« PreviousContinue »
1. On the Manuscripts.
IN the critical notes to this edition I have recorded the readings of eight of the nine MSS. of the Ethics to which Bekker has assigned distinguishing letters. They are the following:
2. Marcianus CC:"in folio membranaceus, foliorum 594, saeculi xv.” Zanetti. Cf. Susemihl, Politics p. xxiv. This MS. (written by Joannes Rhosus in 1457) in general agrees exactly with Mb. There are however occasional differences, sometimes one and sometimes the other exhibiting the conventional reading. I attach no value to Q, and in my general remarks on the MSS. have left it wholly out of account.
Ha. Marcianus CCXIV : "in folio minori membranaceus, foliorum 240, saeculi circiter XI." Zanetti.
Bonitz made a collation of the whole of the Nic. Eth. in this MS.: “Kritische Ausbeute hat diese Collation so gut wie gar nicht ergeben, sondern nur bestätigt, was sich im Voraus vermuthen liess, dass Bekker Grund hatte, von der Collation der ganzen Handschrift abzusehen; sie ist an Fällen der Ungenauigkeit und an Auslassungen so reich, dass sie für Textesrecension der Nikomachischen Ethik sehr geringen Werth hat.” Aristot. Stud. 11. 8. I have nothing to say against this decided condemnation.
Kb. Laurentianus LXXXI. II: "codex membranaceus MS. in fol. minori seculi x nitidissimus et optimae notae, cum
titulis singulorum librorum charactere vere quadrato et aureo exaratis. Constat foliis scriptis 181." Bandini.
I might have saved myself the trouble of collating this MS., as Bekker's collation has been most carefully revised by Schöll, whose corrections and additions are printed in Rassow's Forschungen p. 10 sqq.
Numerous as are the readings which this MS. alone preserves, it is very incorrect, in the fifth book more so than several MSS. of less importance.
Lb. Parisiensis 1854: “cod. membr. Nic. Eth. cum scholiis varia manu eaque recentiori scriptis. Mich. Pselli esse verisimile est. Sec. XII.” Catalogue. This MS. appears to me to be on the whole the most trustworthy authority for the text of the fifth book ("im fünften und zehnten Buche vielleicht als die zuverlässigste Quelle zu betrachten,” says Rassow), though there are not very many instances in which it is alone in preserving a good reading.
M”. Marcianus CCXIII: “in 4o membranaceus, fol. 276, saec. circ. xv.” Zanetti. Though very incorrect this MS. occasionally preserves an important reading which would otherwise be lost. In the judgment of Bonitz (Aristot. Stud. II. 9) and Susemihl (Politics p. xxvi) it ranks for the Ethics only second in importance to K. So far as Bk. v is concerned, I think L6 more trustworthy than either.
NÓ. Marcianus. Append. IV. 53: "bomb. fol. saec. XII." Waitz, Organon p. 3. I suspect that this was the MS. which was used by Aldus in printing the Nic. Eth. for his editio princeps. Lines have been drawn in the MS. to guide the copyist or printer in punctuation, and errors have been carefully corrected in the margin by the aid of some other MS. or MSS. In general the Aldine text exactly reproduces Nb together with the punctuation and emendations indicated by the corrector. I have admitted some three readings into my text on the sole authority of Nb. It is now well known that Bekker's collation of this MS. (as of Ha) is an incomplete one, and that it is the neglect of this fact which has led some scholars strangely to overrate its importance.
Ob. Riccardianus 46. More correct than M, Ob contributes fewer peculiar readings to the text than that MS. In this book however it does not seem to be as decidedly inferior to Mb as (according to the best authorities) it is elsewhere.
Pb. Vaticanus 1342. "Membr., kl. 4to oder 8vo, 133 Bl., Griechisch und Römisch paginirt. Kleine Schrift, viele Abkürzungen." Brandis.
In the Journal of Philology, 1876, VI. 208, I have endeavoured to show that the Cambridge MS. (Eliensis') was copied from Pb, which must therefore have been written before 1279. Although apparently more closely connected with K than any other MS. and not so ancient, Pb is nevertheless less incorrect. I do not however find that it preserves any good readings which are not to be found in either K L M N or Ob.
My own conclusions (as shown in the text which I have adopted) are, so far as Bk. V is concerned, briefly as follows:
I. That the MSS. collated (exclusive of Q which agrees too closely with Mb to be worth considering) stand in respect of correctness in the following order L'PONKHaM, L being decidedly the most correct, and Mb decidedly the most incorrect;
2. That Ha and Pb contribute to the text nothing which is not to be found in one or other of the remaining five
3. That when Hb and Pb are neglected there are about 43 places in which my reading depends upon one only of the remaining five MSS., the contributions of each being as follows: K 23, Lb 9, Mb 5, Ob and N° 3 each;
4. That I am unable to distinguish families.
It will be remarked that these conclusions agree substan-
Besides the MSS. above mentioned, I have also collated
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARIES
they have been occasionally quoted by editors. One of them, now in the Library of the University of Cambridge, quoted by Zell as 'El.' i.e. 'Eliensis,' is, if I am not mistaken, a transcript from Pb (vide supra). It is dated 1279. See Journal of Philology, 1876, VI. 208 sqq., where I have given an account of it. The other, which is in the Library of New College, Oxford, quoted by Zell as C. N., seems to me to be a copy of Parisiensis 1853. Both codices have a lacuna extending from VIII. II § 7 to IX. 12 § I, and if I may judge from the comparison of a few pages of the Parisian MS. with my collation of the Oxford one, they have the same readings, except where the Oxford MS. introduces a new blunder. I have also collated a few pages in Marcianus CCXII ("in 8° chartaceus, fol. 499, saeculi circiter xv" Zanetti), which appears to be a transcript from Q.
It will be understood that I have not in general recorded the corrections of later hands, that I have noted false accents and breathings only where they might seem to have some slight significance, and that I have neglected altogether the variations of the MSS. in respect of ovleis, ovdels, &c., of elisions, and of the v peλKvσTIKÓV. I have not in general ἐφελκυστικόν. thought it necessary to call attention to discrepancies between Bekker's collation and my own. Finally, I have noted in the critical commentary all cases in which my text differs from that of Bekker.
II. On Dislocations in the Text.
Conceiving as others have done that the difficulty and the obscurity of this book are in a large measure due to dislocations in the text, I have with some hesitation decided to print the several parts of the treatise in what I suppose to be the true order. In this way I shall at any rate give the reader an opportunity of testing my rearrangement,
whilst whatever may be thought of my attempt, I cannot well create a greater confusion than that which is to be found in the received text.
My main objections to the vulgate are two : (1) that the discussion of the απορία περί του αυτόν αυτόν αδικείν is broken in two places by the intrusion of (a) 9 $ 14—10 8, and (6) 11 SS 7, 8, and (2) that 6 SS 1-3 are wholly out of place in their present position between 5 § 19 and
I proceed to examine these portions of the book with the double purpose of justifying the above statements, and of discovering how to dispose of the intrusive passages.
The opening words of ch. 9-åropňoele 8åv tis, ei ικανώς διώρισται περί του αδικείσθαι και αδικείν – appear to announce the beginning of a new division of the book, devoted to the consideration of étropia, with respect to αδικείν and άδικείσθαι. The first απορία, discussed somewhat confusedly in SS 1–7, is, (a) can a man éxwy adrelo bai?' The question having been answered in the negative, we are told in 8 8 that two other åtopíaremain to be investigated, (6) 'is it the distributor or the receiver who ådikel?' and (c) 'can a man αδικείν αυτόν ?? The second of the two latter απορίαι (which has been already referred to incidentally in § 4) having been separated from the first, in which at first sight it might seem to be involved, in $ 9, the first is discussed and decided in SS 10—13. Then follow three SS (14-16), which have nothing to do with the droplaı announced for discussion, and which would appear to belong to a preliminary review of ένδοξα about universal δίκαιον and άδικον, such as that with which the book opens-else why the references, not merely to particular justice and injustice, but also to other virtues and vices ? Next, § 17 limits the sphere of η κατά μέρος δικαιοσύνη, and consequently has nothing to do either with SS 14–16, or with SS 8—13Ch. 10 which follows investigates επιείκεια and its relation to δικαιοσύνη, thus raising an entirely new matter. And now in ch. II SS