 KoXoi KuyoBoi, or of TrXouTor, iKevBepia, and dper^, is 

superior to the polity, which combines only oi eihopoi and ol &iropoi. 
(lAovTos and eXevdepia) : cp. 6 (4). 8. 1294 a 15 : 7 (s). 7. 1307 a 
7 sqq. Each of the three elements — itKovtos, i\ev6epia, aperi) — is the 
epos of a constitution (1294 a ip) : hence the apurroKparia may be 

378 NOTES. 

said to combine three constitutions. It is trae that a constitution 
combining only two of the three elements is adrnitted (6 (4). 7. 
1293 b 10) to be apuTToKimTm, but this is nqt Aristptle's usuaj 
account of the dpiaroc/JOTia. Susemihl, following Riese, brackets 
17 y&p — HcKnav: he is inclined, indeed, to question with Schmidt 
the authenticity of the whole passage 1365 b 29, « — 1266 a 6, 
SriiioKpaTiKd (Qu. Crit. p. 370). His reason for bracketing ^ yap — . 
^eXtiW is that the view expressed in this clause cannot have been 
held by Aristotle, who would regard, for instance, a combination of 
aristocracy and democracy, or even of oligarchy and democracy, 
as better than a combination of oligarchy, democracy, and 
tyranny (Sus.^ Note 222), The clause seems certainly open to 
this objection, but perhaps the contrast present tp Aristotle's rnind 
is that which he has just drawn between an apuTTOKparia like the 
Lacedaemonian and a polity like that of Plato's Laws. 

5. ou8' Exouora ^aiv^Tcu.. See note on 1261 a 9. 

7. Trji' dXiyapxtai', as in c. 11. 1273 a 22 (contrast 1273a 6). 

a. i% oipeTui' kXyip&itous. ' In the appointtpent of members of 
the BoulS, of the astynomi, and of the judges of competitions. 
Laws 756 B-E : 763 D sq.: 765 B-rD' (Sus.^ Note 323). As to 

Koivhv ajK^oai, cp. fi (4). 9. 1394 b 6 sqq. 

10. cKKXriCTnlJeii'. ' Plato, Legg. 764 A,' Sus.' — compulsory for 
the first and second classes only. See 6. (4). 13. 1297 a 17 sqq., 
where provisions of this nature are reckoned among SKiyapxixa 

^ipew ^pxoiTas. ' In reality, only in the election of the judges 
of gymnastic competitions (Laws 765 C), and also of the Boull 
(Laws 756 B-|;), and Aristotle has not yet come to the subject of 
the Bouie' (Sus.^ Note 225). 

11. TQUTo 8^ takes up ra hi k.t.X. : see Bon. Ind. 166 b 58 sqq, 

12. KOI t6 iTEipairOat k.t.X. So the astynomi and agoranomi must 
belong to the first or second class (763 D-E) ; the three hundred, 
names from which the Nomophylal?es are selected are to be chosen 
by those who are serving or have served in war as hoplites or 
horse-soldiers, and hoplites and horse-soldiers were well-to-do, 
substantial people (753 B sq.) ; the superintendent of education 
is to be chosen by the magistrates out of the Nomophylakes 
(760 B) ; the select judges are to be chosen by the magistrates 
ou|: of their own number (767 C-D). As to the Nocturnal Council, 
see 951 Pt-E, 

13. K?il xis (AeyicTTas k.t.X. ' Haec falsa sunt, v. Plat. Legg.. 
753 B sqq. : 755 B sqq. : 766 A sq. : 945 E sqq.' (Sus.'). It is true 

2. 6. 1266 a 5—17. 279 

that selection from the two highest classes is enforced only in the 
cases of the astynomi and the agoranomi, but Plato probably counted 
on his arrangements proving adequate to secure the same result as 
to the Nomophylakes (for these needed at least as much as the 
Astynomi to be at leisure to attend to public affairs — cp. /tat to«- 
Tovs, 763 D), and therefore as to the superintendent of education, 
the select judges, and the Nocturnal Council. On the other hand, 
the emphasis with which Plato insists on high excellence in his 
magistrates, especially in reference to the superintendent of edu- 
cation {apurros els navra, "J 66 A) and the prieStS of Apollo {iravrrf 

apuTTov, 946 A), seems to negative Aristotle's charge that the con- 
stitution approaches oligarchy. Still, in Aristotle's view, an 

apuTTOKparia selects the best EK ■aavrav, not (K Toimv a^apkcrp,htav (6 
(4). 5. 1292b 2-4). 

14. KOI, ' as well as the choice of Spxovrf?.' The distinction 
between membership of the BoulS and apxri is not always main- 
tained: cp. 7 (5). 6. 1306 b 8. As to the election of members of 
the Boul6, see Laws 756 B sqq. 

15. dW seems to answer to /neV (see Sus.*, Ind. Gramm. s. v. itfv). 
It introduces a limitation of what has just been said, as in Eth. 

Nic. 10. 5. 1176a 21, ^Sca 8" ouK farm, dXXA tovtojs (tai ovTcm bioKei- 

jiivois: cp. Rhet. 2. 24. 1402 a 27. 

16. EK tS>v rpiTui'. Should we supply rifiTiiiaTav here with Mr. 
Eaton, or is tSv rplrav masc. ? The same question arises with 

regard to tS>v rpirav rj Terdprav, 17, and Tols vpaTOK ml Tols dfVTfpois, 

18. In the passage of the Laws, the substance of which Aristotle 
is here reproducing (756 B sqq.), Plato has ex tS>v pfyiurav np.riiidTavi 

ex. T&v Sevrepav Tip-ripaTav, efc rS>v Tpirav TipiriiiaTav, and lastly i< Tov 

Tfraprov TifirniaTos, and if he changes without apparent cause from 
the plural to the singular, it is possible that Aristotle, who has 

hitherto used the singular {tov nparov tiiithuvtos^tov, Sfvrepov, nitTjitcuros, 

15 sq.), may change from the singular to the plural.. It is, how- 
ever, also possible that tSv rpirmv may be masc, and mean ' the, 
members of the third class.' 

17. ■ivXt|1' ou irfio-ii' lirdi'aYKEs V toTs in. Tav TpiTOJi' ^ TeT&prbiv. 
Here again the doubt arises whether Tip-riniratv should be supplied' 
with rS)v Tpirav r) TCTaprcov, OX whether these words are of the mas^ 
online gender. Uainv has universally been taken to agree with toIs 

« tS>v TpiTcav 17 TeTaprav, and if we thus take it, nifrmdrav must be 

supplied, and the meaning of the sentence will be, ' but Plato did 
not make voting compulsory [in elections from the third class] on 
all the members of the third and fourth classes.' This is a strange 

38o NOTES. 

way of expressing the fact that Plato compelled the three higher 
classes alone to vote in elections from the third, and it is not 
surprising that extensive alterations have been suggested in the 
MS. text. But is it absolutely certain that iraxrw agrees with ™s l< 
T&v Tpirav rj Terdprav ? May not the meaning of the passage be — 
' but Plato did not make voting compulsory on all in the case of 
those elected from the thirds or fourths,' or, if we supply niirnmnDv, 
'from the third or fourth classes'? For the dative toU « tS>v 
TpiTtav ij TeTaprav, if we understand it thus, cp. i. 8. 1256 b 34, rals 
SKXats T^xvais (' in the case of other arts '), and [Xen.] Rep. Ath. i. 
5, eviois Tav avBpomav, and see Bon. Ind. 166 b 26—38. Umnv is no 
more bound to be in agreement with toIs k.t.\. than touttji with r^s 
Tiyefiovias in 7 (5). 4. 1304 a 22-23 : see for other instances of the 
same thing de Part. An. 4. 9. 685 a 9 : 3. i. 662 a 9. If, how- 
ever, the interpretation of rois e'lc tSw TpWatv fj TerdpTutv which I have 
ventured to suggest should be thought inadmissible, I would pro- 
pose the omission of roh : alpela-dai will then need to be supplied, 
as in the next sentence. See Susemihl's apparatus criticics, and 
Qu. Crit. p. 370 sqq., for the emendations which have been already 
proposed. As to %v, cp. i. 12. 1259 a 37. 

18. eK 8e [toG T£T<lpTOu] tav TErdpTui'. The probability is that 
Tou Terdprov and tS>v TerdpTav are alternative readings, which have 
been by some misadventure admitted together into the text. See 
critical note for other instances of the same thing. It is hardly 
conceivable that Aristotle wrote ' from the fourth class of the 
fourths,' and the only remaining alternative is to adopt Victorius' 
conjecture of rau TiTrdpav, which Sepulveda found in some MSS. — 
there also probably a conjectural emendation. 

19. ^K TodTuc, ' from the persons so elected.' 

20. 01 EK tSiv fiEYioTui' TifjuiiidTui' Kal (SeXtious. These words 
seem to go together as the subject of the sentence. For oJ « t. p.. 

Tipiipdriov, cp. Plato, Laws 756 D, t6v ck toB rerdpTov Kal rptVou Tt/i^- 
paros . . . Tov 8' « tov Sevrcpov Kot irparov. BeXriour, ' the more 
respectable ': cp. 3. 13. i283a36. That these words refer not to 
the elected but to the electors, is evident from Plato's use of them ; 
besides, the piyurra npfjpara (i.e. the first and second, 13) will 
number in the Bouli exactly as many representatives as the 
third and fourth. Not only most of the magistrates will belong' 
to the well-to-do classes (1266a 12), but also most of the voters 
in the election of members of the Boul6. 

23. •rill' ToiouTt)!' iroXiTEiai', ' the constitution of which we have 
spoken,' i. e. r^v dpiVn)!', 1266 a 2. The conclusion here arrived at 

2. 6. 1266 a 18— 7. 1266 a 31. 281 

is considered by Aristotle to be established, partly by what he has 
said in 1266 a 3, and partly by the failure of Plato to construct his 
State in the way in which he had announced that it ought to be 
constructed. We need not infer from 1266 a 4, that the best con- 
stitution of Aristotle will be a compound of more constitutions than 
two ; all that Aristotle says is, that a constitution compounded of 
more than two is better than a constitution compounded of two only. 
It is evident from the passage before us, as well as from the com- 
mencement of the Second Book, that Aristotle is looking forward 
to an inquiry as to the best constitution. 

26. Kal irepl -rf^v aipeo'ii' tui' &px6vn>v, i. e. as well as in the eIec-> 
tion of members of the Boul§. For in the election of the BoulS^ 
though Aristotle has not fully described it in the passage before us, 
the process laid down by Plato is threefold (Laws 756 B sqq.) : — 
first, an equal number of individuals is to be nominated by election 
from each class in the manner he prescribes : next, all the citizens 
are to select out of those thus nominated 180 persons from each 
class : thirdly, half of these are to be taken by lot. Thus Plato's 
scheme for the election of the BoulS is one which involves to f| 
aiperSiv aiperovs, and Aristotle implies by koi that this is a perilous 
way of electing a BoulS. Plato employs the same method in the 
selection of the Nomophylakes, Laws 753. 

27. Ix*' eiriKti'Sui'Oi', cp. 4 (7)- 2. 1324 a 38, i/iiroSiov (X^tv. Cp. 
also de Gen. et Corr. I. 'J. 323 b 30, o<Ta^ evavrla forlv § ivavriaxrw 

tX"- Observe that Aristotle's objection is to e| alperav alperol, 
not to K\rjpa>To\ fK TTpoKpirav, an arrangement which suits a polity 
(6 (4)- 14- 1298b 9). 

29. Trji' TToXiTciai' Tfji' iv tois cijiois. Aristotle does not meddle 
•with the laws which occupy so large a part of the dialogue 
(1265 a i), because his aim is to show that the constitution sketched 
in it is unsatisfactory, and that there is still room for an effort to 
suggest a better; 

31. iroXiTEiat. Bern. ' Verfassungsentwurfe.' Aristotle refers to C 
constitutional schemes, not to actual constitutions like those of 
Solon and Lycurgus. 

The word i8i<4tt|s is used by Aristotle both in contrast with 

such terms as Spxav (6 (4). 16. 1300 b 21) or oj to xotva irpdrrovra 

Koi 7To\iT€v6iieuoi (4 (7). 2. 1324 b i), and in contrast with oi €i8oV« 
(3. II. 1282 a II : cp. Plato, Soph. 221 C, Protag. 322 C). Here 
both these contrasts seem to be combined : we find the former of 
the two in c. 11. 1273 a 35 and c. 12. 1273 b 29. The distinctiori 
of the iStionjj and the philosopher survives in Cicero (Vict, quotes 

a8a NOTES. 

pro Sestio 51. no) and in Epictetus (Arrian, Epictet. 3. 19)—^ 
see Grote, Plato 3. 130 n. 

33. Kal Ka9' ds k.t.\. Vict. ' est quasi declaratio antec^dentis 
illius nominis.' 

34. ouSels Y^p (c.T.X. We read of the Cynic Diogenes in Diog. Laert. 

6. ^2, eXeyc hi Koi Koivas eivai 8flv ras yvvatKas, ya/ioif iiriSeva vofii^av, dWa 
Tov Trfla-avra rfj neKraa-rj {TteurBf'uTrj^ conj. H. Stephanus) avvtivaf koivovs fie 
Sia toCto Kni tovs vUas \ but if this view was expressed in the noAtreia 
which passed under his name (Diog. L. 6. 80 : Henkel, Studien p. 9), 
Aristotle knows nothing of it. The work must either have been 
spurious or of a later date than this passage. Zeno of Citium taught 
a community of women among the wise in his noXtreia (Diog. L. 7. 
131), and was followed by Chrysippus (ibid.), but this would be 
after the time of Aristotle. The Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes 
was not a TroXiTcm. Aristotle, however, mentions in 2. 3. 1262 a 
1 9 sqq. that some Libyans had women in common, and he might 
have mentioned other instances of this, just as he notices the customs 
of some barbarous tribes in relation to community of property 
(c. 5. 1263 a I sqq.): see for instance Hdt. 4. 104, and Strabo's 
report (p. 302) of the stories of Ephorus about some Scythian 
tribes — ctr' amoXayel dioTi t(As hmirais euTfXels &VTfS koI ov xp^l'^Tiardl 
Trpos re dXXjjXouff evvofiovvraif Koti/a TrdvTa e^ovres to. t6 ^XXa Koi tcls yvvai- 
Kas Ksu TCKva Kal Trjv oXiji' (ruyyeveiav, npos re tovs iieros a/iaj^oi fieri Koi 
aviVijrot, ovSev c)(0VTts {mep oS fiouXeuo-oueri. Cp. also Ephor. Fr. 53 

and Strabo p. 775. Euripides in the Protesilaus (Fr. 655 Nauck) 
had made one of his characters say, 

Kotvoi' yap etvai XPV" yvvaiKe'iou Xf^ot : 

indeed, we are told by Polybius, that among the Lacedaemonians 

Kal wdrpiov ^v (cat (TvmjBes rpcts av&pas ex"" "J" y^'aiKa Kal Tirrapas, Tore 
fie Koi TrXeiouff afieXe^ovs ovras, Kal ra rcKva tovtcov elvat Kowd (12. 6^. 8 
Hultsch). In c. 12. 1274b 9, the plan of a community in property 
as well as in women and children is spoken of as special (tSmv) 
to Plato ; here only the latter. 

36. diro Tui' AvayKalay apx<»^ai. The authors of constitutional 
schemes before the time of Plato seem to have made their special 
care the supply of the necessary wants of their citizens. (It is not 
clear how far this is true of Hippodamus.) Plato, though he too 
attaches great importance to questions relating to property (Laws 
736 C sqq.), did not lose sight of higher things. Cp. 4 (7). 10. 

1329 b 27, where to dvayxala are contrasted with ra eh evaxr)p^avvtp> 

Km TTeptova-iav and are said to be attended to firsts Plato has some 
remarks in Laws 630 E on the way in which the legislators of his 

2. 7. 1266 a 33— 1266 b 3. 383 

©■ffn day approached their task. For Spxovrai, cp. de Sensq i. 
436 a 19-b I : Top. I. 14. 105 b 12-15. Their starting-point -yfas 
also their main point, as the next sentence shows. Cp. Isocr. 
Areopag. §§ 44-45. 

38. iroiEiffflai. We have iroiovtrt ariij-iv, 7 (5). 4. 1304 b 4, but 
TTOioCvrai TCLs imBfO-eis, 'J (5). IQ. 1312 a 20, and (TTatnafTiKai Troirjtra- 

fiivtov TTiv KoKamv, 7 (5). 6. 1306 a 38. See on phrases of this kind 
Shilleto, Demosth. de Falsa Legfatione § 103, where he says — ' any 
verb in Greek may be resolved into the cognate substantive with 

39. TOUT perhaps means the regulation of property with a view 
to prevent civil discord. Bern. ' dahin zielende Vorschlage.' Others, 
who must probably be earlier in date than Phaleas (for he is con- 
trasted with rmv TcaKai Tivis'vo. 1266b 16), e. g. Pheidon the Corinthian 
(c. 6. 1265 b 12), had sought to regulate property. According to 
Henkel, Studien p. 36, who refers to Roscher, Thucydides p. 247, 
Anm. I, Phaleas was an older contemporary of Plato. 

40. tAs KTi^o-eis, ' landed property' (1267 b 9), as in c. 6. 1265 a 
38 and 4 (7). 9. 1329 a 18. 

1. KaToiKi|,o|jiEVais is probably not to be taken with -xixKiirov, but 1266 b. 
rather in the sense of ' for,' or pQssibJy ' in the case of-' 

ou x<''^^'><'°>' <?*To- It would seem from this that even in the 
foundation of colonies unequal lots of land were often given. 
noXfo-i must be supplied here and jrdXets in the next line. This is 
a word which Aristotle often omits : thus nSKei has to be supplied 
in c. 9. 1269 a 34 : ttjv nokiv in c. 11. 1272 b 31 : n-(5\eo-i in 8 (6). 
4. 1319a 37 and 3. 6. 1278 b 12. 

Tclg 8' rjSri KaTOiKOUfjiEi'as, sc. ir6\ets o/idKi^eiv. Cp. for this phrase 
Rh^t. 3. II. 1 41 2 a 16, Kcu TO cai(»ii.ak,ifrSai ras TrdXeis. 

3. Tu T&s irpoiKos K.T.X. Rich men were to give dowries vheti 
their daughters married poor men, but not to accept them from 
the parents of the bride, if poor, when they or their sons married. 
Poor men were never to give dowries, but only to receive them. 
Aristotle does not criticise this regulation, but it appears to make 
it the interest of rich fathers to marry their daughters to rich men ; 
thus it tends to defeat its own object, An additional regulation 
compelling rich families to intermarry with poor ones would seem 
to be needed. This scheme of equalizing landed property by 
regulations as to dowries implies that dowries were often given in 
land, and also that they were often large, as we know from other 
sources that they ■vyere. We see also that poor fathers commonly 
gave dowries as well as rich ones. Plato abolishes dowries 

284 NOTES. 

altogether in the Laws (742 C: 774 C). Vict, remarks, 'in mentem 
hoc etiam venit Megadoro Plautino,' and quotes Plaut. Aulul. 

3- 5- 4 : 

Nam meo quidem animo, si idem faciant ceteri 
Opulentiores, pauperiorum filias 
Ut indotatas ducant uxores domum: 
Et multo fiat civitas concordior 
Et invidia nos mrnore utamur quam utimnr, 
Et illae malam rem metuant, quam metuunt, magis, 
Et nos minora sumptu simus quam sumus. 
The absence of a dowry, however, would be much felt by the wife, 
owing to the facility of divorce in Greece : cp. Menand. Sentent. 
371, nifi^r) y anpoiKos ovk e^ci Trapprja-iav, and see C. F. Hermann, Gr. 
Antiqq. 3. § 30. 16, who quotes this line. See also vol. i. p. 171 sq. 
0. iav, SC. TO Trjs ova-las TrA^^or (cp. iariov, I267 b 13). Plato, 
however, would seem, no less than Phaleas, to have equalized the 
landed property of his citizens (Laws 737 C, t^k tc yrjv kcu. ras 
oiKijo-fts on fiaKuTTa taas emveiirfreovj. Phaleas himself did not meddle 
with anything but land (i 267 b 9 sq.), but this may well have been an 
oversight, for his views clearly pointed to an equality in all kinds of 
property. If so, he went, in intention at all events, farther than Plato. 
TrXeioi' 81 K.T.X. Literally, 'to acquire to a larger extent than 
would leave his property five times the size of the smallest.' As 
to TrevraTT^aaiay, see note on 1265b 22, the passage referred to in 


12. &vdyKr\ k.t.X., ' the abrogation of the law must of necessity 
follow ' : ' neque enim pati poterunt patres filios suos esurire ' 
(Vict.). Some render Xiea-dai ' be broken,' but the following pas- 
sages, collected by Bonitz (Ind. 439 a 5) — 2. 8. 1269 a 15 : 7 (5). 
7. 1307 b 10 : 6 (4). 14. 1298 b 31 — seem to point rather to 
'abrogation' as the meaning. Cp. also c. 8. 1268 b 30, vo/uav 
Xw(ro/ 5 noXiTeias, and 1 2 69 a 15, to 8' IBi^eiv ev}(epas \veiv rour v6p,ovs 

13. IpYOf Y^P K-T.X. Cp. Plato, Rep. 552. Yet contrast Pol. 

7 (5)- 12. 1316b 18, OTOV p,fv tSiv fiyep,Qvmi rivcs aTroXeo'cDcn Tos ovaias, 
KaivoTOiiov<nv, orav 8e rmy SKKav, oiSev ylyvcTcu, bcaiov, 

14. 8i6ti, ' that.' 

fiEi' our here, as in 1265 b 29 and elsewhere, introduces an 
admission which lends emphasis to the criticism introduced by aXXd, 
24. What the main value of equality of property is, appears from 
0. 9. 1270 a 38. Another useful effect of laws of this kind is men- 
tioned in 8 (6). 4. 1319 a 6 sqq. 

2. 7. 1266 b 6—21. 385 

Ixet Ticol SiSKafiif eis ttji' itoXitiktii' Koifui'iai'. For this use of els, 
cp. 6 (4). 16. 1300 b 20, ocra els rrju nokiTeiav <l>epei, 

18. <f>aii'oi^ai SieyKUKOTes, ' clearly have recognized ' : see note 
on 1261a 9. 

17. iSkav. To what law of Solon's does this refer ? C. F. Her- 
mann (Gr. Antiqq. i. § 106. 12) and E, Curtius (Gr. Hist. i. 329 E. 
T.) take it as referring to some law fixing a maximum limit to 
the acquisition of land, but Grote (Gr. Hist. 3. 182, ed. 3) thinks 
that ' the passage does not bear out such an opinion.' He seems 
to hold that Aristotle here only refers to Solon's ' annulment of the 
previous mortgages,' and to the Seisachtheia generally. The former 
view is probably correct, but in any case Solon's legislation is 
evidently conceived by Aristotle to have tended to an equality of 
property. It is deserving of notice that no mention is made of the 
equality of landed property which Lycurgus is alleged by some 
authorities to have instituted. 

, irap' aXXois. Laws of this nature appear at one time to have 
existed at Thurii (7 (5). 7. 1307 a 29 sq.) and elsewhere (8 (6). 4. 
1319 a 6 sqq.). On the other hand, Polybius remarks as to Crete 
(6. 46. I, quoted by C. F. Hermann, Gr. Antiqq. 3. § 63. 16), t^w 
re yhp ^6>pav Kara &vvafitv avTois e^iatriv ol j/o/xoc, to brj \ey6fteuov, els 
aireipov KTaaBai. The Licinian Law at Rome probably imposed a 
limit only on the occupation {possessid) of the public land. 

19. AoKpots. According to Buchsenschiitz, Besitz und Erwerb, 
p. 32 n., the Italian Locrians are meant, and the law was probably 
among those ascribed to Zaleucus. It appears, unlike the rest, to 
have applied to property generally (ouo-m), and not merely to land. 

21. ETi 8e K.T.X. It seems better to supply vofios eari from 17, 
19 with biaaa^eai than to supply some word from KoKiovaiv (19) 
with the opposite meaning of 'enjoin.' Cp. 8 (6). 4. 1319 a 10, 
fjv Se TO ye apxalov iv jroXXats jrdXeo-i vevoixoBeTrjiUvov /iTjSe TraXelv e^etvai 

Toiis irparms KXripovs. A special protection was given in the Lace- 
daemonian State to the ' original share,' if we may trust Heraclid. 

Pont, de Rebuspublicis 2. 'J, ircoKeXv Se yrjv AaKeSaipLOvioLS ala-xpiv 

tievo/ua-Tai' Trjs 6" dpxaias jioipas oxihe e^etrnv. Aristotle approves the dis- 
couragement by the Lacedaemonian lawgiver of the sale of landed 
property (if that is the meaning of ^ indpxova-a [y^?], c. 9. 1270 a 
20 : cp. 8 (6). 4. 1319 a 13, TO p.r] Savel^eiv «s Tt fiepos t^s virapxoiirrjs 

eKd(TT(p yrjs). Pheidon the Corinthian, again, had sought to keep 
the number of landowners the same. These legislators appear to 
have endeavoured, like Plato in the Laws, to secure each household 
in the possession of the original lot. The motive probably was 

386 ^OTES. 

partly a wish to prevent the impovefishffient of old-established 
households and the civil troubles which were apt to follow, partly 
a wish to prop up an oligarchical regime, for Plato (Rep. 552 A, 
556 A) notices prohibitions of alienation as a means, though one 
too rarely resorted to, of preserving oligarchies, concentration of 
wealth in a few hands being regarded by him as comnionly the 
cause of their displacement by democracies. 

22. Kal ircpl AeuKiiSa, i. e. ' at Leucas to name one instance,' as ih 
I. 12. 1259 b 8. As to irepi AfuicaSa, See Bon. Ind. 579 a 29 sqq. 

23. ofi Y&p K.T.\. Thfe meahing apparently is that men became 
admissible to office on the strength of half a lot or less, an arrange- 
ment suitable, enough to an agricultural democracy like Aphytis 
(8 (6). 4. 1319 a 14 sqq.), but not suitable to an oligarchy, because 
poor men came to hold office. 

29. fjLaWoi' Y^P K.T.X. Cp. Plutarch, Dehietr. c. 32, Xdfarpai' tS 

TCKoTavi jiapTvpiav SiSoiis SiaKeKevopeva /i^ trjv ovtriav irXeia, ttjv 8e ottXij- 
(TTiav iTOtelv e\d(T&ia t6v ye fiovKopeiiov as ahijBas eivai ttKovitiov, as o 
ye iifj navav <f)i\on\ovTlau oStos oiSre irevlas ovre dnopiai dw^AXancTm. 
Plutarch evidently refers to Plato, Laws 736 E: cp. 742 E ahd Rep. 
521 A. Cp. also Sen. Epist. 2, non qui parum habet, sed qui plus 
cupit, pauper est. 

33. iraiScios. A remarkable view, probably suggested by Spartan 

precedents : cp. 6 (4). 9. 1294 b 21, otov wparov to nepl rfiv i-po<f>r]V 
T&v iraibav' op-olas yap oi rav TrXtyvttlav rpe^ovfai tqIs t&v ttcvt^tcov, koi 
iraideiovrai riv rpoirbv toCtov ov hv hvvaimo ical t£» irevryrav oi nalbes' 
ofwtas 5e Koi €ir\ Tijs e^ofLevrjs rjXiKias, Koi oTtiv avBpes ytvavral, tov aiirbv 
rpdiroP, ovSiv yhp 8«jSi;Xos 6 TrXowior (cai o 7revr)s. AtistOtle is quite 

with him in this matter (g (8). i. 1337a 21 sqq.). 

36. ToiauTr]i' ej ^s. See above on 1257 b 15, and cp. 1267 a 24. 

38. ?Ti, for which Spengel and Sus.^ would read tVel, Sus.' on ?, 
seems defensible. The meaning is — ' besides, you need to deal with 
office in addition to equalizing property, for ara&is is occasioned 
not only, as Phaleas artd his school think, by questions about 
property, but also by questions about office. It is as great a trial 
to a man of high capacity to have to share office equally with his 
inferiors as it is to A poor man to be starved.' Compare Jason's 
saying (3. 4. 1277a 24), that it was starvation to him not to be a 

tyrant. Cp. also Stob. Flor. 45. 21, iie rav koivwv 'ApiaToteKtivs 
biarpi^av' ai irKelaTai OTCKteis &ia (jiiKoniiiav ev rals jrdXfo-t ylyvovrai, irepi 
Ttfirls yap oi;^ 01 rvx^VTes, aW oi SwaraTdToi Stafiipta-^rjrovat. 

1267a. 1. 01 81 x^pi^i^^S; 'men of education': cp. 1267 A 39, and see 
L. Schmidt, Ethik der alten Griechen 1. ^34 sq. Cp. also Eth. Nic. 

2. 7. 1266 b 22— 1267 a 5. 387 

I. 3. 1095b 22, oi be xopicTes Koi irpaKfiKoX Ti/*4i» [n-poaipoSwat], and 

Pol. 6 (4). 13. 1297 b g, where this quality in the rulers is treated 
as a security that they will not plunder or outrage the ruled. 

ei' Be irf k.t.X. Hom. II. 9. 319 is quoted to support by the 
authority of Homer what has just been said as to the feeling of 

oi ^aplevTfS, Cp. Plato, Laws 756 E, bovKoi yap &v Koi Sea-iroTm ovk 
av iTOTC yivoivTO <j>iKoi, oite cv la-ais tifiais 8id.yopev6fievoL (^aCXoi Kal 

(TTiovbaloi: Eth. Eud. i. 3. ijizib i : and the remarks on consti- 
tutions placed by Isocrates in the mouth of Nicocles (Isocr. 
Nicocles § 14 sqq.). 

2. ou fi,6vav S°. Here there is a transition from a-Taa-td^avcnv, 1266 b 
38 to aSiKova-tv, 3 — from men as citizens to men as moral being s. 
As inequaUty of property is not the only cause of civil discord, so 
neither is it the only cause of dSocm. Aristippus had apparently 
anticipated a part of what Aristotle says in the passage which 
follows: see Plutarch, de Cupiditate Divitiarutti, c. 3. 524 A sqq., 
a passage which I do not notice in MuUach's collection of the 
Sententiae et Apophthegmata of Aristippus in the Fragrtienta Phi- 
losophorum Graecorum. Compare also Cic. de OflSc. i. 7. 24—1. 
8. 26 (referred to by Giph. p. 217). 

3. 8icl TdcayKaia dSiKoutrii', &!> aKOS. '"Ancor Tii/oy, genetivo vel id 
significatur quod avertitur, Pol. 7 (g). 8. 1308 b 26, vel id quod 
expetitur, Pol. 2. 7. 1267 a 3, 9 : 7 (5). 5. 1305 a 32' (Bon. Ind. 
26 b 50 Sq.). Fof this second meaning of the word clxot ('a means 
of obtaining '), see Liddell and Scott s. v., and cp. 7 (5). 5. 1305 a 

32, Skos be Tov f) fi^ yiUeaddi fj tov ylvtaBai rfrrov to tas (j>v\as <j)epei,v roiis 
SpXpvras, and 2. 11. 1273 b 23, ffiapiuumv TrjS fjirvxias. BonitZ, it 

will be seen, explains okos as ' a means of obtaining ' both here and 
in 9, and there is much to be said for this view. But on the whole 
I incline, with the commentators generally, to give it in these two 
passages its more usual meaning of ' remedy ' (Sus. ' Gegenmittel '). 
^Qv will then refer, not to rav avdiyKdliov, but to dbiKrjimrav, which must 
be supplied from dbiKova-tv. The vievV of Phaleas was probably 
shared by many: cp. 6 (4). 8. 1293b 38 sq. and [Xeii.] Rep. 
Ath. I. 5. 

4. (Sore . , . ireii^i' explains &v okos : ' the result being that no 
one will be driven to steal clothes by cold and hunger.' 

5. oirus . . . eiridufiojaii'. Xaipaxri is introduced here and not 
before, because when a man satisfies an absolute need, though he 
feels pleasure (see de Part. An. 4. 11. 690 b 26-691 a 5), yet 
pleasure is not his aim. Compare the distinction drawn between 
^ij dXytiK and x^'P"" in Eth. Eud. i. 8. 1225 a 24: cp. also Rhet,' 

288 NOTES, 

1. 12, 1372 b 24, dSocoCon 8c Toxis toiovtovs kui to Toiavra rois expvras 
Znv avToi f'vdeels § els rdvayKaia ^ eJs vnepo)(TjV rj els airSKavaiv. 

ih,v yiip K.T.X. This passage would be much simplified, if 
ahiKoiev were substituted for em6vfu>Uv in 8, but it is perhaps pos- 
sible to elicit a satisfactory sense from it as it stands. Taking it as 
it stands, I incline to translate as follows^' for if men have a desire 
going beyond mere necessaries, they will commit wrongful acts to 
cure it : nay, not only to cure a desire of this nature, for they may 
desire superfluities with a view to experiencing painless pleasures.' 
I follow Lamb, and Bern, in my rendering of Sta touttiv. Sepulveda 
translates these words 'medendi gratia,' apparently interpreting 

rairrfl) aS = larpeiav, nOt t^k Tavrris larpelav : it WOuld also be pos- 
sible to supply rfiv eTridvfiiav with ravTjjv. For /icifa iinBvfilav rav 
avayKolav (i. e. fieifco iirtdv/iiav Trjs cTTtdv/ilas r&v dvayKaiav), cp. C. lO. 
1272a 28, xf'po" T&v i(f>6pa>v (i.e. xeipov fj to tSiv i<j)6pa)v), and see Jelf, 
Gr. Gr. § 781 d. For oi roivw, cp. Xen. Anab. 7. 6. 19, tniveiT6p,vup*. 

prjSe a o'l SKKoi orpanjyoi eXa^ov eiKrj<f>cvai, fi^ Toivvv ^i7/8c Saa t&v 

JioxayfiK evioi, and Demosth. de Cor. cc. 107, 244. What pleasures are 
meant by 'painless pleasures,' appears from Eth. Nic. 10. 2. 

I173 b 16, SKviroi yap eliriv at T€ padri fUiTiKal Kal tSiv Kara ras 
olcrBrjiTfis al Sia r^c 6iT(f>pfi<Te<as, Kal aKpod/iaTa 8e xai opapara iroKKa 
m\ pvrjfiai Kal eXiriSes and de Part. An. 1. 5. 645 a 7 sq. Isocrates (ad 
Demon. §§ 46-47) is already acquainted with the distinction. It 
has long been noticed that painless pleasures are elsewhere said 
by Aristotle not to be accompanied by desire (Eth. Nic. 7. 13. 

1152 b 36, ijrel Kal avev Xuttiji Kal hriBvplas eialv rfiovai, otov ai tov 
Seapeiv evepyeiai, Tjjs tpiaeas ovk fvSeovs oScrijr ; 3. 14. 1119a 4, pera 
\inrris 17 imBvpia: Eth. Eud. 2. lO. 1225b 30, ert iiriBvpla pev Kal 
6vpos del peril Xwjrijs). Still an etriBvpia tov BedaairBai. is spoken of 
in Rhet. i. 11. 1370 a 25 sq., and an imdvpla paeija-eas in Eth. Nic. 
3. 3. nil a 31. But here perhaps the question hardly arises, even 
if we retain emdvpoUv, for the desire spoken of in the passage 
before us is not a desire for the painless pleasures themselves, but 
for the superfluities through which men sometimes mistakenly seek, 
them. If this is so, it would seem to be unnecessary to adopt 
any of the emendations of the words Kal &v imdvpjoiev which have 
been suggested with the view of meeting this difficulty, among 
which may be noticed that of Schneider, (cm hv pi) eiridvprnaiv, that 

of Bojesen, whom Sus. follows, Kal avev emSvpi&v or kA dveniJdvpryroi, 

(cp. Clem. Al. Strom, vii. p. 742 A, B), and that of Bernays, who 
omits &v emSvpolev. With the account here given of the motives of 
adiKia, compare (in addition to the passage from the Rhetoric 

2. 7. 1267 a 9—12. 289 

quoted above) Pol. 2. 9. 1271 a 16 sq. : 6 (4). 11. 1295 b 10 sq, : 
Isocr. de Antidosi, § 217 (cp. Aristot. Rhet. 2. 23. 1398 a 29 sqq.): 
Plato, Laws 870: Cic. de Rep. 2. 41. 68. 8. 

9. Ti oui' aK09 T&v Tpiui' TouTur ; For Bonitz' interpretation of 
oKos, see above on 3. The last three words have been translated 
in many different ways. Lamb, supplies ' malorum,' Vict. ' fomi- 
tum,' Sepulv. and Giph. ' cupiditatum.' Susemihl translates, ' in alien 
diesen drei Fallen ' : Bernays, ' fiir diese drei Klassen.' Others 
supply dSo(i;/uiT<Bi', and, I incline to think, rightly (cp. 16, n-pos ras 
fuKpas ahuilas ^or)6ryriK6s). If we take this view, the translation will 
be, ' what then is the remedy for these three kinds of wrong-doing ? ' 
The three are (i) wrong-doing for the sake of absolute necessaries ; 
(2) wrong-doing for the sake of superfluities with a view to curing 
painful desire and obtaining pleasure ; (3) wrong-doing for the sake 
of superfluities with a view to obtaining painless pleasure. 

U. 81' oArutv x'lipEii'. We expect, not 8t' avrav x'^^p^"', but pfaip""' 
Tois avfv XuttSi' TjSovais : Aristotle, however, seems to say that those 
seekers for painless pleasure who desire to be independent of others 
for their enjoyment will ask the aid of philosophy, for all other 
pleasures save that of philosophy (ai SXKai, 12) presuppose the 
assistance of other human beings. He does not absolutely deny- 
that wep/SoXat are a means to some sorts of painless pleasure; 
a tyrant, for instance, may use his power over other men to pro- 
vide himself with exquisite sculpture or music ; but those seekers 
after painless pleasure who desire to be independent of others will 
go to philosophy for it (cp. Eth. Nic. 10. 7. 1177a 27 sqq.). 

12. eirel dSiKoucri ye k.t.X. ' Other remedies, in shprt, besides 
that of Phaleas, are necessary, for . . .' For cV« . . .ye, cp. i. 5. 
1254b 34 : I. 6. 1255 a 19. In the passage before us «rel ... ye 
introduces an evident fact adduced in support of the unexpressed 
conclusion to which the preceding sentences point — the conclusion 
that to remove the occasions of d&iKia something more than a due 
supply of the necessaries of life is requisite — training, in fact, both 
moral and intellectual. Both these kinds of training tend to wean 
the mind from the pursuit of excess — ras im-ep^oKds, i. e. an excess 
of wealth, power, glory, and the like (4 (7). 1. 1323 a 37-38), or 
an excess of other goods such as wine and good living (Eth. 
Nic. 7. 14. 1154a 15 sqq., referred to by Congreve) — the one by 
limiting the desires, the other by affording pleasures attainable 
without command over other human beings; and it is through 
a craving for excess that men come to commit the worst offences. 
Men become tyrants, for instance, when. they are not content with 


290 NOTES. 

the honours and emoluments of citizen-rulers (Eth. Nic. 5. 10. 
1134b 7); and how great the tyrant's crime is may be gathered 
from the high honours paid to the tyrannicide. 

14. Kai at Tifjiai, ' the honours, as well as the crime the punish- 
ment of which they reward.' 

15. For the place of ou, see Bon. Ind. 539 a 5 sqq. 

17. 6 Tpoiros TTJs ♦aX^ou iroXiTEias. Cp. c. 5. 1264 a 11. 

€Ti K.T.X. Compare the criticism passed on Plato's Laws in c. 6. 
1265 a 18 sqq. Ephorus had already insisted that it is as necessary 
for a State to possess the qualities which enable it to repel attacks 
from without as the internal concord (o/iovom) which secures it 
from oToo-is (Diod. 7. 14. 3-4 : cp. Ephor. ap. Strab. p. 480), and 
Aristotle in a similar spirit (cp. Pol. 6 (4). 4. 1291 a 6 sqq.) now 
goes on to point out that it is necessary to take considerations of 
national security into account, not only in framing the constitution, 
but also in reference to the question of the amount of property to 
be possessed by the members of the State, for if this is too small — 
and perhaps Aristotle imputes to Phaleas a leaning in this direc- 
tion, though the latter had said nothing definite — the State will 
hardly be a match for States similar to itself, while, if the amount 
is too large. States superior to it in power may well be tempted 
to attack it. (It is interesting to notice that a Greek State might 
be too poor to resist attack. In Aristotle's day (4 (7). 1 1. 1331 a i 
sqq.) the mai&iel of war had become elaborate and costly.) Thus 
an 0/30S TJjs ova-ias is necessary, as he had already said in 1266 b 27; 
he returns, in fact, to this point, reasserting it on grounds of 
national security, whereas in the intervening passage, 1266b 28- 
1267 a 17, his aim had been to show the insufficiency of even 
a correct Spos r^s oitrlas without a correct education. Down to 
1267 a 37 Aristotle in criticising Phaleas seeks in the main 
to point out the latter's errors of omission — he ought to have 
regulated TexvoTroua, to have fixed an Spos Trjs oio-ias, to have satis- 
fied the Few as well as the Many, to have instituted a given kind 
of education, to have taken the security of the State into account : 
in 1267 a 37-1267 b 9, on the other hand, he deals directly with 
Phaleas' panacea for a-Tda-is, and points out how small is its value, 
indicating at the same time the true remedy. Thus the passage 
1267 a 17-37 finds an appropriate place where it stands in the 
text: to place 1267a 37-b 13 before it (with Susemihl) as an 
alternative version of 1266 b 38-1267 a 17 (which it does not seem 
to me to be) is, surely, to disturb the sequence of the criticisms 

contained in this chapter. For ra wp6s avroiis TroKiTeia-ovrai KaKS>s, 

2. 7. 1267 a 14—31. 291 

cp. Polyb. 6. 46. 8, 17 Koi \aiuBaiiiouLovs . . . KaXKitrra rStv 'EXX^yav tA 
wpos (rtpas avroiis 7r6hiTnie<T0ai Kai (rviiljypoveiv. 

19. For the contrast implied in koI irpos tovs yetTvt&vTas koi tovs 
S^aSev itdvras, cp. 4 (7). II. 1 330 b 35 sqq. and Thuc, i. 80. 3. 

22. tAs iro\iTiKoi9 xp^o'E'S. Vict. ' domesticos usus ' : cp. 5 (8). 6. 
1 34 1 a 8, where, as here, it is contrasted with jroXe^iKoy (the sense 
oi noKiTMov in c. 6. 1265 a 22 is quite different). Here (cp. 18) the 
political activities of fellow-citizens in relation to each other are 
referred to. The citizens of a State must possess a due amount of 
property (3. 12. 1283 a 17 : cp. also 2. 11. 1273 a 24). 

24. Too-ouToi' . . . &v. See Vahlen, Aristotel. Aufsatze 2. 21 n., 
and cp. 1266 b 36. Thasos was a case in point. As to its wealth, 
see Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens E. T. p. 311. 'The 
Thasians were compelled to defend their gold mines on the con- 
tinent from the cupidity of Athens, which perhaps claimed them 
as a conquest won from the Persians ' (Thirlwall, Hist, of Greece, 
3. 6). Samos also suffered for its fertility in a similar way (Strabo, 
P- 637)- 

01 irXilO'ioi' Kol KpEiTTOu;. Cp. 1266 a 20, oi tn tS>v /ueyioro)!' Ttfiij- 
Haratv kcli /SeXrtovf, and I263 b 5, ^6 xaptaacrBai Kai ^orjBljarai. 

25. Afiiveiv with the acc. seems to occur but rarely in the 
writings of Aristotle (see Bon. Ind. s.v. and Mr. Ridgeway, Camb. 
Philol. Trans. 2. 132), but it is less infrequent in those of Plato 
(see Ast, Lexicon Platon. s.v.). 

28. ^hr ouc ('it is true,' as in 1265 a 17) prepares the way for, 
and lends increased emphasis to, Set 8e k.t.X. I take the meaning 
of the passage to be — 'Abundant wealth is advantageous' (why 
it is so, we learn from 1267 a 22-24: cp. 3. 12. 1283 a 17 sq. : 
.6 (4). 4. 1 291 a 33) : ' therefore, let u6 ask abundant wealth for the 
State, only stopping short of that excessive amount which suf- 
fices of itself to attract attack on the part of stronger States, apart 
from any other causes of war.' Cp. Poet. 7. 1451 a 3, &aTe fiei 

KaBaiTfp eVi tSiv aapdrmv Kai eVi tS>v ^(pmv txew fifv fxeyedos, tovto 8e 
(vtTvvcmrov elvai, ovra xm ori tZv fivBau tx"" j"^" M*"*) tovto 8* cvfivtjp^- 
vfVTov fivai, 

31. oStois us Si* K.T.X., ' but only under circumstances under which 
they would go to war, even if etc. In the anecdote which follows 
Aristotle's principle finds illustration and confirmation. The wealth 
of Atarneus was not out of proportion to its defensibility. It was 
not considerable enough to lead stronger States, not influenced by 
other motives for attacking it, to attack it in the hope of gain, for 
a long continuance of costly operations would be necessary for its 

u a 

392 NOTES. 

reduction. Atarneus was a renowned stronghold, like Pergamon in 
the same region. As to Eubulus, see Boeckh, Hermias von Atarneus 
(Ges. Kl. Schriften, 6. 183 sqq.), and Sus.S Note 247. He was a 
wealthy Bithynian money-changer, who had got possession of two 
strong places on the coast of Asia Minor, Atarneus and Assos, at a 
time when the Persian Empire was falling to pieces. The crisis in 
his fortunes referred to here must have occiured before he was 
succeeded — about 352 b.c. according to Boeckh, but certainly not 
later than 347 b.c — by Hermias. Boeckh places it as early as 
359 B.C. (01. 105. i), when the Persians under Autophradates were 
operating in this region against the revolted satrap Artabazus. 
Aristotle, being a friend of Hermias, would be well acquainted with 
the history of Eubulus, and also with the neighbourhood of Atarneus. 
For other illustrations derived from this part of the world, see 
the references in Bon. Ind. 662 b 61 sqq. Autophradates remained 
a conspicuous Persian leader till 332 b.c, when he disappears 
from the scene (A. Schafer, Demosthenes und seine Zeit, 3. 169). 

35. T]8ir), ' on the spot.' 

37. eo-Ti (lef ouv k.t.X. Mkv oSv, which is here answered by ov 
nfju, introduces a summing up on the merits of Phaleas' scheme, 
which is no longer criticised for not being accompanied by other 
measures, but considered in itself. Susemihl regards cart, 37- 
dSiKavrai, 1 267 b 8, as a repetition or alternative version of 1266 b 
38-1267 a 17, but it hardly seems to repeat 1267 a 2-17, for this 
passage refers to aSiKia, not to araais, and its teaching does not agree 
with 1266 b 38-1267 a 2, for there we are led to infer that equality 
of property would be a remedy for arda-is, so far as the mass of 
men are concerned, whereas here we are told that the desires of 
the many are boundless and that a mere sufficiency will fail per- 
manently to satisfy them. 

39. fir . . . oil'. See Bon. Ind. 41 a 59 sq., who compares 3. 9. 
1280a 36: 6 (4). 4. 1290b 4. The doubled av gives emphasis: 
see Prof. Jebb on Soph. Oed. Tyr. 862, 1438. 

40. Kal (jjaicorrai. Not only are the xap'f»T«r likely to feel irrita- 
tion, but as a matter of fact they visibly make attacks, etc. (cp. c. 3. 
1262 a 18). 

1267 b. 1. air\ii)aToi'. Cp. Isocr. de Pace, § 7, where Solon, Fragm. 13. 
71 sqq. is in the writer's mind. 
2. 8ia>|3o\ia. The form found in Attic Inscriptions is Sta^eKia (so 

too ejTffl^eXia, rnua^eXiov, o^eXicrKos, o/SeXfia), though they have rpia^o- 

XoK, trevT&^oKov, 8eKa}0o\ov, and the old form 6^eK6s only once (and 
that before B.C. 444) takes the place of the usual 6^o\6s (Meisterhans, 

2. 7. 1267 a 35—1267 b 15. 293 

Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, p. 9). All the MSS., how- 
ever, have Sta^oKia here. See Boeckh, Public Econ. of Athens 
E. T. p. 216 sqq., where the fact noticed by Aristotle is fully illus- 
trated. Here, as is often the case in the Politics, Athens is glanced 
at without being referred to by name. 

irdrpioi', ' a settled, traditional thing.' 

3. For lus without av with the subj., see Bon. Ind. 307 b 38. 

6. Tui' Toioiircdr, 'the before-mentioned things': i.e. tov fifj o-ra- 

frid^eiv irpos aXX^Xous Kai tov iirj ati Sciadat tou Tt\eiovos (or tov fir/ 

wkfoveKTiiv, 7). 'A.pxri, which has called forth many emendations, 
seems to be used in the sense of 'source': cp. 7 (5). i. 1301 b 4 : 
7 (5). 7. 1307 a 7: Meteor, i. 14. 351 a 26, dpx^ 8e tovtwv koI 
arriov k.t.X. For the thought, cp. 8 (6). 4. 1319 a i sqq.: 6 (4). 
13. 1297b 6 sqq. Compare also Isocr. ad Nicocl. § 16, and the 
answer of the Pythia to Lycurgus, when he enquired, 'by the 
establishment of what kind of usages {iroia voiiijui) he would most 

benefit the Spartans ' — eav tovs fitv Kokas TjyeiaBat tovs 8e 7rft6apxfiv 
voiioBeTfiarj (Diod. 7. 14. 2). 

6. EiriEiKcis . . . ^x^u^ous. Vict. ' honestiores et humiliores.' 

13. 1[ ('aut certe,' Bon. Ind. 313a 26) rdiiv tw& jj.Erpiai', 'some 
moderate maximum.' 

14. Is £K to be taken with tprnverai (as Vict, takes it) or with 
Acarao-Kcva^aii/ (as Bern.) ? Probably with the former. ' It is evident 
from the legislation of Phaleas that he constructs his State (or 
citizen-body) on a small scale ' : cp. Meteor. 2. 2. 354 b 15, « toutijs 

8^ TTj! airopias Kal apxfj tS>v vypav tbo^ev nvai Koi tov jravTos uSaros ^ 

SdkaTTa. For Trjv ttoKiv (Vict, 'ordo civium'), cp. c. 8. 1267 b 30 
and 3. I. 1274b 41. 

15. Phaleas seems to have been as unfavourable to the Texvlrat 
— a far wider term than our ' artisans,' for we hear of Ttxv'iTcu. who 
were favourites of tyrants, 7( 5). 11. 1314b 4 — as Hippodamus was 
the reverse. Hippodamus, himself one of the class, brings them 
within the citizen-body (c. 8. 1267 b 32); Phaleas makes them 
public slaves. The pdvava-oi Texv'irai, as we learn from 3. 5. 
1278 a 6 sq., were in early times in not a few States either slaves 
or aliens, and this continued to be the case to a large extent down 
to the time of Aristotle. But Phaleas wished them to be public 
slaves. We do not learn why he proposed this. When Xenophon 
proposed in the De Vectigalibus (4. 23) that the Athenian State 
should invest in 1200 public slaves, and let them out for service in. 
the mines of Laurium, his aim was to increase the revenue of the 
State. The scheme of Phaleas would obviously have this effect, ' 

294 NOTES. 

for it would secure the State a monopoly of skilled labour, but 
whether the object of Phaleas was to enrich the State, is perhaps 
doubtful. More probably, he wished to keep down an aspiring 
class, the members of which often acquired considerable wealth 
(3. 5. 1278 a 24) and would be likely to overshadow or even to 
buy up his cherished class of small landowners, to say nothing 
of the difficulty of fixing a maximum to their income. Aristotle, 
we see, recoils from the strong measure of making all rexvi-Tai 
public slaves, but he seems to be willing that oi to. Koiva ipya^o/ievot 

(cp. 8 (6). 7. 132 1 a 36, Karaa-Ksva^eiv Tt tSiv kolvS>v) should be 

so. Does this mean ' all workers on public land, buildings, and 
property' or 'all nxvlrai employed on public property'.' It is 
not clear: perhaps the latter is the more probable interpreta- 
tion, though, as a matter of fact, Aristotle does make the culti- 
vators of the public land in his own ideal State public slaves 
(4 (7). 10. 1330 a 31). In any case he adds the proviso that even 
this measure must be carried into effect in a certain way, if it is to 
have his approval. Diodorus describes (ii. 25. 2 sqq.) how the 
cities of Sicily, and especially Agrigentum, employed the multi- 
tude of Libyan and Carthaginian captives taken after Gelon's 
victory at Himera in all sorts of public works [al bi iroKeis els 

TrcSas KOTfiTTrjiTav tovs SiaipeSfvras aip^juoXoiTovs Koi ra Sijjuoirta rav epyav 

Sm Toiratv eVetriceuafoi/ k.t.X.). The work was no doubt cheaply 
executed, and this would be one of the advantages of emplo3ring 
public slaves for this purpose. Another would be that work would 
be executed more rapidly and efficiently than if, in accordance 
with the usual method, a contractor (/pyoXd^os) was employed : 
see C. F. Hermann, Gr. Ant. 3. § 42. 8 (ed. 2). Plato, it may be 
noted, includes cpyoXdPoi among the indications of a ^\fyp.aivova-a 

TToXtr (Rep. 373 B). On the system of epyoKa^eia or ipymvia, see 

C. F. Hermann, Or. Ant. 3. § 69. 15 (ed. 2), or in the later edition 
by Thalheitn, Rechtsalt. p. 99. i, and Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscr. Gr. 
2. 481 sqq., 507 sqq. (inscr. 353, 367). The scheme of Diophantus 
would no doubt be unpopular with the many citizens of Athens 
who were Tcx^irai. (Biichsenschfitz, Besitz und Erwerb, pp. 325-8), 
and it probably came to nothing (KormKeia^ev, 18). Whether the 
Diophantus here referred to is the well-known Athenian statesman 
of the time of Demosthenes (as to whom, see A. Schafer, Demos- 
thenes und seine Zeit, i. n. i: r. 182), is quite uncertain. 
Schomann (Griech. Alterth. i. 365) thinks not. 

16. aW EiiTEp K.T.X. I see no cause for any change in the text. 
'Jis, which Bekker, following Morel, inserts before Aio^ai/Tos, 18, 

2. 7. 1267 b 16— 8. 1267 b 25. 395 

rests on no MS. authority and can probably be dispensed with. 
Aristotle's intention perhaps was to make the sentence run KaBdirep 
iv 'EmSdixv^ re Koi '&.6r)vriai, but then he remembered that the 
scheme of Diophantus remained unexecuted. 

22. 'linr<S8a|xos 8c Eupu^iufTos MiXi^a-io;. Hesychius calls him C. 8. 
EipujSoovTos iraTi : Photius, TSipvKoovTos MtXijo-jos ^ eoijptoy (C. F. 

Hermann, de Hippodamo Milesio, p. 4 sq.). He was one of the 
colonists of Thurii. We notice that the name of Hippodamus' 
father is here mentioned, whereas in c. 7. 1266 a 39 Phaleas is 
simply described as *aX/as 6 XaXKiySdvios. Were there other Mile- 
sians who bore the name Hippodamus ? 

TTic TUK Tr<5\e<i)i' Siaipco'ii', ' the division of cities into streets ' or 
' quarters ' : Bern. ' den Stadtebau mit getheilten Quartieren.' Dio- 
dorus thus describes the laying-out of Thurii, which was done under 
the direction of Hippodamus — t^k 8e ttoKiv 8ie\6fi,tvoi Kara fxiv firjKos eh 
reTTapas jrKaTeias • . . Kara fie ro TrXaroy SuTKov els rpets TrXareias . . . 
imo fie TovToiv rav (TTevayirav TreTT^Tjpafxevav rdls oIkIgis tj ttoKis eipatveTO 

KoKas KaT€<TKtva<r6ai (Diod. 12. 10. 7). For the use of the word 
TrXareia here, compare the phrase |eMK^ ofio'y (Hoeck, Kreta 3. 452), 
which Hoeck explains as ' a strangers' quarter.' C. F. Hermann (de 
Hippodamo Milesio, p. 52) thinks that when Meton is made in 
the Aves of Aristophanes (941 sq.) to design an agora at the centre 
of his city with straight streets converging on it from every point, 
he reproduces the Hippodameian agora at the Peiraeus, but this 
seems doubtful, for then Meton's scheme would be nothing new, and 
much of the point would be lost. Besides, Thurii was not thus 
laid out. 

23. KOT^TEftei'. See C. F. Hermann, ibid. p. 47. The word is 
used of ' cutting up ' a surface with roads, trenches, or mines : so 

Strabo (p. 793) says of Alexandria, aitaaa piv oSv oSols KaraTeTp,rjTai 
bnrrjKdTOK Koi dpfjuiTrjXdTOK. In the passage before us 68ois is not 
expressed. A city laid out in Hippodamus' fashion with straight 
roads was said to be edropos, 4 (7). 11. 1330 b 23, 30. This laying 
out of Peiraeus is not to be confounded with its fortification by 
Themistocles ; it is probably to be referred to the time of Pericles. 

24. KOI irepl Tbv &\\ov fiiov, ' as well as in his architectural inno- 

■ir£piTT(5T«pos, see note on 1265a 11. Hippodamus belonged to 
the stirring generation, active in striking out fresh paths (5 (8). 6. 
1 341 a 30 sq.), which followed the Persian Wars. 

25. irepicpyrfTepoi', 'in too studied and overdone a way.' The 
meaning of the word is well illustrated by its use in a fragment of 

296 NOTES. 

Dicaearchus (Fragm. 33 a : MuUer, Fr. Hist. Gr. 2. 246), mpUpyoi 

yap r) TouwTt] cr-)(r]p.artmoiia kcu. irpoiT'nolrjTos k.t.X. Cp. also Isocr. ad 
Demon. § 27, elvai /SouXou ra Trepi Trjv i(T8rjTa (pikoKoKos, dWa prj xaXKa- 
7rL(TTT]s' €(TTt Be <f)i\oKd\ov p€u TO ixeyoKoTTpeTTes, KdKXeJTncTTov oe to 

jrepUpyov. Hippodamus was probably influenced, as will be shown 
presently, by the teaching of Ion of Chios, who was himself 
perhaps influenced by Pythagoreanism ; but his peculiarities of 
dress, etc., seem to be characteristic rather of the individual than of 
any school of opinion, political or philosophical. The Pytha- 
goreans of Hippodamus' day do not seem to have worn long hair : 
Diodorus of Aspendus, who apparently lived at and after the time 
of Aristotle, is said to have been the first Pythagorean to wear it after 
the fashion of the Cynics (Athen. Deipn. 163 e-164 a, tS>u npo airoS 

trvBayopucSiv Xap,7rpa re eoBrJTi dp<pievwpeva>v Koi Xourpols Kal aKelppaai 
Kovpa Tc Tfi avvfiBei xprn/icvrnv). Long hair was in Hippodamus' day 
a mark of Laconism, and it does not surprise us in a Thurian 
(cp. Philostrat. Vita Apollon. 3. 15, quoted by C. F. Hermann, de 
Hippodamo p. 20 n., Kopav 8e cjnTrjhevovirai, Sxritep AaKfSaipovioi TroXnt 
Kal Qovpioi TapaVTivoi tc Koi MrpiLoL Koi OTToaoLS to 'XaKoivi^eiu rfv ip Xd-yo)), 

but the expensive adornment of the longhair of Hippodamus points 
perhaps rather to his Ionic extraction (cp, Thuc. i. 6. 3), if it does 

not remind us of the QovpiopavTeis, laTpoTe'xyas, <T(ppayihow)(apyoKOii,rfras 

of Aristoph. Nub. 326. His abundant and expensively ornamented 
robes would recall the Persian costume (Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. i. 

148, KOI liepaai pev avBo^a^ei iaBrjTi Koi TToSrjpfi XPW^'"' "opi^ovaiv eii- 
npeires clvai, fipels 8c anpfnes), or the Ionian (Tim. Fr. 62 : MuUer, Fr. 
Hist. Gr. I. 206), or the garment which Zeuxis, a resident at Ephesus, 
wore at the Olympic festival, into the fabric of which his name 
was woven in gold letters (Plin. Nat. Hist. 35. 62), were it not that 
they were of cheap material and that he made a point of wearing 
warm clothing in summer as well as winter, notwithstanding the 
current proverb, e'v 6epei rrjv xXaiKav KaTarpi'^Mr (Leutsch und Schnei- 
dewin, Paroemiogr. Gr. i. 74). This would seem to have been a 
purely individual whim, comparable to that of the Sophist Hippias, 
who would only wear things which he had made himself (Hippias 
Minor, 368 B sqq.), for if the Cynic Crates (PhUemon, Inc. Fab. 
Fragm. 53, ap. Diog. Laert. 6. 87) 

ToO Bipovs pev efxc IpaTiov haav, 
IV cyKpaTr)! rj, Tov Se x"!'^'"'^ paKOS, 

his crotchet is far more comprehensible than that of Hippodamus. 
Perhaps, however, like Protagoras (Plato, Protag. 321 A), he held 
that the thick shaggy hides of animals served them as a defence 

2. 8. 1267 b 25—26. 397 

not only, against the cold of winter, but also against the heat of 
summer, and sought to protect himself in a similar way. Be this as it 
may, Aristotle had little patience with affectation even in a man like 
Xenocrates (Athen. Deipn. 530 d, quoted by Bernays, Phokion 
p. 119), and what he thought of one of these whims of Hippodamus 
may probably be gathered from Rhet. 3. 7. 1408 a 11, to 8' avaiKo- 

yov etTTiv, iav lirfre vepi evoyKcov avroKa^ddkas XeyrjTai )ir\Te trepl tirekav 
(rffivms, /xijS eVl ra fireKel ovd/xan eVJ k6(Tixos' h 8e firj, KcoiJuaSia (jjaiverai, 
otoi; TTOiEi KXeoipStv' onolas yap ccia ? Xcye Koi eJ etneuv av " noTvia cviaj." 

(Compare the quotation from Strattis in Athen. Deipn. 160 b, 

IIapatvf<xat Be (rtfiav ri ^ <To(j>6v 
orav ^oKrjv e'^ryre, p,^ 'jrix^tv /ivpov, 

and the whole following passage in Athenaeus, and see Meineke, 
Fr. Com. Gr. 2. 780.) There was a saying about the people of 

Miletus — MiX^(rio< d^vveroi piv ouk elcriv, 8pS>(ri fi' oldirep ol a^werot 

(Eth. Nic. 7. 9. 1 151 a 9) — which the eccentricities of Hippodamus 
recall (cp. also Ephor. Fr. 92 Miiller). Aristotle must have obtained 
these details about Hippodamus from some earlier source, but I do 
not think that there is much reason for doubting the authenticity 
of the passage. The Greeks were vigilant observers and keen critics 
of things which seem to us personal trifles (see Mr. Sandys' note on 
Demosth. contra Steph. i. c. 68). Hermippus took the trouble to 
record that Theocritus of Chios criticised the dress of Anaximenes as 
anaiSevTos (Athen. Deipn. 2 1 C), and we also hear in the same passage 
that the grammarian Callistratus in one of his writings found fault 
with his great contemporary, the Homeric critic Aristarchus, eVl ra pri 
evpvBpois dpTre^ecrdaij (pepovros tl koi tov tolovtov irpbs jratbeias i^eraaiv. 
The Socratic Aeschines seems to have been very severe on the 
dress of Telauges in one of his dialogues (Athen. Deipn. 220 a sqq.). 
Plato himself reckons it as one of the merits of povmKrj (Rep. 
425 B), that it teaches men how to dress and wear their hair and 
carry themselves. Aristotle's object in this curious paragraph 
probably is in part to prepare the reader for the fancifulness of 
Hippodamus' constitution, but he also regarded a man's life and 
character as to some extent a guide to the value of his specula- 
tions, in practical philosophy at all events ; thus Eudoxus' view that 
Pleasure is the greatest good gained support from his remarkable 
temperance (Eth. Nic. 10. 2. 1172 b 15 sqq.: cp. 10. 9. 1179a 17 
sqq., and Rhet. i. 2. 1356 a 5 sqq.). 

26. ^aOrJTos I incline to make dependent on iMidn, mi Kotrp^ 
TiokvTeKei. C. F. Hermann makes it depend on jrX^^ei only (de 
Hippodamo, p. 2 1 n.), but it seems more natural to carry on both 

398 NOTES. 

■nKrjBti and K(5tr/*6) TToKvTeKei. The combination of costly ornament 
with clothing of a cheap material is quite in harmony with the 
other eccentricities attributed to Hippodamus in this passage. 

28. Xdyios Be koI irepl t^v t\t\v ^6aw, ' learned in Physics also ' 
(Zeller, Gr. Ph. i. 963. 5), as well as about the laying out of cities : 
' learned about Nature as a whole also.' As to the word Xo'yior, 
see Rutherford, New Phrynichus, p. 284. For t^v SK-qv (jjva-iv, cp. 

T^s dirda-rj! ^vaeas, I. 5. 1254 a 31 : Trjs oKrjs ^va-tais, Metaph. A. 6. 
987b 2 (opp. TO TjSiKd): Metaph. A. 8. 1074b 3, irepUxei TO Belov 
Tfjv oXtjv <j)ia-iv (cp. Pol. 4 (7). 4. 1326 a 32). To Aristotle the medd- 
ling of Hippodamus with ^ oXij (jyia-is was probably a further sign 

ofnepupyia: cp. de Respir. 21. 480 b 26, rSiv TE yap larpau ocroi 
KopAJrol fj ireplepyoi, Xiyovirl ti nep\ (f>iiTea>s koI ras dpxos iiceWev d^wvtrt 
Xafi^dvuv. Was Plato thinking of men like Hippodamus, when he 
speaks (Rep. 495 C sq.) oi dvOpomidKoiviho ck rav rexvav iKTTrjSma-iu els 
Trjv <l)i.\o(ro<plav, 01 &v Ko/jLyfroTaTOi ovres Tvyxdvaai Trepi to avrSiv Tfp^i'toi' ? 

30. KaTEo-KEua^E. The imperfect is used with reference to Hip- 
podamus' plans, as being nothing more than plans. 

31. fiupiai'Spoi', ' of ten thousand citizens.' Isocrates contrasts 
Sparta with at pvplayhpoi nokeis, Panath. § 257. Hippodamus 
evidently wished his State to be large for a Greek State, but not so 
large as Athens, which had 20,000 citizens. 

Tpia. In this view of Hippodamus, which may have suggested 
Plato's classification in the Republic, we can perhaps trace the in- 
fluence of Egypt: cp. 4 (7). 10. 1329 a 4osqq. : Plato, Tim. 24 
A sqq. : Isocr. Busiris, § 1 5 sq. Compare also the three classes 
into which the population of Attica was divided — ^Eupatridae, 
Geomori, and Demiurgi. But Hippodamus evidently had a passion 
for threefold divisions, inherited very probably from Ion of Chios : 

cp. Isocr. de Antidosi § 268, &v (SC. tSiv 7ra\mS>v o-o^io-tSi') o f4£i/ 
airetpov to w\ij6os e<j)r)<rev iivai tS>v ovrav, 'E/i?re8oKX^s 8e rerrapa, Koi. 
ve'iKos KOI (jiikiav ev auTois, *Io)i» 8" oi irkeia rpiav. See vol. i. p. 38 1 

n. and Zeller, Gr. Ph. i. 450. i. This leaning to the threefold was 
also Pythagorean: cp. de Caelo i. i. 268a 10, xaddnep ydp <j)aai kqI 

o( Hvdayopewi, rb nav Koi ro iravra toIs TpuAv &piaT(u, and the whole 

passage down to 268 a 29. That which was divisible into three 
was held by them to be perfect and continuous. Aristotle himself 
is inclined to say, teXeutS 8' e'w rpial jravm : see note on 1252b 27 sqq., 
and cp. Meteor. 3. 4. 374 b 33 sqq. He would not, however, agree 
that there are only three pJpr) iroXeui, or that these are yeapyoi, 
TE^wTQi, and TO irpoiroKep.ovv : contrast his own enumerations in 4 (7). 
8-9 and 6 (4); 4. 

2. 8. 1267 ta 28—37. 299 

33. Kai explains and limits to irponoKtuovv. See note on 1263 a 


t^v y^dpav. In most Greek States there was sacred, public, and 
private land. This was so in Crete, in the Lacedaemonian State 
(Thirlwall, Hist, of Greece, i. 305), at Athens, etc. Aristotle divides 
the land of his ' best State ' into public (including sacred) and private 
land, his public land being set apart for the support of the syssitia 
and the worship of the gods, not for the support of the military 
force, like that of Hippodamus. The public land, here termed 
dij/uoo-ia, is called noivri in 36 (cp. 4 (7). 10. 1330 a 10), because it 
was to be the property of the community (Sus. ' Staatsacker '), and 
not of private individuals. We are not told why Hippodamus 
made the soldiers' land public land ; perhaps he did so, wishing to 
keep it more under the control of the State than private land would 
be — to prevent its alienation, for instance, or its passing into other 
hands than those of soldiers. 

34. iSiai'. In 3. 4. 1277 b 26 the fem. I'Sios is used. 

37. It would seem that Hippodamus regarded the office of law as 
measurable by the action of the law-courts ; if the law-courts only 
checked mutual wrong, law did no more. This would not satisfy 
Plato or Aristotle, who, unlike the Sophist Lycophron (3. 9. 1280 b 
10 sq.), expected law to do something more than protect men from 
mutual wrong — required it, in fact, to aim at making them good 
and just. As to the classification of offences here given, C. F. 
Hermann (Gr. Ant. 3. §§ 61-62) traces in Attic lawa classification 
under the three heads of v^pis, KOKovpyla, and <j)6vos. As to v^pts, 
see Rhet. 2. 2. 1378 b 23 sqq. and Rhet i. 13. 1374 a 13 sq., 
where its nature is explained : see also the remarks of Hug, Stu- 
dien aus dem classischen Alterthum, p. 61. As to the SUri 0Xd- 
jSijy, which included all damage, direct or indirect, not falling 
under some recognized category of offence, see C. F. Hermann, 
Gr. Ant. 3. § 70 and note 9. Mr. Pattison, in his copy of Stahr's 
edition of the Politics, quotes Strabo, p. 702, where Onesicritus, 
in recording the customs of the Indians of Musicanus' territory,, says 

— StKTjv 8e p^i eLvai ttX^v tpovov Koi v^pcas' ovk irr' avra yap to firj 
TToBelv ravra, ra 8' iv Tois (rvp.^oKaiois in aiiT^ fKairrcp, Sxrrf avi\e(i6aL 8el 
iav Tts irapa^g Trjv nlariv, dXKa Koi Trpoaixfiv oT<f TtiuTevTiov, Kol fti) 

SiKap vktjpovv Trjv woKiv. Compare with this Pol. 2. 5. 1263b 20, 
and note on 1263 b 21. C. F. Hermann (de Hippodanio, p. 29) 
regards offences against the State and against religion as omitted 
in Hippodamus' classification, and it would seem that if they are 
to be included, they must be brought under one or other of his 

300 NOTES. 

three heads. A diflferent classification of the subject-iilatter of 
laws will be found in Demosth. contra Timocr. c. 192, where oi 

7T€p\ tS)V ISiodv vSjioi are distinguished from ol irepi tS>v irpbs to Sr/iwaiov 

(see Hug, Studien, p. 81). Aristotle's own classification oiSiKaarripia, 
which is given in 6 (4). 16. 1300 b 18 sqq., throws light on his 
views as to this subject. 

39. Ecofjiod^Tci Se K.T.X. See as to this Supreme Court, vol. i. 
p. 382 sqq. That a few should judge, as this court would do, of all 
matters, is treated as an oligarchical arrangement in 6 (4). 16. 
1301 a 12 : an aristocracy or polity would commit some subjects 
to all the citizens, others to a few, but here the few were to judge 
(in appeals at any rate) on all subjects. 
1268a. 2. (jiepeii', sc. ^ero Seiv. 'Deposit' is probably the meaning 
(Bern. ' einreichen ')■ — cp. yjnj<jio<}>opias, and Plato, Laws 753 C — not 
' ferri domo ' (Vict.), or ' dari unicuique ' (Lamb.). 

3. ypd<}>£ii' is in the same construction as <pipetv. This proposal 
implies that most people of the class to which dicasts belonged 
could write. The regulations as to the Ostracism suggest the 
same conclusion. But then it must be remembered that in either 
case only a word or two would have to be written, and that in the 
Ostracism at all events persons unable to write would be allowed 
to get others to write for them. 

•rfjl' SiKTIK, cp. ipillirjv KaTaSiKa^evBai [sc. t^k fiuojv], de Caelo I. lO. 
279b 10. 

4. KETOi/, SC. cfiepetv TTivdiaop. 

t6 fikv TO 8e (jiVj, ' wished partly to acquit, partly to condemn.' 
TouTo 8iopi^Eii<, ' to particularize this.' 

5. Ai'ttyKd^eii'. We see from ovSels in 1268 b 17, that the 
unexpressed subject of dvayKd^eiv probably is a person or persons, 
but it is not clear whether we should supply t6v vopxidirqu or 
interpret with Bern. ' people compel them.' 

9. yii'£o'9oi is dependent on vopx>v irWu ^ ivopodiru. 

&% ou-iru) K.T.X. See on this passage Dittenberger, Goti. gel. 
Anz., Oct. 28. 1874, p. 1369 sqq. With him I take Aristotle to 
mean that Hippodamus proposed this law as a novelty (compare 
the importance attached to to iSiok in c. 12), whereas, in reality 
(vCv, i. e. ' in Wirklichkeit '), says Aristotle, it exists in several States. 
I do not think Aristotle means that Hippodamus' suggestion may 
be taken as an indication that no such law then existed, whereas 
in his own day it existed in several States, for his remark would 
then possess merely an antiquarian interest and would be out of 
place where it stands. Besides, the other interpretation suits better 

2. 8. 1267 b 39 — 1268 a 20. 301 

with the use of ms with the participle. On mv in the sense of ' id 
quod in re ac veritate est,' see Bon. Ind. 492 a 60 sqq. As to the 
existence of this law at Athens, see A. Schafer, Demosthenes und 
seine Zeit 3. 2. 33, who compares Aristot. Fragm. 428. 1549 a 
5 sqq. : Aeschin. in Ctes. c. 154 : Isocr. de Pace § 82. It is noticed 
as a wise law in democratic States in Rhet. ad Alex. 3. 1424a 
34 sqq. It is not clear how if all the fighting class was supported 
by public land together (doubtless) with its offspring, there should 
be any need in Hippodamus' State for a separate enactment 
securing to the children of those slain in war sustenance from 
the State. 

10. Trap' aWois, ' in other States than that designed by him.' 

12. aipETous, ' elected,' not taken by lot — a sign of oligarchy (6 
(4). 9. 1294b 8 sq.). Cp., however, 2. 11. 1273 a 26 sq. 

8{)|ioi' 8° ^TToiEi K.T.X. This is added, because the word is often 
used of the poor only, as in'c. 6. 1265 b 39 and c. 9. 1270b 25. 
Hippodamus might well have meant by it only the yeapyoi and 

13. Koicui' Kal ieriK&y Kal opijiai'iKbii', ' public matters, matters 
relating to aliens, and matters relating to orphans.' For ^evixStv, 
Bonitz (Ind. 493 a 42) compares 3. 5. 1278 a 7. Hippodamus 
would seem to have contemplated the sojourn of aliens in his State 
— contrast the Lacedaemonian ^evtjKaa-ia (C. F. Hermann, Gr. Ant. 
I. § 27. 14) — and to have provided for magistrates like the Pole- 
march at Athens (Aristot. Fragm. 388. 1542 b 14 sqq.), charged with 
their supervision. 'OpcpavocjjvKaKes and 6p(pavuTTal (in the Law of 
Gortyna, col. 12. 21, oprravohiKaaTai) were also known to Greek 
States (C. F. Hermann, Gr. Ant., ed. Thalheim, Rechtsalt. p. 14. 3), 
and orphan heiresses were especially cared for (Hdt. 6. 57). Hippo- 
damus' classification, however, brings the supervision of aliens and 
orphans into unusual prominence : contrast Aristotle's treatment 
of the subject of magisterial competence in 6 (4). 15. 1299 b 10 sqq. 
and 8 (6). 8. C. F. Hermann notices the omission of ' res sacrae,' 
but they are probably included under ' public matters ' : Hippo- 
damus made a liberal provision for worship (1267 b 35). 

16. irpuToi' ^iv seems either not to be taken up at all, or not till 

oh KaK&s 8', 1268 b 4- 

TTji' Siaipco'ii'. For the ace. after cmop^a-ai, cp. Meteor. 2. 2. 
355 b 24. 

20. Yi''°'^<*i, i. e. those without arms, the cultivators and artisans. 
We see from the scolion of Hybrias the Cretan, that the possessor 
of arms was the lord and master of those who had them not. But 

30a NOTES. 

the enslavement of one part of the citizen-body to another is a 
constitutional solecism: cp. c. 12. 1273 b 37 and 6 (4). 11. 

1295 b 25j jSouXerat f) iroKis i^ "la-av elvai Koi Ofioiav on iioKurra, 

21. ^Iv ouv, I incline to think, introduces, not a correction of 
&(TTe ylvovrai <T-j(fiov SoOXot tS>v to. oitKa KeKrqfiivav, but an inference, as 
in I. I. 1252 a 7 : each of the two words retains its own meaning, 
/teV being answered by be, 24. 

22. TroXi.To<t)u'\aKos. A magistracy bearing this name existed 
at Larissa (7 (5). 6. 1305 b 29). Its main duty probably was to 
guard the city against external, and possibly also internal, foes : 
see Aen. Tact. Comment. Poliorc. i. 3 and 22. 7, where the words 
n6KiT0(j)vkaKeii> and wo\iTO(j>vKaKia are used. The mention of arparri- 
yois just before supports the view that this was a military office (see 
also Pol. 8 (6). 8. 1322 a 30-b i). Sepulveda suggests (p. 51 b) 
that jTo\iTo(j)v\aKes were to exist in the State of Hippodamus, and 
it is possible that strategi also found a place in it. 

23. (i^ fiETexofTas Se Tijs iroXiTeias k.t.X. On the phrase fiertxfiv 
Tqs TtokiTeLas, see the references in Bon. Ind. 462 b 26 sqq. It is 
here used in contradistinction to noivavfiv ttjs troKiTelas, though in 
27, four lines lower down, it appears to be used in the same sense 
as this phrase. In line 23 it is implied that, while those who elect 
to magistracies icoiixai/oCtri t^s n-oXireias, only those who are eligible 
to the supreme magistracies can truly be said fimx.'^ui r^s jroXirelas. 
In 6 (4). 6. 1293 a 3 sqq., however, the distinction between the 
two expressions is differently drawn, for in that passage oi iierexovres 
rrjs TToXtTeias are those who possess, oi Koivavovvrts those who actually 
exercise political privileges. The contrast between the Lacedae- 
monian constitution and that of Hippodamus is probably present 
to Aristotle's mind, for under the former the ephorship was open 
to the people, and this helped to recommend the constitution to 
them (6 (4). 9. 1294b 29 sqq.). Yet at Carthage the demos was 
propitiated, not in this way, but in another (2. 11. 1273b 18 sqq.), 
and the constitution of Solon, the merits of which are often 
acknowledged by Aristotle, though it opened the dicasteries to all, 
excluded a large portion of the citizens from office. Even under 
the fully developed democracy, the Athenian demos seems to have 
willingly left some offices of the highest importance to be filled by 
those who were fittest to fill them ([Xen.] Rep. Ath. i. 3). 

25. dXXd introduces a rejoinder from some imagined defender of 
Hippodamus' scheme, and roCro 8" 26 Aristotle's comment in reply. 

29. 6T1 K.T.X. Hippodamus probably intended, as Vict, suggests, 
that the cultivators should sell food, etc. to the artisans : this would 

2. 8. 1268 a 21—42. 303 

be a sufficient raison d'itre for them. This implies, no doubt, 
that the cultivators will produce enough from their lots to supply 
both themselves and the artisans, whereas Aristotle questions (42) 
whether two households could be supported even 'from the cultiva- 
tors' and warriors' land together. Still, how else are the artisans 
to be maintained ? 

31. KuOdircp, i. e. in the State of Hippodamus (where they have 
no land) as in others. 

33. euXdyus, becg,use any social element that contributes to the 
existence of the State is in a broad sense a part of the State (6 (4). 
4. 1290b 39sqq.)- 

34. 181a, 'for themselves.' 

36. yeupyi^o-ouo-ii', ' are to till the soil ' : see on this use of the 
future (cp. ea-ovrai, 38) Bon. Ind. 754 b 17 sq. 

40. d\X(5Tpioi', ' alien to the constitution,' and in all likelihood 
hostile to it (cp. 23 sq.). Hippodamus, however, probably meant 
the public land to be cultivated by slaves. Aristotle, we notice, does 
not raise any question as to the mode of cultivating the sacred land, 
though the same difficulty might arise here also. 

42. TO re irXtjSos k.t.X. ' It will be a difficult matter to produce 
enough to enable each of them to support as a cultivator two house- 
holds, and then again, why are not the cultivators to derive directly 
from their own farms and from the same lots of land at once sus- 
tenance for themselves and a supply of food for the fighting class ?' 
Eidvs means ' without any preliminary distinction between public 
and private land.' "kiropov seems to be used in the same sense 
as in Metaph. Z. 3. 1029 a 33 and Eth. Nic. i. 4. 1097 a 8, or 
perhaps as in Plato, Rep. 378 A and 453 D, though Bonitz would 
appear to explain it as ' deficient,' to judge by the passages with 
which he groups the passage before us (Ind. 83 b 20). Vict., 
Lamb., Giph., Sepulveda, and others also translate the word ' too 
small.' I have rendered yeapyrjo-ei bio oUias ' support as a cultivator 
two households,' because this rendering seems to be required by 
the sense, but it is . difficult to extract it from the words. Stahr 
translates ' zwei Haushaltungen zu bestreiten,' but this translation 
is open to the same objection. Vecapyfiaei does not suit well with 
Kapirmv: Spengel, in fact, conjectures ■it6vav in place of KapirS>v 
(Aristot. Studien 3. 15), but yeapyfia-ei appears to be the doubtful 
word. The expression yeapyrjo-ei 8io oIkIos has long been felt to be 
a very strange one : we fail to find a real parallel to it in such 
phrases as ^o/jf ""w *oIj3o», Find. Isthm. i. 7 (cp. Soph. Antig. 1151); 
and if we retain the reading yfapyriaa, (see critical note), we must 

304 NOTES. 

probably seek an explanation of the construction in the use of the 
cognate accusative. We have oXkAv hdo olxias in c. 6. 1265 b 26, 
and it is possible that Aristotle here substitutes yeapyelv for oiKeTv 
seeing that the phrase oUeiv 8vo oiKias (or even Siotxeiv Sio olKias, 
4 (7). 10. 1330 a 7) would obviously be inapplicable to the 
cultivator of whom he is speaking. In 6 (4). i. 1289 a i sqq. we 
find, if the reading of H^ is correct, rd^iv fjv pabias Swrja-ovrai. Koivaveiv. 
For OTTO T^y yrjs - anb rov yrjmSov, see Liddell and Scott s. V. 7^ and 
Bon. Ind. 154 a 39 sq. Or do the words mean ' from the land as 
a whole ' ? Bern, would omit koI and read oTrd rrjs y^s rav airav 
KKrjpav, where however ttjs yqs seems superfluous. As to the thought, 
Comte, on the contrary (Social Statics E. T. p. 130), 'assumes as 
an average that, under all conditions which are not very unfavour- 
able, the labour of every agricultural family can support at least 
one other as numerous as itself, if not two or three.' It will 
be observed that Aristotle takes it for granted that the cultivators 
will be equal in number to the warriors in the State of Hippodamus, 
for if the former were more numerous than the latter, one cultivator 
would not have to maintain two households, and the diflBculty 
anticipated by Aristotle would not arise. 
1268b. 5. TO Kpii'Eii' dfioui'. So n, and though Vet. Int. has 'lex 
iudicare dignificans,' there is no doubt of the correctness of this 

reading : cp. 2. 12, I2'74b 11, 6 n^pi rfju peBrjV vopos, t6 tous vritpoirras 

avpnoaiapxetv, and 1274b 19-20. 'A|ioB>' is ' to prescribe' (cp. 
{pdaKeiv, I. 13. 1260 b 6), as in 4 (7). 11. 1331 a 3, where it answers 

to CJ>d(TKOVTes, 1330b 32. 

•rijs 8iKr)S dirXols Y€ypaf«.(i^>'T]S. n^ read Kpla-eas : n^ 8iio;s, which 
Sus. adopts. In 1 8 we have emfp &jt\S>s to ry/cXij/tfo yiypawnu SiKaicDs. 

If we read Kpiaeais (and perhaps we thus get some additional point 
from the more marked contrast with Kpiveiv SuupovvTo), we cannot 
well attach to it a different sense from that which it bears in the 
preceding line, where it seems to mean ' adjudication ' or ' judicial 
decision.' We cannot well interpret the first Kpla-eas thus, and the 
second (with Bonitz, Ind. 409 b 60) ' causa,' ' the action.' But if 
we translate the second Kpiaeas also as ' the decision,' we must 
apparently take ' the decision ' here as meaning ' the charge to be 
adjudicated upon.' This is awkward, and it seems better to adopt 
the reading of Ti\ Kplaeas may well have been repeated by mis- 
take from the preceding line. 

dTrXils, ' in absolute terms,' without saying to pev tA Se pr/, 1268 a 4, 
or TT&s pev etrn nas 8' oH. For this was, as is implied here, the 
special province of the Sioitijtijs (tA Stmpftv) : cp. Phys. 3. 6. 206 a 12, 

2. 8. 1268 b 5—15. 305 

orav Be Suopur/ievav ovrtos fajhcriptas ^aivriTai ci'Sc;(CO'dai, hiavnyrov Set, 
Km hijKov OTi nas fiev eari nas 8' oil, and Rhet. I. 13. 13^4 b 
19 sq. 

6. TouTo 8' iv K.T.X., ' for this (to Kpivew Siaipovvra) is possible in 
an arbitration, even if there are more arbitrators than one.' 

10. fiT) KoifoXoYurrai. Vict. ' arbitror, cum verba auctoris attendo, 
ipsum ostendere voluisse illos nomothetas praecepisse sedilia ipso- 
rum ita aedificari, ut si vellent capita conferre, non possent, commu^ 
nicareque opiniones inter se.' But perhaps we need not go quite 
so far as this. The object of the prohibition of communication 
between jurors seems to have been to preserve the secrecy of suff- 
rage (see Shilleto on Demosth. de Falsa Legatione § 265, p. 192 of 
his edition, and C. F. Hermann, Gr. Ant. i. § 143. i, who compares 

Plato, Laws 876 A, iv 5rdX«, ev rj StKaarripia ^avKa Kal afjxova, KXiiTTOVTa 
Tas avrav So^as, Kpv^bqv ras Kp'uTus huxbiKo^ei). In Tip,ryro\ BiKai, 

however, where the jurors were left to fix the penalty, com- 
munication must have been unavoidable (see C. F. Hermann, 
Gr. Ant. i. § 143. 11), to say nothing of the 'shouting dicasteries' 
censured by Plato in the Laws (87 6 B), the members of which 
must soon have come to know the opinion of their fellows. 

11. TapaxciST)s, 'full of perplexity ' : cp. 5 (8). 2. 1337 a 40, and 
TToXX^K ?x^i TapaxTjv (' involves much perplexity '), 1268 b 4. 

12. 6 ]i.iv, n' : other MSS. /icv 0, a more logical order, but for the 
displacement of /ttK, see Bon. Ind. 454 a 20sqq. 

6 SiKa^iSfiEi'os, ' he who brings the action, the plaintiff,' as in 3. 
I. 1275a 9. 

14. i] 6 p.ei' trkiov, 6 8' tkaaaov. These words have been 
variously interpreted. Bernays translates them ' or whatever larger 
sum one may select for the plaintiff and whatever smaller sum for 
the juror ' : others ' or one juror more than ten and another less.' 
Susemihl now apparently adopts the rendering of Bernays (Qu. 
Crit. p. 375). The meaning of the words is doubtful, but perhaps 
on the whole Bernays' view, which makes them parenthetical, is the 
one most likely to be correct. 

15. KOI TouToi' 81^ is right, though n^ have 8/ instead of 8^, for 
here we have, as in i. 13. 1259 b 32 and 2. 3. 1261 b 23, a transition 
from particular statements to an universal statement. 

p.Epioucrii', 'divident sententias,' Lamb, followed by Bonitz (Ind. 
454 b 30). Is it not rather ' split up the amount ' (Schn. ' summam 
pecuniae divident ') ? Those who vote part of the amount claimed 
' are apparently contrasted with those who vote all or none. Cp. 
Philemon, ^Tpana-nis (Meineke, Fr. Com, Gr. 4. 27), 


3o6 NOTES. 

Oi fiiv ^pTtairav Ti yap, 
ol 8' oiiBeti, oi di jrdvra. 

18. eiirep . . . SiKaius, ' if the charge has been duly brought in 
an unqualified form ' : i. e. if the question which ought to be raised 
is really an unqualified one. ' Duly,' not ' truly,' for of course if 
the unqualified charge were true, no one could suppose that the 
juror who decided that it was so would perjure himself, and the 
denial of perjury would apply only to a case in which perjury 
obviously would not occur. For SiKaias in the sense of ' properly,' 
cp. Eth. Eud. 3. I. 1229 b 34. Aristotle seems to admit by impli- 
cation that if the charge has been brought in an unqualified form not 
duly, but otherwise, then the juror, if compelled to give an unqualified 
verdict, may have to break his oath ; he ascribes, however, the per- 
jury thus necessitated, not to the plan of requiring an unqualified 
verdict from the jury, but to the putting of an improper question. 

19. ou yip K.T.X. No doubt ; and Hippodamus would say at once 
that the case adduced by Aristotle is not one of those which would 
create the difficulty he foresees. The kind of case in which he 
anticipates difficulty is that in which the charge is partially true and 
partially false (to fih t6 fie /i^, 1268 a 4), and this is not so where a 
debt of 20 minae is untruly alleged. It is possible that Hippoda- 
mus had in view cases in which the issue put to the jury included 
more charges than one. The indictment of Socrates was of this 
nature : it ran (Diog. Laert. 2. 40 : Xen. Mem. i. i) — 'ASiKft Saxpa- 
TTjs ovs pen fi jToKis vopl^ei 6iovs oi vopi^wv, crepa Be xauia Baipovia elar/- 
yovpfvos' dSiKel Be Kal tovs peovs Bia(j)6eipa>v ripripa Bavaros. Suppose 

that a juror thought that one of these charges was true, but the 
rest not : was he to say Yes or No to the indictment ? The latter 
would probably be the correct course, yet some might think it not 
wholly satisfactory. In Socrates' case the three questions ought to 
have been put separately to the jury, and then the difficulty would 
not have arisen ; but the same evil may well have occasionally 
assumed subtler forms. No doubt, however, there is much force 
in Aristotle's plea that the fault lay in the question put to the jury, 
not in expecting the jury to give an absolute answer. The Roman 
plan of a ' non liquet ' verdict would not have met Hippodamus' 
difficulty; nor would the form of verdict which the Emperor 
Augustus adopted in one case (Suet. Aug. c. 33 : et cum de falso 
testamento ageretur, omnesque signatores lege Cornelia tenerentur, 
non tantum duas tabellas, damnatoriam et absolutoriam, simul 
cognoscentibus dedit, sed tertiam quoque, qua ignosceretur iis quos 
fraude ad signandum vel errore inductos constitisset). 

2. 8. 1268 b 18—27. 307 

21. dW ^KeiTOs yfii] liriopKEi. For the use of ^81; in this pas- 
sage, cp. Xen. Hell. 5. I. 4, ^ovro yap ijbri , . , a^ioKoyoraTov avSp6s 
epyov ia-Tiv, and Plato, Gorg. 485 C, Srav 8e 61J irpfo-^VTepov i8o> «t« 
<j>iKoiTo(l)ovvTa xai pfj a.'iraKKaTT6pev6v, TrXijySw fiot dom ^'br/ SclaBai, . . . 
oiros 6 dvrip. In the passage from Xenophon Sturz, Lex. Xenoph. 
S.V., translates ^81; by 'utique' or 'quidem,' but perhaps in all three 
passages something of the usual meaning of ^jSi; is traceable, and 
we may render that before us ' in him we do arrive at a man who 
perjures himself.' 

22. Athens already awarded special honours to persons who had 
done great service to the State and their descendants, and even to 
victors at the four great games (Demosth. in Lept. c. 105 sqq.: 
see also R. Scholl in Hermes 6. 32 sqq.), and Aristotle makes no 
objection to this ; he is himself quite willing to award honours for 
integrity in ofi&ce (7 (5). 8. 1309 a 13) ; but he disapproves of the 
proposition to award honours to those who claimed to have dis- 
covered something advantageous to the State. False accusations, 
he thought, would thus be encouraged— accusations, for instance, 
directed against persons deemed to be withholding money from the 
State or otherwise damaging it.' Eubulus appears to have risen 
to power at Athens by repeated exposures of men who detained or 
embezzled public money (Schafer, Demosthenes 1. 175). Aristotle 
thinks that legislation of the kind desired by Hippodamus might 
even result in changes of the constitution : thus Theramenes 
according to Lysias (contra Eratosthen. cc. 68, 70) overthrew the 
Athenian democracy and laid Athens at the feet of her foes under 
cover of an assurance that he had made a great and valuable 

discovery {cjiacrKcav itpayiia evprjKivai piya Koi ttoXXov a^iov). The 

recommendations of Simonides in Xen. Hiero c. 9 (esp. § 9, ft 8e 

<f)avtp6v yevoiTO oTi Koi 6 jrpSaoSov Tiva oKvttov c^evpiaKdv TJj iroXet 
n/irja-eTm, oib' avrq &v fj ani-^is apyoiro, cp. § 10, 6 ayaBov n eio-ij- 

yoipevos) recall this one of Hippodamus, and are perhaps present 
to Aristotle's mind. Contrast the view of Diodotus (Thuc. 3. 42. 7) 

^— njK Se <Ta(f>pova irSKiv [xP"?] ''¥ "^^ irKeiirTa fv jSovXcvovri /iij irpoariBf- 
vai Tip,r)v, oKKa pjjh eXairaovv rrjs inapxovoTjs. 

24. «X*l- Cp. Isocr. Philip. § 68, to ftiv yap roiavra tS>v tpyap 
fj>66vov e^^' ''O' &v(rpevfiav koI iroXXas ^\a(T<^Jifi,las, 

26. SXXo . . . iripav. See Bon. Ind. 34 b 34 sq. 

27. Tices. Very possibly Pythagoreans, for this school held, 
according to Aristox. Fragm. r9 (MuUer, Fr. Hist. Gr. 2. 278), 

that it was better jiivew roit irarpiois eBeirl re Kal vdjaots, ft neat p,i.Kpa 

Xtipa Tav mpav eir). It was a charge against tyrants that they 

X 3 

3o8 NOTES. 

altered time-honoured laws (Hdt. 3. 80). The fact, however, that 
the Greeks used the same word (Kiceii/) for the alteration of a law 
and the development of an art or science, tended to disguise the 
difference between the two things, and thus Isocrates had said 
(Evagoras § 7), eJrfiS^ koI Tas imS6<Tiis urfifv yiyvoficvas Koi rav tc^"^" 
Koi tSiv SKKwv iiravrav ov Sia roiis ififievovras toIs Ka6c<rrS)(nv, aXKa bia 
Tovs eTTavopBovvras koI ToXfjuiovTas del rt Ktvelv ratv fi^ KoKas ixovTav (com- 
pare the remark of the Corinthian orator to the Lacedaemonians 

in Thuc. I. 'Jl. 3, dvdyKri 8' aa-irep Tfx^rjs del rd iiriyiyvoneva Kpareiv, 
iuii fi<TV)(a^oviTri fiev rtoKfi ra aKivijTa vofupa apia-ra, jrpos ttoXXo 8e dvayKa- 

(opJvois levai TToXKijs Koi r^s iTci.Tex''W^i>^ ^"j which may possibly be 
in Aristotle's memory here : compare also the view ascribed to 
Charondas in Diod. 12. 16, to Zaleucus in Stob. Floril. 44. 21, 
p. 280). Plato provides for the improvement, in course of time, 
of his legislation in the Laws (769 D), but subject to strict condi- 
tions (772 A-D) which almost exclude the possibility of serious 
changes. See also Polit. 298 E-299 E. 

30. EcSe'xETai 8'. Sus., after Spengel, reads ydp in place of hi 
without MS. authority, but Aristotle occasionally uses Se where we 
rather expect ydp (e.g. in 3.9. 1280a 1 5, o-p^eSoi' 8' oJ TrXelo-Ton^aCXot 
KptToi. TTfpt tSv oiKeiav, where we expect a-xMv ydp, and in 8 (6). 
7.1321a 19, where TavTn ydp might well take the place of Tairr) Si). 
Perhaps he adds the words — ' and it is not impossible that changes 
in the laws or constitution may be proposed as a common good ' — 
to anticipate an objection that no revolutionist would proceed in this 
way (compare the use of 8e in i. 5. 1254 a 36); for it was only 
those who claimed to have discovered something for the advantage 
of the community that it was proposed to reward. Theramenes 
had, in fact, done exactly what Aristotle here says might be done : 
see note on 22 above. 

35. tarpiKi^, i. e. has improved. This must be elicited from 


36. at ri-xyai irao-ai Kai ai SuvdfiEis. For the difference between • 
an art, or Trotijri/c^ inurnna], and a ' faculty,' see Cope on Rhet. i. 4. 
§ 6. 1359 b 12 sqq., where prjTopiKr) and tidkcKTiKri are said to be not 
ima-rrjpMi but Svmpfts. It is implied in what follows that if f) woKitik^ 
Kivfirm, this will involve to klvcw tovs vopmis, which are epya T^9 
TroKiTtKrjs (Eth. Nic. 10. 10. 1 181 a 23). 

39. iir' airdy T&y epyay. For this use of eVt, see Bon. Ind. 268a 
31 sqq. 

(•iSfious. Perhaps unwritten: cp. 1269a 8. In 42 vopipav is 
the word used, apparently in the same sense as vopoi here : these 

2. 8. 1268 b 30— 1269 a 5. 309 

words are interchanged, as Bonitz points out (Ind. 488 a 16 sqq.)j 
in 4 (7). 2. 1324b 5, 7 also. Much the same thing is said by 

Thucydides (l. 6. 'J, ttoXXo 8' &v koI a\\a tk anoSd^fie TO naKaiov 

'eXX^wkoi; ofioioTpona xm vvv fiap^apiK^ diaiTa/icvov). Popular senti- 
ment, however, with which Isocrates appears to agree (de Antid. 
§ 82), praised most highly the oldest laws, and Aristotle himself 
often counts the antiquity of an institution or oj)inion as a point in 
its favour. 

40. eo-i8i(ipo<|>opofliTo. Cp. Thuc. I. 5 sq. where we find both the 
active and the middle. As to the contrast of Hellenic and 
barbarian practice in this matter, see Lucian, Anacharsis c. 34. 

41. T&s yuraiKas, i. e. brides, not wives. This custom existed 
among the Thracians (Hdt. 5. 6). Thirlwall remarks (Hist, of 
Greece, i. 175) with respect to Homeric Greece, that 'it does not 
seem that the marriage contract was commonly regarded in the 
light of a bargain and sale,' but he adds in a note — 'compare, 
however, Od. 15. 367 and 18. 279 with the constant epithet dX^eo-t- 
/Soiai.' Plato (Laws 841 D) seems to recognize the purchase of 

brides — rats iiera 6cS)V Koi iepmv yafiav eKBoiaais eii Trpi olxiav, avtjTois 
eire aXXm dr&)oui> Tp6m^ (crijTatr, 

42. Xoiird, ' still in existence.' 

1. Kuftt). Which of the cities of this name is meant, is unknown, 1269 a, 
as also in 7 (5). 5. 1305 a r. 

irXij8(Ss Ti, ' a definite number,' as in 3. i. 1274 b 41. T5w avToO avy- 
yevSiv is to be taken with papripav — ' witnesses from the number of 
his own kinsmen.' We are reminded of the practice of compurga- 
tion, but compurgators were called by both parties to the suit, they 
* swore to the purity and honesty of the oath of their principal,' and 
they had to be ' possessed of qualities and legal qualifications which 
should secure their credibility' (Stubbs, Const. Hist, of England 
I. 610-1). Some traces of a not very dissimilar custom to that 
pientioned by Aristotle have been thought to be discoverable in 
the law of Gortyna — see the recently discovered Gortyna Inscrip- 
tion, col. 2. 37 sqq. : 3. 51 : 4. 8, and the comments of Zitelmann 
(Biicheler und Zitelmann, Das Recht von Gortyn, p. 76-77). 

3. 5t]Touo-i Se . . . irdiTes. Cp. I. I. 1252 a 2 : 2. 5. 1263 b 4 : 

Eth. Nic. 10. 2. II 72 b 36, o n-Sfft 8oK«, tovt ehal <^apxv, 

4. Tois irpciTous, ' the earliest human beings ' : cp. Polyb. 4. 20, 
7, Tovs irparrovs 'ApKaBav (' priscos Arcades ') : Plato, Tim. 2 2 A, ^opa- 

vcas Tov npaTov \ex6ivTos: Antiphon,, Tetral. 3. I. 2, tovs irpSiTov 
yevoftevovs rjfjmv. 

5. eiTE yTiYereTs ^uttv eir Ik. (|>9opas Tii'fis i<tii9r\<iav. Here two 


current views as to the human race are grouped together — the 
former enshrined in Greek poetry and literature (Pindar, Nam. 6. i : 
Hesiod, Op. et Dies, io8 : Plato, Menex. 237 D), and taught 
by Anaximander (Zeller, Gr. Ph. i. 209 sq.) — the latter adopted 
by Plato in the Laws (676 sqq.) and the Timaeus (22 Bsqq.). 
Euripides had already dealt a blow at the ' earth-born ' myth of 
man's origin in hig Ion, where Ion says (482), y^y ap eWe^uica 
HTjT-por, and Xuthus rejoins, oi weSov tUtci riKva : and Plato (Laws 
781 E sqq.) holds that 'the human race either had no beginning at 
all and will never have an end, but always will be and has been, 
or had a beginning an immense time ago ' (Prof. Jowett's 
translation). Aristotle himself believed that not only the world 
(Zeller, Gr. Ph. 2. 2. 432 sq.), but also mankind (ibid. 508. i) had 
existed from everlasting. (See on this subject Dicaearch. Fragm. 3 
and 4 (Muller, Fr. Hist. Gr. 2. 234 sq.), and Bernays, Theophrastos 
iiber Frommigkeit, p. 44 sqq., and Uber die unter Philon's Werken 
stehende Schrift uber die Unzerstorbarkeit des Weltalls, p. 58 sqq.) 
Thus Aristotle cannot have believed in the ' earth-born ' theory of 
man's origin, though in de Gen. An. 3. ri. 762 b 28 sqq. bethinks 
it worth while to inquire how yriyeveis can have come into beingj 
The other view, that the earliest known men were the survivors of 
some vast (pBopd was more reconcilable with the doctrine of the 
eternity of the human race, but Aristotle does not seem to admit 
universal, or nearly universal, (ftdopai. The <p6opai he recognizes are 
quite partial, arising from some local excess of moisture or aridity 
(see the interesting discussion of the subject in Meteor, i. 14). As 
to the Stoical view, see Zeller, Stoics E. T. pp. 155-160. 

6. 6|j[,oious K.T.X. For o/iotovs km, see Bon. Ind. 511 a 21 : 
Vahlen, Beitr. zu Poet. 3. 314 : Sus.', Ind. Gramm. s. v., who com- 
pares 4 (7). II. 1331 a 3. ' Similar to ordinary or even ' (Bon. Ind. 
357 b 20 sqq.) ' weak-minded people nowadays.' Why ol irpSyrm 
should be so, Aristotle does not explain ; but as to the yriyeveis, cp. 

de Part. An. 2. 4. 650 b 18, (rup^aivei 8' end ye Kai •^a^vptarepav e^eiv 
rfjv Stdvouui Tav ToiovTav, ov Sta Tqv ^jfvxpiTriTa rov mfiaTos, oKKa 8ii 
Trjv XeTfTOTijTa /laXXoi' Koi Sia tA KaBapou elvai' to yap yeSiSes ovBerepop 
€X" TOVTfov, and Dio Chrys. Or. 21. 507 R, ■KavTe\S>s a-xKripoi koi 
Syptot, Ttjs y^s ra reKva. As to the SUrvivors of the (f>6opa., he 

probably conceived the <i)6opa as entailing a wholesale destruction 

of knowledge (cp. Aristot. Fragm. 2. 1474b 6, [aj Tiapoiiiiai] iraKatag 
eio-i <j>tKocro(f)ias ev T<iir iieyiarats avBpimav- <p6opait airoXofievrjs eyKora- 
'Xeiniurra wepia-aBevra 8ia (nivTofiiav koI Se^ioTqTa : and Metaph. A. 8. 

1074b 10 sq.): he also ascribes the progress of the arts to the 

2. 8. 1269 a 6—21. 31I 

favouring influence of time (Eth. Nic. i. 7. 1098 a 23 sq. : Poet. 
4. 1449 a 9-15). Plato had already said that the remnant left by 
the deluge (in Greece, at all events — Tim. 22 D) would be hill' 
shepherds or herdsmen ignorant of the arts which flourish in cities 
(Laws 677 B-678 B), though he draws a favourable picture of their 
morals and social state (678 E-679 E). Contrast the opposite view 

of some of the later Stoics : tSv Si vemripav <tt<oikS)V <f)a(Tl nvcs roiis 
irpoTovs Koi yrjyeveis tSiv dvffpanav kotci jtoXu tSiv vvv <Tvvf<T(i Bia(j)epovTas 

yeyovivai (Sext. Empir. adv. Phys. i. 28). 

9. SoTrep y&p k.t.X. ' For, as in relation to the other arts, so in 
relation to the political [art, and its product, the political] organiza- 
tion it is impossible that everything should be written down with 

complete precision.' As to al aWai re^^vai, cp, t6 Kara ypdiiiiara 

larpeveadai <iiavKov, Pol. 3. 16. 1287 a 33. It Seems to be implied 
that as written law is necessarily couched in general terms, and 
human action, which it seeks to guide, is concerned with particu- 
lars, it is unlikely that the first form of a law will be as dxpi^iis (cp. 
Eth. Nic. 2. 2. 1104 a I sqq.) as it may be rendered by revision 
after fuller experience (cp. Plato, Laws 769 D, a passage probably 
present to Aristotle's mind here: Aristot. Pol. 3. 16. 1287 a 27 : Eth. 

Nic. r. 7- 1098 a 20, iT€piy€ypd<f)6a ftev oSv rdyadov Tairri' Sei yap icras 
{moTVTTaiTai irp&rrov, elff vtrrepov dvaypd\jfai et sqq. : Soph. El. 33. 183 b 

17 sqq. : Rhet. i. i. 1354 b 2). For the omission of jrepL before rfju 
■iToKi.Ti.KTjv rd^iv, Bonitz (Ind. 630 b 2) compares 7 (5). 10. i3iib37: 
Rhet. 2. 18. 1391b 15, 17: see also below on 1274 b 12. 'H 
TToKiTiKTi Ta|(s SBcms hcrc to include not the iroKircia only but also 
laws ; it means something more, therefore, than fj rd^is t^s wo\mlas 
means in Pol. 7 (5). 7. 1307 b 18, and elsewhere (cp. c. 10. 1271b 40, 
where fj KprjTiKr] rd^is is used in a different sense from rrjs iroXireiag 7 
Ta|ts, 1272 a 4). 

13. oXXoi' . . . Tp(5iroi', i. e. looking not to cases where the law is , 
antiquated and absurd, but to cases where changing it brings little 
gain and tends to weaken men's respect for law. It appears from 
17, that Aristotle feels the same reluctance to disturb measures 
adopted by magistrates of the State. 

17. 6<|)6\^o-£Toi. See note on 1263 b 28. For the omission of 
the subject (Ms P> wrongly supply ns), see note on 1268 a 5. 

19. <|>eG8os 8^ K.T.X. Cp. 3. 16. 1287 a 32 sqq. 

21. irapA t6 eflos. If we adopt this reading (which is that of the 
better MSS.) instead of ttX^k Traph to Wos Bekk., trapd will mean 
' other than,' or ' except' (cp. 6 (4). 15. 1299 a 18, mpon n napd 
Tus TToXtT-tfcoir dpxds, and I. 13. 1259b 25), and the e6os will be 

31 a NOTES. 

viewed as a kind of arxvs : cp. 3. 15. 1286 b 29, Itrxvv riva-ittpl avraV 
rj &vvrj(TeTai jSidfftrfiai rois fir) ^ovKofiivovs TuiSap^eiv, For the thought, 

cp- 1 (5)- 9- 131° a i4sqq. 

TOUTO, i.e. TO tdos. Cp. Rhet. I. 10. 1369 b 6, Wet Se (-yiWrai), oo-o 
&a TO TToXKcLKis TrfjroirjKfvai noiovcriv. 

23. ET^pous TOfious Kaifoijs. For the order, cp. i. 2. 1252 b 15— 
16 : de Part. An. 2. 14. 658 a 28, Ka6' SXov to o-S/io Trpavis : Pol. 2. 
II. 1272 b 26, oStoi at n-oXiTflat rpeis. We have, however, in the 
indictment of Socrates (Xen. Mem. i. i : Diog. Laert. 2. 40) mpa 
Kaiva Saipovia (though in the version of the same indictment given 
by Plato, Apol. 24 B, erepa Smfiovta Koivd). So we find in de Gen. An. 
3. 2. 732 b 6, (TToKov piKpov o/i^oXmS);. In each case, probably, a 
reason can be discerned for the order in which, the words are 

24. el Kal KifriT^oi, ' if in fact it is allowable to change them' : see 
Hiddell, Apology of Plato, p. 168, and compare the use of et Ral in 
3. 2. 1261 a 21 and 2. 11. 1273 b 6. 

25. Should the laws which embody the constitution be changed? 
Or sacred laws? Or unwritten laws, such as are referred to in 
3. 16. 1287 b 5? Should laws be allowed to be changed even in 
the case of the best constitution ? And is anybody to be permitted 
to propose a change, or only selected persons ? Plato bad held 
(Laws 634 D-E) that only old men should be allowed to draw 
attention to defects in the laws. Aristotle is, however, perhaps 
thinking of assigning the right of proposing a change to a specially 
constituted magistracy. 

26. Taura yip exEi (ieydXTii' 8ia<f>opdi'. ' For there is a great 
difference between these various alternatives.' (See for this ex- 
pression Bon. Ind. 192 b I3sqq.) Hence the discussion of the 
question is likely to take time, and Aristotle drops it. 

0. 29. Aristotle speaks in 4 (7). 14. 1333 b 18 sq. of 'the writers on 
the Lacedaemonian Constitution ' as if there were not a few of 
them, and describes them as ' admiring the lawgiver because he had 
trained his citizens to face perils and thus enabled the State to win 
a wide supremacy.' He names only one of them, Thibron, but 
Xenophon's work on the subject is also probably present to his 
mind (see Sus.", Note gii^b^ who refers to Xen. Rep. Lac. i. r), 
besides others which, like that of Critias, have not come down to 
lis. Ephorus had treated of the Lacedaemonian constitution in his 
history, and he too may possibly be referred to. Aristotle mentions 
in the chapter before us (1271 a 37) that he was not the first to 
criticise the arrangements respecting the Admiralship, but it is not 

2. 8. 1269 a 23—9. 1269 ^ 29. 313 

certain whether he means that writers on the constitution had done 
so. The grounds on which the Lacedaemonian constitution was 
approved were very various. Hippodamus, hke others after him, 
would praise it for the distinction which it drew between soldiers on 
the one hand and cultivators and artisans on the other, but it seems 
to have been commonly commended mainly for two reasons — 
first, because the system of training which it enforced had given the 
State empire, and secondly, because it harmonized the claims of 
the Few and the Many. It was held to be a skilful mixture of all 
constitutions (2. 6. 1265 b 33 sqq.), and especially of two, demo- 
cracy and oligarchy (6 (4). 9. 1294 b 14 sqq.). At Sparta rich and 
poor received the same education in childhood, they dressed alike 
and fared alike at the public mess-tables. This would please both 
Phaleas (c. 7. 1266 b 31 sqq.) and Ephorus (ap. Strab. p. 480). 
Oligarchs and democrats, soldiers and philosophers all found some- 
thing to commend at Sparta. Socrates commended the obedience 
to law which gave the State happiness in peace and irresistible 
•strength in war (Xen. Mem. 4. 4. 15). On the other hand, 
opinions were much divided as to the Helotage (Plato, Laws 
■776 Csqq.), and other weak points in Lacedaemonian institutions 
were well known to Thucydides and Isocrates. Aristotle would no 
doubt be fully acquainted with what had been said on the subject, 
but he is especially influenced by the views of Plato. Plato is 
perhaps more favourable to the Lacedaemonian constitution in the 
Republic than in the Laws. In the Republic he ranks it (with the 
Cretan) next to the ideal constitution, whereas in the Laws he 
assigns this place to the constitution described in the dialogue, 
which differs much from the Lacedaemonian, and if it is true that 
in the Laws a new merit is discovered in the Lacedaemonian con- 
stitution — ^its mixed and tempered character — it is also true that 
much is borrowed in this dialogue from Attic legislation. 

If we turn to Aristotle's criticisms in the chapter before us, we 
note first of all that his object is mainly to point out defects, not to 
-give a complete estimate of the constitution. His admiration for 
Lycurgus is sufiiciently proved by his reference to him in 6 (4). 1 1. 
1296 a 20, and by the remark which Plutarch reproduces from the 

Polities — Si Sirep Koi 'ApttTToreXijr iXdrrovas (T)^etv <j)ri<ri ri/iav fj Trpoo-^xov 
^u avTov fX'tv iv AwteSalfiovi, Kaiirep e^oira ras /leyt'oras* upov tc yap 
tariv aiiTov, Koi 6vou(n Kaff eKaarov iviavrov its 6ca (Lycurg. C. 31). In 

criticising the constitution he takes the word iroKiTeia in its widest ^ 
sense and examines the whole social and political organization of 
.the State. Plato had tested the Lacedaemonian constitution by 

314 NOTES. 

comparing it either with the ideal constitution or with other actual 
constitutions of Greece, whereas Aristotle also inquires how far its 
arrangements fulfil the design of the lawgiver, which was to found 
an dpuTTOKpana. This was perhaps the most novel feature of his 
criticisms. He had included a notice of the Lacedaemonian con- 
stitution in his Polities — indeed, he probably repeats in the chapter 
before us not a little of what he had said in that work — and his 
studies must have given him an unrivalled knowledge of the subject, 
but his grasp of the details must not lead us to forget how often he 
repeats previous criticisms of Plato. Plato had already said that 
the Lacedaemonian laws aimed only at the production of a single 
kind of virtue, warlike prowess (Laws 626 A sqq., etc.) — that the 
Spartans valued external goods such as wealth and honour more 
than virtue (Rep. 548) — ^that the Helot type of slavery was wrong 
(Rep. 469 Esq.: Laws 776 sqq.) — that the lives of the Spartan 
women were left unregulated by law (Laws 780 E). He so far 
anticipated in the Laws Aristotle's account of the causes which had 
thinned the ranks of the Spartan citizens that he makes the lots of 
land in his State inalienable and indivisible (740 B sqq.), forbids 
dowries (742 C), restricts the right of bequest (922 E sqq.), and 
asserts the claims of relatives both in relation to inheritances and 
in the disposal of orphan heiresses (924 D sqq.). On the other 
hand, his attention does not seem to have been called to the mis- 
chievousness of the Lacedaemonian law by which the enjoyment 
of political rights was made dependent on the payment of a quota 
to the syssitia. Nor does he criticise the Lacedaemonian Kingship, 
Senate, and Ephorate, though we observe that he does not seem to 
adopt any of these institutions in the Laws. 

30. SiJo. The organization of slavery in the Lacedaemonian 
State is apparently criticised in what follows as being by no means 
the best possible ; the yvvaiKav avfms, on the other hand, as not only 
wrong from an ideal point of view but also as not in accordance 
with the spirit of the constitution (1269 b 12-14). Tha Siaira tS>v 
i^opav (1270b 31) and the ^iSiVm (1271 a 31) are criticised on the 
latter ground. In I27ia4i sqq. we find a criticism of the {m66e(Tis 
of the constitution which may perhaps be brought under the first 
of the two heads, though the imodea-n itself can hardly be said vevo- 
lioBerrjarBai (32). What does Aristotle consider the iirodea-ig of the 
Lacedaemonian constitution to be ? Probably he views it as an 

apiaroKparla (i. e. as a mixture of aperr} and Srjuos) organized Trpos TO 

Kpareiv: cp. 1269 b 19-20: 1271b 2-3: 4 (7). 2. 1324b 7 sqq.: 2. 

11.1273a 4, irpos rffv VTr66f(Tiv T^s apurroKparias Kai TTfs noKvreias : 6 (4). 

2. 9. 1.269 a 30—34. 315 

7'. 1293 b 15 sqq. Yet, as Sus.^ (Note 1262) points out, Aristotle 
seems to speak in 6 {4). 9. 1294