Aristotelica Studies On The Text of Aristotles Eudemian Ethics Christopher Rowe Full Chapter

Aristotelica: Studies on the Text of
Aristotle's Eudemian Ethics

Christopher Rowe
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/aristotelica-studies-on-the-text-of-aristotles-eudemian
-ethics-christopher-rowe/
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 04/08/23, SPi
Aristotelica
Aristotelica
Studies on the Text of Aristotle’s
Eudemian Ethics
C H R I S T O P H E R R OW E
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,

United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Christopher Rowe 2023
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022942797
ISBN 978–0–19–287355–2
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192873552.001.0001
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Contents
Introduction vii
Eudemian Ethics I 1
Eudemian Ethics II 22
Eudemian Ethics III 71
Eudemian Ethics VII/IV 102
Eudemian Ethics VIII/V 180
Appendix 228
Index 256
Introduction
The following Studies are designed primarily to explain the reasoning

behind the choices that, line by line, shaped the text of the Eudemian
Ethics (EE) printed in the accompanying Oxford text (OCT). As is well
known, the transmitted text of EE is in many places highly corrupt. The
studies below attempt to justify the solutions I have adopted to the prob-
lems of the text and explain why I have rejected rival solutions; they lay
no claim to exhaustiveness (not all available solutions are considered),
but rather constitute a record of the route by which I arrived at my deci-
sion in each case, in conversation mostly with others, in many cases long
since gone, sometimes with myself. A secondary function of these Studies
is to provide more complete information about the Greek manuscripts
than is given in the apparatus.1 An Appendix, at the end of the present
volume, brings together full sets of data, for the four primary manu-
scripts, that reveal not only the relationships between these four manu-
scripts but also the idiosyncrasies of the three copyists involved, and the
typical errors that we tend to find from time to time in all of them.
Information about such errors is particularly important insofar as it
provides a warning against relying too heavily on ‘what the manuscripts
say’, even when there is unanimity between them. True, since the manu-
scripts represent the only primary evidence we have (with a little help,
for two small portions of the text, from Latin translations), we should
not be too ready to deviate from them. But they do go wrong, in
1 Frequent references will be found, in the following studies, to ‘the B copyist’. This designa-
tion is shorthand for ‘the copyist of B and/or the copyist(s) of any manuscript(s) that may have
preceded in the line of descent from the hyparchetype α´ ’: for all we know, either part or indeed
all of what I attribute to the activity of the B copyist might properly be attributable to an inter-
mediary or intermediaries. But since we shall presumably never know if that is the case, every-
thing in question may as well be assigned to the copyist of B, i.e. the manuscript the contents of
which are actually known to us. L itself may very well be descended directly from the archetype
ω, so that references to ‘the L copyist’ can be taken with some safety as being just that. As for P
and C, even though their antigraphon, α, is lost, the fact that they are non-identical twins
allows us considerable insight into the contributions of their copyist, Nikolaos of Messina.
Aristotelica: Studies on the Text of Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics. First Edition. Christopher Rowe,
Oxford University Press. © Christopher Rowe 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192873552.001.0001
viii Introduction
predictable ways, and quite often all at the same time, as the data put
beyond question.
The Studies are intended to be read with the text and apparatus. They
started life as footnotes to a draft text; they and the apparatus may have
been separated physically from each other, but their shared origins will
be quickly apparent to the reader.
Eudemian Ethics I
[The style of the titles of the books in PCBL varies slightly: the title can
be just ‘ἠθικῶν εὐδημίων’, or ‘ἀριστοτέλους ἠθικῶν εὐδημίων’, or
‘ἠθικῶν εὐδημίων ἀριστοτέλους’; varying as it may do within a single
MS, the style used is evidently arbitrary.]
1214a2 συνέγραψεν (PCBL) on the face of it looks unlikely, given (a)

the general pattern of usage of this compound, (b) the fact that such
usage can specifically connect it with the writing of prose (n.b. the
immediately following ποιήσας); ἀναγράϕω, by contrast, as suggested
by Richards, would be a natural choice for the present context, and
for ἀν- to become συν-, perhaps especially after the final sigma of
ἀποϕηνάμενος, would be well within the limits of the sorts of errors we
typically find in these MSS. Nevertheless, the case is still not quite
proven (see Dirlmeier1 ad loc.), and given that the policy of the present
text is to make as few changes as possible where our primary MSS are
unanimous, συνέγραψεν stands.
a5 Αmbr.’s placing of the δέ before ἥδιστον corresponds with its position

as it evidently was in the original, i.e. Theognis 256 = πρῆγμα δὲ
τερπνότατον τοῦ τις ἐρᾷ τὸ τυχεῖν, but since Aristotle has announced
the lines as poetry, they should be metrical, as they are in the different
version at NE I.8, 1099a27–8; for that to be the case, unless we read τοῦ
for οὗ, the δέ will have tο follow ἥδιστον. —ἐρᾷ τὸ Bessarion: i.e. Bessarion
in Parisinus 2042, though he also adds ται above the τὸ, then crosses ται
out. (See Preface to text: ‘Bessarion’ in the apparatus here and from now on
refers exclusively to this MS, a vast collection of Aristotelian excerpts
1 The absence of a full reference for an author and work cited indicates that bibliographical
details of the author/work appear in one or more of (1) the Preface in the sister volume of the
present Studies (hereafter ‘Preface to text’), (2) the Bibliography to that Preface, or (3) the list in
the same volume of authors that are cited in the apparatus.
Aristotelica: Studies on the Text of Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics. First Edition. Christopher Rowe,
Oxford University Press. © Christopher Rowe 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192873552.003.0001
2 Eudemian Ethics I
(1214a5) Cardinal Bessarion wrote out in his own hand; he certainly con-
tributed, especially in the form of marginalia, to other MSS, especially Rav.
210, Marc. 200, and Marc. 213, but since (a) it is usually hard to be sure
exactly what is attributable to him in these, and (b) it hardly matters for
my purposes, I leave him uncredited there, except in special circumstances,
in the same way that I do other named figures we know to have been
involved with our MSS, whether because they commissioned, copied, cor-
rected, or commented on them.) The Aldine later makes the correction to
ἐρᾷ τὸ independently, no doubt from direct knowledge of Theognis.
Bessarion writes out a version of Theognis’ line in the margin of Par. 2042
(πᾶσι δὲ τερπνότατον οὗ τις ἐρᾷ τὸ τυχεῖν) above and to the left of
the first line of EE, and then tries out τερπνότατον δ’ ἐστ’, apparently as a
substitute for the MSS’ ἥδιστον, in the margin opposite that.
a6 συγχωροῦμεν Laur. 81,12: an easy mistake (the ου is corrected by

another hand [= ‘Laur. 81,122’] to omega, s.l.); it might be a conjecture,
but ‘perhaps we don’t agree with him’ is not obviously an improvement
on ‘let us not. . .’.
a10 In B both μὲν here and the δὲ following have what appears to be a
double accent. Similar double accentuation, especially with μὲν, occurs
here and there in B; it is not clear why.
a10–11 καὶ περὶ τὰς πράξεις τοῦ πράγματος: if there is a problem

here, Langerbeck’s solution (simply bracketing καὶ περὶ τὰς πράξεις)
seems better than either of Spengel’s; the second, indeed, given that we
are actually going to talk about the κτῆσις of the πρᾶγμα in question,
seems to make matters worse. But while there may be some awkward-
ness in the Greek, it seems tolerable. Woods’s bracketing of τοῦ
πράγματος, which after all is prepared for by περὶ ἕκαστον πρᾶγμα
earlier in the sentence, seems high-handed when the context is actually
about ἕκαστον πρᾶγμα (a9). Inwood and Woolf, in their translation of
EE in the series Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy (2013:
hereafter ‘Inwood and Woolf in the Cambridge translation’), seem cov-
ertly to adopt Spengel’s first solution.
a13 Dirlmeier interprets the MSS’ ἦν as a ‘philosophical’ imperfect, tak-

ing Aristotle to be referring to things he has said prior to the EE (‘once a
Aristotelica 3
Grundsatz, always a Grundsatz’, to paraphrase Dirlmeier). That, however,

involves the unwarranted presupposition that Aristotle thinks of himself
as writing the EE as part of a collected body of work. So if it is that sort
of imperfect, we would evidently need an unusual, as it were forward-
looking, use of it, i.e. ‘whatever turns out to have been appropriate. . .’.
I prefer a suggestion by Christopher Strachan (in correspondence), who
compares Plato, Cratylus 388a10 Τί ἦν ὄργανον ἡ κερκίς; Οὐχ ᾧ
κερκίζομεν: ‘this seems to be a sort of aoristic use, akin perhaps to a
gnomic aorist designating something that is always or generally the
emendation (ὅτιπερ 〈ἂν〉 οἰκεῖον ᾖ) unnecessary.

case.’ This is surely more than plausible enough to render Richards’s
a23 With δαιμονίᾳ (CBL), the following τινὸς would be orphaned and
unexplained; the feminine dative is by attraction to the preceding
ἐπιπνοίᾳ. So P’s δαιμονίου it must surely be (presumably it is an
emendation by the copyist: δαιμονίᾳ, being in both recensiones, is likely
to have been in ω, the common source/archetype). Incidentally,
Bessarion (ap. Par. 2042) also has δαιμονίου. This is not an independent
conjecture of his: my trawl through Par. 2042 makes it almost certain
that there, throughout, he was using either (a corrected version of) P, or
more probably its descendant Pal. 165, which includes many corrections
to P: so for example in the continuation of the present sentence he reads
διὰ τὴν τύχην rather than L’s διὰ τύχην (and so he continues right to
the end of Book VIII/V). This is in one way a surprise, because Bessarion
is otherwise associated with MSS that are mostly descended from L,
i.e. that belong to the other recensio, but in another way it is not so
surprising, given that P is itself sometimes corrected from a represent
ative of the recensio Constantinopolitana; see Harlfinger 1971: 9 on the
complexity of the relationships between the extant MSS of EE.
a24 ταὐτό: C is the only one of the four primary MSS to write in the crasis
mark here (crasis marks are more often than not omitted in all four).
a25 εὐτυχείαν PC for εὐτυχίαν: ει for ι in such endings is a signature
feature of P and C.
a26 τῇ παρουσίᾳ [διὰ] τούτων, κτλ: as subject of the sentence, which

all of PCBL make it, ἡ παρουσία appears peculiarly redundant; the
4 Eudemian Ethics I
(1214a26) subject is surely εὐδαιμονία, and translators sometimes (see

e.g. Solomon [in the Oxford Translation of 1915], Woods, and Kenny [in
the Oxford World’s Classics translation]) pretend that it—εὐδαιμονία—and
not παρουσία is actually subject in the transmitted text. One possibility
would be simply to bracket ἡ παρουσία, but it would then be a mystery
how it ever got into the text. For Spengel’s proposal, i.e. to bracket διὰ
instead, and write dative for nominative, a story is much easier to con-
struct: the dative—because of its position, and the lack of an expressed
subject?—was corrupted into a nominative, but then διὰ had to be sup-
rather less well with Spengel’s alternative proposal, 〈ἡ εὐδαιμονία〉 τῇ

plied to make sense of the following genitives. (This story would work
παρουσίᾳ [διὰ] τούτων. . . .)

a29 τὶς B2: it is feature of all of PCBL that they tend to accent indefinite
τις/τι, and of B that it likes to give τίς/τί a grave accent. —συναγάγει
in Laur. 81,4, a descendant at this point from C, is corrected to
συναγάγοι (also in Marc. [descended from L], according to Harlfinger);
B too, presumably, was faced with συναγάγει, and made the same cor-
rection. All the variants offered by the MSS would, incidentally, have the
same Byzantine pronunciation. (‘Errors arising from similarity in pro-
nunciation’, comments Christopher Strachan, ‘are among the most com-
mon of all, and very frequent in these MSS.’)
b7 ἐπιστήσαντα in P is by attraction to the following ἅπαντα; the two
dots, vertically arranged, associated with the -τα ending are converted by P2
to the sign for -ας. —Woods claims that ‘ἐπιστήσαντας [sc. τὴν διάνοιαν]
with a dependent accusative and infinitive is doubtful Greek’, but while
admitting that there are no precise parallels I think it possible to construe
the noun clause, i.e. the accusative and infinitive, as being—as it were—in
the dative: ‘paying attention, in relation to these things, [to the fact] that
every person. . .’. Though strictly δεῖ in b12 might govern ἐπιστήσαντας (sc.
〈χρὴ〉 and P2’s 〈δεῖ 〉 (see next note); my own view is that the sentence
ἡμᾶς) here, it is too far away to make that entirely plausible—hence Allan’s
becomes so extended, especially with the—unexpectedly expansive?—

explanatory clause ὡς τό γε . . . σημεῖόν ἐστιν in b10–12, that Aristotle
simply forgets where he started, and in effect starts again. (Pace Woods, I see
no reason why Aristotle should not be claiming that everyone does in fact
Aristotelica 5
set themselves an end: the list of possible ends is restricted to popular-

sounding choices [n.b. also the non- technical/non-Aristotelian use of
καλῶς just before the list], and that it would be very foolish not to set one-
self an end in life [b10–12] could be taken as evidence for the claim rather
than, as Woods suggests, conflicting with it.)
b8 δεῖ post θέσθαι suppl. P2, in the margin: but pace P2, and Woods ad
loc., the point Aristotle is leading up to is that while everyone sets them-
selves an end, they need to be careful about their choice; there is no rea-
son (apart from—what some suppose to be—an orphaned infinitive) for
him to be exhorting them to set themselves an end: cf. preceding note.
b12 ‘δὴ sine causa secl. Spengel’, Susemihl, with justification. —ἐν αὑτῷ
Victorius (‘γρ.’), and then Bekker, followed by other editors: but what is
in the MSS is ἐν αὐτῷ, i.e. ‘in the matter in hand’, to be read with
πρῶτον rather than, or as much as, with διορίσασθαι.
b17 οὐ deest in P1CL: οὐ is added above line in P, surely by a later hand,
with an insertion mark. This is one of a significant number of occasions
on which B is the only one of PCBL to preserve the right reading.
b19 τῆς 〈καλῆς〉 ζωῆς Richards: but καλῆς presumably can and should
be understood in any case.
b24 περὶ πάντων: P2 writes ἴσως: περιπάτων in the margin; L’s

περιπάτων is post corr., but the corrections in L, evidently currente
calamo, are only in the formation of the iota and the alpha, and there
was evidently only ever one word.
b35 Spengel’s τῶν πολλῶν 〈ἐπισκεπτέον〉 is part of a solution to larger

problems that follow.
1215a1 εἰκῇ γὰρ Victorius (Pier Vettori), annotating one of his copies
of the Aldine edition; a brilliant emendation. (This is one of the many
conjectures/corrections of his that is not marked by a ‘fort.’ [see Preface
to text], just with a ‘γρ.’) For P2’s οἱ μηδὲν see next note.
a1–2 περὶ ἁπάντων καὶ μάλιστα περὶ ἐπισκεπτέον μόνας P1CL,

περὶ ἁπάντων καὶ μάλιστα ἐπισκεπτέον μόνας B: Chalkondyles in
6 Eudemian Ethics I
(1215a1–2) Ambr. leaves a gap after περὶ—something must be missing

after περὶ in its precursor, L (and in PC). But what? Spengel’s proposal is
pleasingly economical, proposing as it does no more than the loss of the
first part of εὐδαιμονίας, but it has its own problems, the worst of which
is that it leaves us with two different explanations (εἰκῇ γὰρ . . . a1,
ἄτοπον γὰρ . . .) for our not having to consider the views of the many,
the second of which follows as if the first was not there; the transposition
of ἐπισκεπτέον, which causes this double explanation, then also looks
questionable, and one might also ask how likely it is that εὐδαιμονίας
would be corrupted to μόνας in a context about εὐδαιμονία (even
though stranger things do happen in the text of EE). Dodds’s proposal,
for its part, has the advantage over Fritzsche’s (on which it builds, as
Fritzsche’s builds on P2’s) that it comes with a beautifully simple
explanation of how the mess in the MSS came about, i.e. through a
copyist’s eye slipping straight from περὶ to πέρι; but it too has important
weaknesses: in its prolixity and in the unclarity of the reference of the
supplied ταύτης (Fritzsche), seven lines after the περὶ αὐτῆς that might
have explained it. My own proposal for completing the sentence goes
back to P2’s οἱ (i.e., presumably, οἳ?) μηδὲν λέγουσι σχεδὸν περὶ
ἁπάντων δὲ καὶ μάλιστα περὶ τούτων τὰς τῶν σοϕῶν ἐπισκεπτέον
μόνας (written out in full in the margin of P). My first step, after accept-
ing Victorius’ εἰκῇ γὰρ before λέγουσι, is to suppress the δὲ and supply
the περὶ ὧν that is then needed to restore the syntax of the sentence.
μάλιστα περὶ 〈τούτων περὶ ὧν τὰς τῶν σοϕῶν〉 ἐπισκεπτέον μόνας,

That would give us, for the sake of argument, περὶ ἁπάντων, καὶ
which would (a) offer a solution that is more economical than either
Dodds’s or Fritzsche’s, (b) avoid the problem of the reference of (the
supplied) ταύτης, and (c) provide the sort of sense that everyone, begin-
ning from P2, thinks is required. But of course P2’s supplements have no
authority, as is confirmed by the lack of syntactical coherence in the sen-
tence he offers us here; and when Aristotle generally spends so much
time on, and attributes so much importance to, the endoxa, could he
really have announced, out of the blue, that actually it is only the σοϕοί,
the experts, that we should listen to on the subject in hand? Surely not.
In the present context, the class to be contrasted with οἱ πολλοί would
more naturally be the ἐπιεικεῖς, a fairly indeterminate group whose
Aristotelica 7
chief distinguishing feature is typically that they are not (the) many, and
καὶ μάλιστα περὶ 〈τούτων περὶ ὧν τὰς τῶν ἐπιεικῶν〉 ἐπισκεπτέον

who will make an appearance a few lines down (a12). So περὶ ἁπάντων,
μόνας—except that by borrowing an element of Dodds’s solution (see
a story about how the corruption might have started: better 〈περὶ
above), and writing περὶ τούτων, ὧν πέρι, we would begin to have
τούτων, ὧν〉 πέρι, then, since strictly it would be the first περί that was
lost; the comma, too, is important, in order to avoid the appearance of a
mere tautology. Beyond that (apart from noting the double ἐπι-, which
might help explain the loss of ἐπιεικῶν?), I merely repeat that we know
in this case—pace Spengel—that the transmitted text is lacunose. I adopt
the reconstruction proposed on three grounds: first, that it gives an
appropriate sense, i.e. one that at least does not commit Aristotle to
something he would be unlikely to say; second, that it is superior to any
alternative presently on offer (see above); and third, that it would be
unhelpful, even a dereliction, to reproduce the nonsense we find in
PCBL, or to follow Chalkondyles and print a lacuna, or indeed to deploy
the obelus, which fastidious readers can easily import for themselves if
they prefer.
a4 Jackson’s πειθοῦς for πάθους is surely implausible: does persuasion

not typically involve λόγος? The mess in L (the copyist has merely run
ἀλλὰ and πάθους together) is a lapse, and does not indicate uncertainty
around πάθους; and contra Barnes, πάθους/πάσχειν can surely be used
by Aristotle on its own to refer to a bad experience/suffering, as at Rhet.
II.5, 1382b29ff.
a5 There are some traces of a correction above βίον in P, and it is natural

to assume that the correction is to βίου, before τοῦ κρατίστου. The mis-
take, shared by all of PCL, is surprising enough to suggest that βίον was
in ω, the common source of PCBL, in which case B is evidently correct-
ing independently. Ambr. (Chalkondyles) also has βίου.
a9 〈τὴν〉 πᾶσαν σκέψιν Dirlmeier: it is true that not literally all σκέψις
has to be as specified, just ‘this whole [present] σκέψις’, but πᾶσαν σκέψιν
will naturally be read, in the context, as ‘all σκέψις of the sort we are
involved in’.
8 Eudemian Ethics I
1215a10 τῳ B (also P2, crossing out the circumflex accent) provides a

viable alternative—‘if someone should find it presumptuous . . .’—to the
impossible τῷ P1CL. Given that these MSS so regularly confuse omi-
renders Fritzsche’s compromise, τῳ 〈τὸ〉, unnecessary.

cron and omega, Victorius’ τὸ is also possible; the same consideration
a11 καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐλπίδα: P2 writes ἴσως: καὶ τὴν ἐλπίδα in margin.
a14 ἔσται ci. Walzer, for ἐστι: but we can take the reference to be to the
acquisition of τὰ διὰ τύχην ἢ διὰ ϕύσιν γινόμενα in general, rather than
to what would be true of the acquisition of εὐδαιμονία were it to be one
of these.
a19 [ἃ] τοῖς αὑτοὺς: τοῖς αὑτοὺς is all that is needed if we take κεῖσθαι
to mean ‘be available’ (‘laid up’, ‘in the bank’: see LSJ2 s.v. III); the ἃ could
perhaps be descended from an earlier dittography, i.e. αὐτοῖς for τοῖς
before αὑτοὺς. P2’s ἐν τοῖς αὐτοὺς, in margin, preceded by ἴσως,
looks a non-starter: εὐδαιμονία might lie ἐν τῷ αὐτοὺς/αὑτοὺς
παρασκευάζειν . . ., but scarcely in the individuals doing it. (Woods
accepts ἐν, taking τοῖς as neuter: ‘happiness consists in those things
which cause human beings . . . to be of a certain kind’, but this would
surely be an odd thing for Aristotle to say about happiness, if it is not
just a way of making ἐν τοῖς come to the same thing as ἐν τῷ.)
a27 τῶν μὲν 〈οὐδ’〉 Bonitz, τῶν μὲν 〈οὐκ〉 Rav.: one could try arguing
that the negative is in effect retrospectively supplied by the following
ἀλλ’ ὡς τῶν ἀναγκαίων χάριν σπουδαζομένων—‘some dispute [the
title in question] but on the grounds that they labour for the sake of the
necessaries of life [sc. and they must clearly be ruled out on the basis of
what has just been said, at some length, about the need to distinguish the
goods that constitute happiness and those that are merely its necessary
conditions]’. But this is surely too much of a stretch, and in any case no
one, or no one that mattered to Aristotle, ever suggested that the ‘vulgar’
and ‘banausic’ lives in question could claim to be best. Rav. sees the need
for a negative, but Bonitz’s emphatic οὐδ’ seems preferable.
2 A Greek–English Lexicon compiled by H. Liddell and R. Scott, revised . . . by H. Jones . . .

9th edn, with a revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Aristotelica 9
a28 In P a first correcting hand puts in an elision mark and rough

breathing over what was plainly once ἄλλως, apparently erasing an
acute accent after the initial smooth breathing; a second correcting hand
then writes ἵσως: τῶν μὲν ὡς τῶν ἀναγκαίων (not ἀλλὰ τῶν μὲν ὡς,
as reported by Walzer/Mingay) in the margin. The problem is with the
ὡς in CBLP2 ἀλλ’ ὡς, which even translators who claim to retain it
appear not to translate, and not surprisingly, because it is worse than
redundant; the sentence actually works better without it. Spengel’s bril-
liant emendation—which gets some slight support from P’s original
error, i.e. ἄλλως for ἀλλ’ ὡς, the latter presumably being what was in the
common source of PCBL—gives a perfect sense: the lives in question
make no claims at all for themselves precisely because they randomly
busy themselves with the necessaries, i.e. with no reference to the larger
question ‘what is it for?’
a29 Woods’s τὰς for τῶν before περὶ χρηματισμὸν and Russell’s 〈τὰς〉
τῶν both tidy up the list, perhaps in an attempt to make it all fit better
together, but it is not clear either that they succeed in that, or that it
needs to be tidier.
a32–3 πρὸς ὠνὰς μόνον καὶ πράσεις scripsi. Ιn P, the rough breathing
over ων is apparently changed to (the sign for) -ας, though with the cir-
cumflex left in place, and ἴσως: πρὸς ὠνὰς is written either by the same
or by a different hand in the margin, apparently with the intention for it
to replace ἀγορὰς. (Harlfinger reports that πρὸς ὠν becomes πρὸς ὧν
[‘πρὸς ὧν C et p. corr. P2’]; I read the evidence differently, but it is
admittedly hard to be quite sure what the sequence of events was.) Ιn C,
the iota of πρᾶσι is overwritten with ει; in L a sigma is inserted between
πρὸ and ὧν, ὧν marked for deletion, and, if this corrector follows the
same convention as others (after all, the point is to make the Greek make
sense, and the correctors like the copyists appear generally either to
speak Greek or to know their Greek well), πράσει is by implication
changed to πράσεις. (Similarly, perhaps, with P2’s correction of πρᾶσι
to πρᾶσις; might he even be implicitly deleting ὦν, with L?) B, for his
part, if he was faced with the same mess as PCL, as he presumably was,
went straight for simplification—and interestingly both Bessarion, in
Par. 2042, and Marc. 213 independently offer the same solution as B;
10 Eudemian Ethics I
(1215a32–3) perhaps it just was the obvious way out. How to explain
the mess in PCBL themselves? My own thought is that ἀγορὰς was
originally a gloss on ὠνὰς μόνον καὶ πράσεις, but became absorbed
into the text, with μόνον corrupted to μὲν—for which, clearly, there is
no use in the context; P2’s reconstruction is consistent with this.
a33 τῶν εἰς L1, τῶν οὖν εἰς L2: L2 inserts οὖν above the line (a decent
conjecture: resumptive οὖν?).
a34–5 τῶν καὶ πρότερον . . . τοῖς ἀνθρώποις secl. Walzer: the whole
clause does have something of the feel of a gloss, and would not be missed;
on the other hand, if a gloss is what it is, or originally was, it is well adapted
to the syntax of the sentence, and there is no compelling reason to expel it.
a36 What appears here in the margin in P, i.e. τρεῖς βίοι εἰσὶν ἀρετὴς
ϕρονήσεως καὶ ἡδονής, is plainly a summary or heading, not a sugges-
tion for emending the text; L, in its margin, has a more laconic
τρεῖς βίοι.
a37 ἐπ’ ἐξουσίας τυγχάνοντες: an alternative to Spengel’s proposals
might be to suppose that an ὄντες has slipped out through haplography,
but it is easily enough understood in any case.
1215b1 The gap in B after ἀπολαυστικόν is not caused—as some gaps

are—by any fault in the parchment; a heavy dot resembling a Greek
colon appears after ἀπολαυστικόν, and the gap may just be B’s way of
indicating the beginning of—what he sees as—a new section (cf. on
b14 below).
b10 ἐρόμενον BP2, ἐρώμενον P1CL: P2 corrects omega to omicron above

the line. Either the omega was in ω, the original common source of PCBL,
and B made the correction independently, like P2, or else PCL all made
the same—very common—mistake (omega for omicron or vice versa).
b14 ὡς ἄνθρωπον εἰπεῖν: both Russell’s and Richards’s emendations are

surely unnecessary; ὡς ἄνθρωπον εἰπεῖν is perfectly intelligible for the
required sense, i.e. ‘if it’s a human being we’re talking about’. —There is
another slightly shorter gap in B here, after μακάριον εἶναι, also with
what looks like a Greek colon (cf. on b1 above).
Aristotelica 11
b19 δι’ ἃ suppl. P2/3: i.e. P2 writes ἴσως: διὰ προΐενται τὸ ζῆν οἷον νόσους
ὠδύνας χειμῶνας in the margin, and then another hand corrects διὰ
to δι’ ἃ.
b20 For P2’s ὠδύνας, see preceding note. —καὶ is surrounded in C with
four dots, indicating deletion.
b23 B2 adds a breathing over the second alpha of ἀνακάμψαι: B is often

lackadaisical about splitting words/observing gaps between words, and
here the ἀν becomes separated from the rest of the word.
b24 The μὲν after ἐχόντων is plainly superfluous, ἐχόντων μὲν being a
doublet of ἐχόντων μὲν in the next line: so, once again, is B independ
ently correcting?
b29 κἂν is in the margin in P, with insertion marks there and beside καὶ,
which is the first word in the line.
b29–30 ἀπέραντον, τί scripsi, ἀπέραντόν τι PCBL: changing the

accents—on which PCBL, as a group, are in any case less than wholly
solution than Rav.’s ἀπέραντόν τι 〈οὐ〉, adopted by editors.

reliable, especially where τις and τίς are concerned—is a more economical
b33 πορίζοι PCBL, πορίζει Bekker: the optative fits well enough, given
the context (‘who would choose . . . without whatever pleasures x, y, z . . .
might provide?’).
b34 πορίζοι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις is repeated after προτιμήσειε in P but

crossed out, whether by the original copyist, looking back, or more likely
by another hand.
b35 δῆλον appears in the left margin of C, on the first line on the page,
crammed up against the γὰρ, apparently—messily—supplied by a sec-
ond hand, with what looks like a confirmatory eta above, either from
this corrector or a third hand.
b36 διενέγκοιεν L: the -εν is added as a compendium, unusually for

this MS, above the line and above the second iota.
1216a2 μοναρχιῶν: Fritzsche and Susemihl both write μοναρχῶν, fol-

lowing Lat. (the late Latin translation), but Aristotle would surely have
(1216a2) used μόναρχος (so Rackham); but μοναρχιῶν, on which

PCBL all agree, while surprising is not terminally objectionable.
a3 ἐν τῷ: editors before Walzer/Mingay for some reason preferred τοῦ,
but the unity of PCBL around the perfectly acceptable ἐν τῷ is decisive.
—τὶ B: as observed above, there is a general carelessness in B about the
distinction between acute and grave accents, no doubt partly because of
its tendency to integrate accents with characters.
a8 καθεύδοντα δὲ: another independent correction by B (the μὲν is
nonsensical, as Rav. also sees)?
a12 B2 adds οι above the alpha of ταῦθ’.
a18 To reiterate: ‘δὴ] δὲ PCL’ indicates, by elimination, that B has the δὴ
(attributed by Walzer/Mingay to all of Marc.2, Langerbeck, and Allan); a
happy mistake, another independent correction, or did the hyparche-
type α´ reproduce a δὴ in ω?
a19 ϕαίνονται τάττειν PCL, τάττονται B: ϕαίνονται τάττοντες?
a23 ἀληθῶς: the special sign after ἀληθ in C indicating an ending in
-ως (cf. πως in b10) seems to postdate the apparently partly erased sign
for -ους.
a34 The καλῶς proposed by Bonitz for PCL’s καλὰς is found in B.
a36 A definite article before ἡδοναὶ here would not be out of place (B,
Rackham, and by implication Inwood and Woolf in the Cambridge
translation), but ‘there are other pleasures . . .’ makes perfectly good
sense, and since it appears in both recensiones we should probably
keep it.
a38 The ligature used here in B for -αρα in παρὰ is standard, and is barely
distinguishable from the one used for -ερι (see e.g. περὶ at 1217b40);
similarly with the somewhat different ligatures used by P and C, and no
doubt also ω. PCBL all not infrequently confuse the two prepositions.
1216b2 λόγου: an upsilon is introduced by a correcting hand—perhaps
contemporaneous with Rav., perhaps not—in Laur. 81,20 above the iota
of λόγοι; also by Victorius in his Aldine. (The abbreviation λόγ´ in C
Aristotelica 13
[see Walzer/Mingay] indicates that it has the same ending as the previ-
ous word, so: λόγοι.)
b3 The τοῦ for τὸ, before γινώσκειν, preferred by B2 (introducing a

ligature for ου over the tau) is an interesting variation.
b7 P2 changes the breathing but as usual leaves the other part of the
correction—ὥστ’ to ὥσθ’—to be understood.
b8 The μὲν is omitted/deleted in Marc., then by Bekker; Susemihl

restores it.
b12 τέλος post ἕτερον suppl. Casaubon: we certainly cannot under-

stand τέλος, but nor should we; the sense is ‘there is nothing else
belonging to astronomy. . . ’.
b19 The acute accent on ἤ in B suggests but does not quite make it cer-
tain (given B’s sometimes cavalier relation to accents) that the grave on
τι is a later addition.
b23 ἀνδεῖοι P1: the rho is supplied above by P2 with an insertion mark.
b27 Spengel’s conjecture τούτων πάντα (with πάντα as masculine sin-

gular) starts from the order τούτων πάντων preferred, without justifi-
cation, by e.g. Oxon., the Aldine, Bekker, and Rackham, and supposes/
explains χρώμενον in the line below; but Spengel himself remains
undecided between τούτων πάντα (χρώμενον) and τούτων πάντων
(χρωμένους).
b28 P2 writes ἴσως: χρωμένους in the margin.
b35 γνωριμώτατα ends in B in what is apparently a version of the

shorthand used for τατα in MSS like P and C; there is a mark below the
line of a sort apparently used elsewhere (e.g. at 1217a36) to indicate
separation between words, which perhaps suggests that one reader might
have wanted to read the τατα as ταῦτα. —Richards’s ἀντὶ would be in
keeping with Aristotle’s general usage, and I know of no parallels for
μεταλαμβάνειν as it would be used here, with acc. and plain gen., of
taking one thing in exchange for another; nevertheless to print the ἀντὶ
would be to close the door on the possibility that the verb could have
(1216b35) been used in such a way, when PBCL are unanimous in pro-
posing that it can.
b38 The genitive τῶν πολιτικῶν, pace Victorius (‘fort. τὸν πολιτικὸν’ in
margin), looks sound enough, with τὴν τοιαύτην θεωρίαν, and though we
might have expected Aristotle to refer to the politician per se, there is no
reason why he should not for once be referring to politicians in general.
b40 For Fritzsche’s ϕιλοσόϕου, cf. 1217a1; and the difference between
-ον and -ου, when they are written out, is minuscule. However the copy-
ists of PCBL all evidently had ϕιλόσοϕον before them, and it looks
viable enough.
1217a6 τῶν μήτ’ ἐχόντων B, ὑπὸ τούτων τῶν μήτ’ ἐχόντων PCL:
translators (Solomon, Woods, Kenny, Inwood/Woolf), reading ὑπὸ
τούτων τῶν μήτ’ ἐχόντων, take the preceding ὧν (ὑϕ’ ὧν) as referring
to ‘reasons’ given or ‘arguments’ made by the subject of the preceding
ποιοῦσιν, i.e. the τινες of a1, but this is awkward, because it leaves us
with ὑπό occurring twice, in the same sentence less than ten words
apart, with the causation/agency assigned to two different things. The
difference between them could perhaps be elided, since after all the
arguments will belong to the τινες. But in my view it would be more
natural to take ὧν itself to refer to the τινες (given that they are the
subject of the main verb of the present sentence), in which case ὑπὸ
τούτων τῶν κτλ would be epexegetic of ὑϕ’ ὧν; and then ὑπὸ τούτων
appears out of place, insofar as Aristotle now introduces a further
description of the people already being referred to in the clause (I note
that none of the translators mentioned above appears to translate
τούτων). Langerbeck recognizes the problems and recommends sur-
gery, cutting out the whole of ὑπὸ τούτων τῶν . . . 7 ἢ πρακτικήν (per-
haps as a gloss?). But the lack of ὑπὸ τούτων in B—whether by chance
or by judgement: presumably the copyist of B had the same text in front
of him as those of PCL—offers a more economical solution, namely to
take τῶν μήτ’ ἐχόντων κτλ itself as straightforwardly in apposition to
the relative ὧν; I surmise that the relatively unexpected, though per-
fectly regular nature of the construction led to the introduction of ὑπὸ
τούτων as a false correlative of ὑϕ’ ὧν.—ἔχειν post μήτε suppl. Ross:
Aristotelica 15
Dirlmeier is probably right to say that ἔχειν is to be (and can be) under-
stood. It would certainly have been easier on the eye if Aristotle had
written in the ἔχειν, but that is not always his way in EE, even in its
more fluent parts.
a12 πάντως Langerbeck: but πάντα, ‘in everything’, is surely better.
a14 καὶ διότι is the pair of a11 διά τε τὸ ῥηθὲν ἀρτίως. This edition
does without parenthesizing brackets, chiefly on the grounds that
Aristotle’s parentheses tend to be part of the forward sweep of his argu-
ment: that is, rather than being hermetically sealed units, like their
modern counterparts, they can include elements that are indispensable
to the onward movement of the surrounding argument. That may not be
quite the case here, and brackets would in this instance certainly make
the text more immediately readable; thus Bekker, then Susemihl and
Walzer/Mingay, all bracketing off a13–14 νῦν δ’ . . . τοῖς εἰρημένοις. But
in following his train of thought Aristotle quite often writes unwieldy
sentences, and if brackets make them more reader-friendly, they often
unhelpfully obscure the argument in the process; even here, a13–14 is
actually of a piece with what precedes it. In extreme cases, where a
parenthesis actually interrupts the syntax, I use dashes.
a19 δὲ: καὶ L; δὲ καὶ Ald., and then also Walzer/Mingay, attributing
it to Walzer. The crucial question, introduced by L’s καὶ, is how far
back the proemion is meant to stretch; I take it to be just to the begin-
ning of the last paragraph, which looks to be a proemion par excel-
lence, and so prefer PCB’s δὲ. Walzer/Mingay’s δὲ καὶ derives
immediately from Susemihl’s ‘δὲ om. [Oxon. Marc.] // καὶ secl.
Spengelius Susem.’ Bekker also had δὲ καὶ (‘δὲ om. [Marc.]’). But
PCB all have just δὲ, and I see no compelling reason to combine this,
as the expected connective (though connectives are not infrequently
missing in EE), with L’s καὶ.
a21 ἐπὶ τῷ σαϕῶς (B): i.e. ‘for the sake of clarity’ (see LSJ s.v. ἐπί
Β.ΙΙΙ.2), picking up on the σαϕῶς of 1216b34, with εὑρεῖν not part of
a noun clause (i.e. τῷ σαϕῶς εὑρεῖν) but rather a straightforward
infinitive after ζητοῦντες; το (PCL) for τω and vice versa is a stand-
ard error.
1217a34–5 οὐδὲ τῶν ἀγαθῶν: I understand ‘so not participating in the

relevant goods either (i.e. those involving movement, as πρακτὰ ἀγαθά
do)’—another example of the often elliptical style of EE.
a38 What B writes here is apparently πράξεως; it is hard, at any rate, to
see what else it could be (at first sight it seems to end -κης, but the accent
is against it, appearing as it does over what ought to be a preceding
alpha). The mess may reflect the copyist’s own uncertainty about what
was in his source.
b5 Bessarion evidently saw there was something wrong with τῷ αἴτιῳ,
but changed the wrong word. —The same correction he then makes of
ἀγαθοῦ to ἀγαθοῖς is also later made by Victorius (with a ‘γρ.’).
b10 ἐκείνης: the ἐκείνοις in B is corrected with an eta above the οι.
b21 ἰδέας: editors adopt Marc.’s ἰδέαν (also proposed by Victorius, with
a ‘γρ.’), not knowing of B’s ἰδέας—which Bessarion also reads, it seems
independently, in Par. 2042.
b22 B has a wavy line under the ουο of ὁτουοῦν, perhaps signalling
(wrongly) a need for correction; cf. L at b27.
b27 τῷ ὄντι ἀγαθόν: the evidence overall suggests that ω, the common
source of PCBL, lacked the definite article before ἀγαθόν; P inserts it,
while B adds a τὸ in a different place, creating a new and different, and
wrong, sense. Cf. 1218a14–15 πᾶσι γὰρ ὑπάρχει κοινόν, another exactly
parallel case where we might have expected the article; perhaps also
1218a21, 38 (L has a wavy line under the omega and omicron of τωόντι,
evidently indicating the need for correction; cf. B at b22).
b29 πρός τι for πότε in Marc., as reported by Walzer/Mingay (I have
not checked), would presumably be attraction to the following πρὸς
(τούτοις).
b33 〈τὸ〉 διδασκόμενον is preferred by editors, but the omission of the
second article under these conditions is common in EE. (Walzer/
Mingay attributes the article to Rav., while Susemihl, saying that P and
Pal. 165 omit it, implies that C, Marc., and Oxon. also have it. C does not;
Marc., copying from Rav., presumably does have it, and it would not be
particularly striking, or interesting, if Oxon. supplied it independently.)
Aristotelica 17
b34 παρὰ: B here, unusually, mimics the shorthand for παρά found in
MSS like P and C, which the L copyist presumably misread in ω.
1218a2 Bessarion’s πρῶτον for πρότερον is perhaps just an error of tran-

scription (but cf. Spengel at 1217b13); he goes on to write προτέρου for
πρῶτου in the next line, as does Spengel, independently, and πρῶτον for
πρότερον in a8, all of which plays havoc with the argument (this is a rare
lapse on his part). Spengel himself then writes πρότερον for πρῶτον in a5
and a6; it is not clear whether his version does any better than Bessarion’s.
a8 Barnes calls Rassow’s conjecture of ἔτι for the MSS’ εἰ ‘palmary’, but
(a) the ἢ both provides the required connective and suitably introduces
a new (step in the) argument: ‘or else τὸ κοινὸν turns out to be the ἰδέα’,
i.e. in all cases, whereas we have just been considering the cases ἐν ὅσοις
ὑπάρχει τὸ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον; (b) ἤ and εἰ are not infrequently
confused, because the ligature for εἰ in these MSS is close in shape to ἤ,
while being clearly distinguishable from ἔτι, which is always written out
in full. The latter is not a decisive consideration on its own, but provides
support for (a), if (a) holds.
a14 Susemihl, and then Walzer/Mingay, accept Rassow’s supplement

(τὸ ἀγαθὸν μᾶλλον ἀγαθὸν τῷ ἀίδιον εἶναι· οὐδὲ) between οὐδὲ and
δὴ, but such a conclusion is surely obvious enough not to need stating
(and in any case one would have expected οὔτε . . . οὔτε . . . rather than
οὐδὲ . . . οὐδὲ . . .). Woods, in his commentary ad loc., thinks even more is
missed out, sketching what he thinks needs to be added to make a
decent argument. But I propose that a satisfactory sense can be made of
what the MSS give us. Just as we can easily supply the conclusion that
the good is not made more of a good by being ἀΐδιον, so we can supply
‘and if the [form of] the good is more of a good’ to complete what fol-
lows: ‘and so (ὥστε), sc. if the ἰδέα is more of a good, then neither
(οὐδὲ) is τὸ κοινὸν ἀγαθὸν ταὐτὸ τῇ ἰδέᾳ (the hypothesis we were
working with: a8–9 ἢ συμβαίνει τὸ κοινὸν εἶναι τὴν ἰδέαν, κτλ [hence
οὐδὲ δὴ]), because it—a15 κοινόν = τὸ κοινόν, subject—belongs to
every good [sc. which the form will not if it is somehow more of a good
than other goods]’. This is standard Eudemian ellipse. —ταὐτὸ: C alone
has the crasis mark.
1218a15 ‘γρ. ἢ ὡς’, then (a17) ‘γρ. ἀνομολογουμένων’, Victorius.

a23 τάξις καὶ ἠρεμία: or should we read τάξεις καὶ ἠρεμίαι, rather
than accepting B’s τάξις—which appears in Rav., Matr. 4627, and
Ambr., all independently, it seems, of B—in the same phrase? After all,
we have just had τάξεις . . . καὶ ἀριθμοί (a19), as part of the same dialectical
argument. On the other hand, the plural there could be the cause of the
plural τάξεις here in PCL. —P2’s ἀριθμοί, in the margin, prefaced with
ἴσως, continues the process, substituting for ἠρεμία because of the
plural τάξεις, and in imitation of a19.
a27 γρ: τοῦτο P2 in margin. Τhe γρ is followed by something super-
script; probably αι, as Harlifinger says, so γρ[άϕετ]αι, but possibly (see
on a38 below) -ον, so γρ[απτέ]ον.
a29 ἀλόγοις L: an easy error, perhaps, after the ending -εν. (It is perhaps
worth recording that P, for instance, has two separate ligatures/marks
for -ως, one of which lends itself easily to being confused with that for
-ου; both appear, I notice, in this stretch in P, apparently with no rule as
to when or why one might be preferred over the other.)
a36–7 Cook Wilson actually proposed to bracket a37–8 ἔτι οὐ πρακτόν
as well, but that seems a step too far; it is ἔτι καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ
γεγραμμένον, ἢ γὰρ . . . ἢ πάσαις ὁμοίως that is suspect, for the follow-
ing reasons. Aristotle is summing up (ἔχει ἀπορίας τοιαύτας, κτλ).
Now ἔτι καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ γεγραμμένον . . . either (a) refers back, or
(b) refers to some other work. If (a), then he has no need for τὸ ἐν τῷ
λόγῳ γεγραμμένον; the point in question has been made (at consider-
able length, if only implicitly) in 1217b24–1218a1, and the ones men-
tioned in the last sentence were already similarly ἐν τῷ λόγῳ
γεγραμμένα—why, then, describe this point thus and not the others?
So—if it is a backward reference—τὸ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ γεγραμμένον must
have been written by someone else. If (b), i.e. if the reference is supposed
to be to some other work, its form is too vague for Aristotle to think it
could be useful to a reader, or perhaps even to himself (we should not,
I think, rule out the possibility that he could indulge on occasion in
notes to himself ); indeed, it would not even be useful to the glossator.
I conclude that the sentence in question refers back to the discussion we
Aristotelica 19
have just had, and that it was written by someone other than Aristotle; it
was a glossator’s amplification of Aristotle’s own summing up, and got
itself incorporated into it in the process of transmission.
a38 αὐτοαγαθόν B2: there is what looks like a circumflex over the final
letter of αὐτὸ and the gap between it and ἀγαθόν, probably intended to
indicate that the two words should rather be one. Aristotle presumably
cannot be saying that τὸ κοινὸν ἀγαθόν is not itself good, and while
αὐτὸ ἀγαθόν could possibly be Eudemian Greek for αὐτὸ τἀγαθόν
(P2, regularizing, writes in the margin γρ[απτέ]α: οὔτε αὐτὸ τἀγαθὸν
ἐστὶ or ἔστι: the α, or what looks like α, is superscript: Harlfinger reads
γρ[άϕετ]αι), it seems reasonable, in the absence of the definite article
from all of PCBL before corrections, to accept the gift from B2,
αὐτοαγαθόν being an Aristotelian formation (Met. 998a28). (We might
have wished for a definite article with αὐτοαγαθόν itself, but so too we
might have wished for one in 1217b27.) The crasis mark on P2’s
τἀγαθόν appears to be written twice, probably as a result of his moving
it so that it is more clearly over the first alpha: either that, or P2 intends
τ’ ἀγαθόν, which seems unlikely, although oddly Walzer/Mingay prints
it in the text.
1218b2 ὑπάρξη CBL: the final character in B is actually somewhat
ambiguous; it is probably an eta, but is nonetheless close in some
respects to the ligature for ει—thus illustrating the ease with which the
mistake, eta for ει, can be made.
b5 πρακτὸν2 in B is split πρα-κτὸν between two lines, and there is what
looks like a hyphen before the second part.
b6 τοῦτο Laur. 81,42 (and Spengel): but see e.g. 1219a24.
b8 L puts a heavy stop after ϕανερὸν (accenting -ὸν), seemingly taking
it as marking the end of the previous sentence, which suggests how a
connective could have fallen out (and οὖν [Brandis] would perhaps be
the most at risk after -ὸν). Connectives are sometimes absent in EE, but
probably not here, where Aristotle is announcing the conclusion of a
major set of arguments.
b15 τοιαῦτ’/τοιαῦτα is quite defensible, if we take Aristotle to be saying
‘by their being things of such a sort’, i.e. each such as to be something, in
(1218b15) its own way, κύριον πασῶν, sc. ἐπιστήμων. L’s τοιαύτας looks
like a dittography after ἄλλας, which Bekker then makes into proper Greek.
b18 τἄλλα CB1L: B2 adds what looks like a second crasis mark but which
is probably a signal to split up τἄλλα into τὰ ἄλλα.
b19 τοῦ P1CBL, τὸ1 P2: there are clear signs of an erasure after the τὸ in
P; the likelihood is that there was originally a τοῦ, as in CBL, mimicking
the following οὗ. —τοῦ P1CBL, τὸ2 P2: here the correction in P is
achieved by crude overwriting.
b21 Woods adopts Ross’s καίτοι, translating ‘but an efficient cause of

health’s existence, not of its being good’, but (a) this would perhaps be an
unusual way to use καίτοι; (b) ‘not of . . .’ suggests καὶ οὐ rather than
ἀλλ’ οὐ, and (c) τόδε, picking up αἴτιον, as it does, is both a more eco-
nomical solution for the impossible τότε and makes perfect sense.
b28 [μετὰ ταῦτα ἄλλην λαβοῦσιν ἀρχήν]: Aristotle might have c hosen
to finish a book with the same words he would use to start the next one
(minus the connective, which of course won’t fit here), as a way of
marking the continuity between Book I and Book II, but it seems more
likely that someone else did it. (P has the title of the following book,
‘ἠθικῶν εὐδημίων – – – – β´ ’ starting a line and λαβοῦσιν ἀρχήν, offi-
cially the last two words of Book I, ending the same line, an arrangement
that perhaps suggests the same idea, i.e. that the repetition is there sim-
ply to link the two books.) Susemihl’s proposal to bracket either the
whole of the last sentence of Book I or the first sentence of Book II is
probably excessive, although it must be said that even without μετὰ
ταῦτα ἄλλην λαβοῦσιν ἀρχήν, the end of Book I as the MSS preserve
it, with its threefold ἄριστον, is distinctly problematical (‘turbata quae-
dam in his verbis esse monet Bu[ssemaker]’, Susemihl). Allan’s supple-
ment of καὶ after ποσαχῶς gives the sentence a better structure, but it is
not clear that Book II actually does examine ‘in how many ways τὸ ὡς
τέλος ἀγαθὸν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ τὸ ἄριστον τῶν πρακτῶν is also τὸ
ἄριστον πάντων’—if that is what Allan intends. Not dissimilar prob-
lems arise with the last full sentence of EE VIII/V: there in EE VIII/V
I emend, and it may be that surgery is needed here too, but it is hard to
see exactly where to begin the cutting. (I might start with the definite
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
land, was a stream of water running from the mountains, that would answer
his purpose for manufacturing sugar. In a part of it that possessed all local
advantages, he had made a dam and collected part of the materials for a
mill, to be constructed in the simplest manner, but which, for the want of
mechanical aid, lay in almost the same rude state in which he had purchased
them. He anticipated, however, with great confidence, that by the time the
cane was ready for cutting, the mill would be prepared, when the hopes by
which he had first been stimulated, could scarcely fail to be realized. The
sugar cane grows wild upon the Sandwich Islands, and Mr. Wilkinson's
fields were from the native growth, which he had planted in prepared land,
and at our departure, the canes were upwards of six feet high.
Although several strangers, familiar with the arts of civilized countries,

have settled and lived, for many years, amongst the Sandwich Islanders, Mr.
Wilkinson was the first individual who ever attempted to put them in
practice, upon a scale, sufficiently extensive to improve, materially, the
agricultural condition of the islands, and thereby prove to the inhabitants
the wealth they possess, in a rich soil, and one of the finest climates on the
face of the globe. Should Mr. Wilkinson be successful, the result of his
experiment will probably do more towards the civilization of the natives,
and their ultimate advancement in knowledge and lasting prosperity, than
has yet been effected by all the white men that have lived amongst them.
This, I am aware, will be considered a rash assertion by the good people of
our country, who, from the best of motives, feel deeply engaged in foreign
missions, and, in expressing this opinion, I will also bear testimony to the
useful services of the missionaries. From the best information that I could
obtain upon the subject, I am satisfied, that they have improved the morals
of the people, and if they devote themselves to the schools that they have
established, and to introducing the arts of life and civilization, the time may
not be distant, when the natives will be prepared to receive Christianity. But
in their present condition, would it not be better, and more in the true spirit
of that benevolence and philanthropy which is inspired by our religion, to
teach them how to cultivate their land, to introduce grain and fruits,
congenial to the climate, and to plant and reap as we do, rather than imbue
their minds with a mysterious doctrine, which, being beyond their
comprehension, must resolve itself into a dark and intolerant superstition.
The inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands, are mild, amiable, and
intelligent, and susceptible of the highest degree of moral and intellectual
improvement. As a people, it may be said, that the stamp of civilization is
scarcely perceptible yet upon them; and it is now inevitable, that they must
bear the impress of those, whom our philanthropists have sent to convert
them to Christianity; and, whether they become ignorant zealots, or
intelligent Christians, will depend upon their teachers. The situation of
these missionaries is, therefore, one of high responsibility, and ought not, in
Christian charity, to be occupied by the narrow-minded fanatic, or the
ignorant zealot. It is of the first importance that they, who dispose of the
vast means of the missionary society, should select only such men for
civilizing and Christianizing the Sandwich Islanders, as are distinguished
for their knowledge, and love of the useful arts of life, as well as for
practical piety.
The harbour of Onavoora, is a place of general rendezvous for the whale

ships, cruising on the coast of Japan, and in the vicinity of the islands. The
months of January, February, and March, being the least favourable for their
business, they then leave their cruising ground, and go in search of
refreshment. No place is so convenient for them as the Sandwich Islands,
and the port of Onavoora, being the most commodious of any in the group,
and affording an abundant supply of vegetables, hogs, &c.,—they all
congregate there in the months above mentioned.
The average number that visit the island in the course of the year, is
upwards of fifty. More than twenty were there together, at several different
periods of our stay, some of which remained a few days, some weeks, and a
few one or two months, according to their several necessities. At such times
the seamen, from having been long confined to the narrow precinct of their
vessels, become very insubordinate, and frequently give way to the most
licentious indulgences of their passions, regardless of every obligation of
obedience due to their officers. We witnessed frequent instances of this
kind, and had the satisfaction of being constantly useful to the captains of
ships, and the whaling interest, by restraining the violent, and coercing
them to a proper sense of duty.
A most unpleasant occurrence took place about six weeks after our
arrival at Onavoora, arising from this disposition of the seamen, and other
causes, which was afterwards greatly misrepresented in this country. Some
of the seamen of the Dolphin, who were on liberty, got into a frolic, and,
associating themselves with many others belonging to the whale ships,
determined to go to the houses of the high chiefs and missionaries, and
demand the repeal of a restriction that deprived them of the society of
females. They produced a riot that gave rise to a considerable degree of
excitement for a few minutes; but Captain Percival, with some of the
officers of the Dolphin, and captains of whale-ships, promptly suppressed
it, and prevented any serious outrage. It was afterwards unjustly and most
ungenerously ascribed to the officers of the Dolphin.
The white population of Onavoora is of a varied character, from the

agent of our North West traders, to the most abandoned members of society.
There are from fifty to a hundred, permanently settled at Onavoora; the
least respectable of whom, maintain themselves by keeping tippling shops
Tor sailors, and practising such chicaneries as are suggested by
opportunities and the absence of law. The season for the whalers to visit the
Island is the time of their harvest, when, besides their gains from
entertaining the seamen, they frequently prevail upon them to desert for the
sake of the reward for their apprehension, or to strip them of what little
money or clothes they may be possessed of. Some of them have married
women of the Island, and live much in the same way as the natives. Of all
the permanent settlers at Onavoora, the most remarkable was a Spaniard by
the name of Meninne, who had been in the Islands upwards of thirty years.
Of his manner of getting there, a variety of stories were told. His own
account was, that being invited on board of a vessel that visited the coast of
California, he fell asleep in the evening, and, when he awoke, found himself
at sea, and the vessel running, with a fair wind, for the Sandwich Islands.
All his entreaties to be returned to land were in vain, and he arrived at
Owhyhee, where, poor and friendless, he was landed amongst the natives.
He wandered from island to island, in a forlorn and wretched condition,
until he was taken under the patronage of Tamahamaha. For a long time, he
followed the fortunes of the native warrior, and at length fixed his residence
at Oahoo, from whence he occasionally embarked as interpreter on board of
merchant vessels, bound on smuggling voyages to the coast of America.
After passing through a variety of fortune, being several times made
prisoner and threatened with death, he finally quitted his vagrant life, and
remained permanently at Oahoo, where, by great industry and economy, he
has acquired an amount of property which, for that place, is a princely
fortune. Besides having money in the United States and England, he owns
nearly all the cattle on the Island of Oahoo, a number of horses, flocks of
goats, sheep, &c. He has extensive possessions in land, which he holds
from the chiefs in consideration of his services, and a great many houses.
He has taken some pains to introduce exotics in the Islands, and besides the
lemon, orange, and other valuable fruits, has a vineyard from which he
makes a considerable quantity of wine annually. He is said to be extremely
selfish, and so jealous of preserving to himself a monopoly of these
valuable fruits, that he has been accused of destroying the young plants of
others. He is considered as ranking amongst the chiefs in the enjoyment of
certain privileges; and, speaking the language of the Islands well, is called
upon as interpreter for the government upon all important occasions. He has
had thirty-seven children by various wives, and is yet in the prime of life.
Like most men who have felt the cold hand of poverty, and afterwards
acquired wealth, he is extremely penurious, and thinks of nothing so much
as adding to his fortune without knowing how to enjoy it.
On the 3d of April, the young king and all the high chiefs, were invited
on board to spend the day with us. In the morning, we dressed the schooner
in all the flags we could muster, and made the best preparation our limited
accommodation would admit of to receive our distinguished guests. No
indication of their appearance was seen for some time after every thing was
in readiness, and our boats on shore in waiting, and we were kept in
suspense until we had almost despaired of seeing them. All at once the
whole town was in an uproar, and the people were running and hallooing in
every direction. The young king in advance, walked arm in arm with one of
the officers of the Dolphin. Next came Boque and his spouse, with other
high dignitaries, and in the rear a multitude of people of both sexes and all
ages. When they had embarked, the eyes of the people were turned upon
another object, not less interesting to them than the king. Crimacu, or Billy
Pitt, too ill to walk, was gravely making his way to the beach in a hand cart,
where he got into a boat and came on board soon after the king. We
received them with manned yards, and a salute of twenty-one guns. The
king, who was a boy of ten or twelve years old, was dressed in a military
uniform that was sent to him from the king of England, and upon his
shoulders he wore a pair of golden epaulets, with crowns on them. He
appeared to be sensible of his rank, and, upon two or three occasions,
addressed his attendants in a way that indicated a wish to make a display of
his authority. The chiefs conducted themselves towards him with a
becoming respect, but without bestowing upon him any attention that might
interfere with their own enjoyment or convenience. Instead of partaking of
what we had provided for our guests, they, with one or two exceptions,
unceremoniously uncovered their poye pots, which had been brought with
them by an attendant, and ate heartily of their favourite food, using their
fingers as is the native custom. Boque again displayed his major general's
uniform, and was amongst the most polished of our guests. After passing a
number of hours on board, they returned to the shore delighted with their
visit. The same compliment was paid them as at their reception. It was a
day of great enjoyment with the common people. They received their chiefs
on landing with loud huzzas, and followed them in crowds to their
respective habitations.
We passed all the winter months at Onavoora, during which we had

frequent heavy rains. Some of the storms were attended with violent gales,
and disagreeably cold weather. About the 3d of May, an influenza made its
appearance amongst the inhabitants of Oahoo, and in two days not a well
native was any where to be seen. The market, from being well attended,
was deserted. In a week, the distress was so general and so great, that it was
feared the poor people would perish with hunger. I visited several families,
not a member of which was able to help himself or others, and all were
totally destitute of food. A great many of the people died, and amongst the
rest two chiefs, one of whom was George Tamauri, a native of the Island of
Atooi, who was educated in this country. The other was Cahaliha, next in
affinity to the king. Scarcely any of the white people were affected. Not
even those living on shore. In about ten days, the people from the country
began to make their appearance in the market, the distress was greatly
alleviated, and soon afterwards the general good health restored. At such
times of suffering, the condition of these people is truly wretched. They
have no floor to their huts but the hard-beaten ground from which their
naked bodies are separated only by two or three thin mats, and during the
rainy season the earth becomes perfectly saturated with water. Their huts
are generally built in a very frail manner, and in a driving storm are not
proof against the rain. This, alone, is sufficient to account for the thinly
populated state of the islands, without charging the natives with the acts of
inhumanity that have been ascribed to them by some people.
The harbour of Onavoora is formed by coral reefs, that extend upwards

of a mile from the shore. The entrance to it is narrow and somewhat
difficult. It affords water enough for a sloop of war. A pilot in and out of the
harbour, is always employed. It is very secure, being quite land locked. The
holding ground is good, and vessels may lay in safety close along side of
the beach. The water is perfectly smooth in good weather, and the bottom
and shores being nearly every where of soft mud, a vessel might be driven
upon them in a gale without sustaining any material injury. The visits of the
numerous whale ships has made Onavoora a place of considerable trade.
All of them spend more or less money for their necessary refreshments, and
when out of repair, their disbursements are frequently very considerable.
For the supplies afforded by the natives, thousands of dollars are annually
received by them, which they give in return for silk, cotton, calicoes, cloth,
&c. Two or three stores, well stocked with a great variety of goods, are
supported in Onavoora by this interchange of commodities; and, from the
way in which the trade is conducted, there is but little doubt that the
proprietors are rewarded with handsome profits. The sandal wood has
become scarce upon the islands, from the large quantities formerly taken
away by our traders, and does not now form a very lucrative or extensive
article of commerce. Upon this article, some of our merchants are said to
have made large sums of money in exchange for whole cargoes of goods,
with the chiefs of the Sandwich Islands. It is related of Tamahamaha, that,
after making a purchase of this kind, which he paid for in ship loads of
sandal wood, brought from the mountains with great labour to himself and
people, he has been known to load a number of canoes secretly at night,
with fine broadcloths, and take them out to sea, where he sunk them with
stones. His only reason for it was, that the possession of them would make
his chiefs and people too luxurious and idle, and bringing sandal wood from
the mountains to pay for more, would give them employment. A doubtful
policy, certainly, if the statement be true. Be this as it may, himself and
successor have entailed upon their descendants a national debt of several
hundred thousands of dollars, now due to our merchants, which they will
not soon be able to liquidate.
On the 11th of May, after long anticipating our much wished for
departure, we got underway, and saluting the fort as we passed it with
twenty-one guns, stood out to sea and shaped our course for Chili. Nothing
material transpired from the time of our sailing until the 7th of June, when
standing along with a fresh trade, and the night dark and squally, at 10 P.M.,
the lookout-ahead reported land close aboard. We tacked and lay to for the
night, to survey our newly discovered island on the following morning. At
daylight, it bore S.S.W., about six miles from us, and appeared in three
small hummocs, covered thickly with trees and bushes, every where
bounded by a coral reef and heavy surf. We hesitated for some time whether
we should land, apprehending that it would be attended with too much risk,
merely for the gratification of curiosity; but this feeling operated so
powerfully upon us, that there was no resisting the desire to land where no
one had ever been before. Accordingly, two boats were sent off, and
watching a favourable opportunity passed through the surf in safety, and
landed on the coral bank where they were left high and dry by the receding
wave. It was on the lee side of the island, and a coral reef stretched off
about fifty or a hundred yards from the shore, full of holes, and almost dry
at low water. In the holes we sought for fish, as at Caroline Island, but
found very few. On traversing the island, we could find no fruit or vegetable
of any description except bup. In most places it was covered with trees and
bushes of a thick growth, almost impenetrable. In the bushes we found a
great many tropical birds setting, so tame that we could take them off of
their nests with our hands, and in getting upon the weather side of the island
where there was a clear space, we found a species of small gull, so
numerous, that when they rose from the ground at our approach, they
appeared to form almost a compact mass. The sand was literally covered
with their eggs, which, upon examination, proved to be unfit for use, with
few exceptions. The birds flew and hovered so near to us that we caught
several of them with our hands. After amusing ourselves a little while with
the novel spectacle of such numbers of birds so very tame, we collected all
the old eggs within a small space, and in less than twenty minutes after it
had been thus cleared, it was again covered with fresh eggs by the birds that
were constantly lighting. We might, in a few hours, have loaded our boats
with them. When we returned to our boats to go on board, the tide had risen,
and with it the surf had increased to an alarming degree. At first, we held a
consultation whether we should attempt to pass through it or remain until it
should again subside with the falling of the tide; but the day was far
advanced, and the appearance of the weather such, as in all probability
would render our situation extremely painful, there being every prospect of
an increase of wind. We therefore determined to put our fortune to the test,
and were not a little discouraged when on one of the boats attempting the
surf was thrown back by the second roller that she encountered with the
utmost violence, upsetting her, and scattering the people in different
directions, some of them escaping with their lives with the greatest
difficulty. Notwithstanding the ill success of our first attempt, we
determined on a second, rather than risk the consequences of longer delay.
Embracing a favourable opportunity where the surf appeared least violent,
we put off, and passed through it in safety without further accident.
The island was little more than a mile long, and from a hundred yards to
a quarter of a mile wide. It was every where very low. By a meridian
observation, we placed the north-west end of it in latitude south 21 degrees
48 minutes, and longitude by chronometer 154 degrees 54 minutes west. In
compliment to the commander of our squadron in the Pacific Ocean, we
called it Hull's Island. It may be comprehended within the group of Society
Islands.
In the afternoon, June the 4th, we made sail; and on the following day at
half-past 6 o'clock, A.M. discovered the island of Ramitaria, on the lee bow,
about eight leagues from us. This island was not laid down in any of our
charts, having been discovered only three or four years before; but we had
seen a gentlemen who had stopped there, and it was included in our list of
islands. On approaching it we were pleased to find that it differed from
many of the islands we had visited, being of a moderate elevation. It is
about three miles long and one or two wide. We ran nearly round it before
we found a place to land, the surf breaking high every where, and the shores
bounded by large rocks of coral. At last, we came to the principal
settlement, which was situated close to the shore, where a large white-
washed house indicated the former visits and influences of the missionaries.
The people, to the number of one or two hundred, were assembled on the
beach inviting us to land. Here, also, was a considerable surf and some
coral rocks, which made the landing not altogether free from difficulty.
When the boat came near the shore and while she was yet shooting rapidly
through the surf, the natives, who had already advanced to meet us, laid
hold as many as could get round her, and with loud shouting, carried us
high upon the beach. At this somewhat unexpected reception, the boat's
crew instinctively seized their pistols, thinking at first, that the natives were
hostile in their disposition towards us. It was but a momentery panic which
passed away with the kind salutations we immediately afterwards received.
When I enquired for the chief, a young man was pointed out to me in the
crowd, distinguished from the rest by an old hat on his head, that he had
obtained from some former visiter. He seemed not to be treated with the
least respect by the people, who jostled him in the crowd with the most
perfect carelessness. Scarcely had I addressed him, when a stout native
came up with an air of some importance, and saluting me, told me in the
language of the Society Islands, that he was the missionary. Upon his
approach, the chief immediately shrunk back into the crowd. He called to
him a Malay, who was not far off, and bade him ask what we wanted. The
Malay, whose name was Manoo, spoke English very well, which was a
source of great satisfaction to us, as we could thereby communicate our
wants freely, and it introduced us at once to each others' acquaintance. I
explained to Manoo that we were in want of water and such refreshments as
the island might afford. He immediately proceeded in company with the
missionary to show me where water was to be obtained. We passed through
a forest of very large trees over a plain that extended more than half a mile,
when we came to a marsh of reeds and rank grass, where there was from
one to two feet of water, covering an area of two or three acres. This would
not answer our purpose as the water was not very good, and its distance
from the place of embarkation rendered it too laborious an undertaking to
water the vessel from it. When I had remarked this to Manoo and the
missionary, they replied that there was better water, but it was still more
distant. I suffered them to conduct me to it, and we took a footpath over
rising ground, and through another delightful forest of bread-fruit and other
wide-spreading trees, passing many fine tarrow patches, and at the distance
of half a mile from the marsh, we came to a spring of excellent water.
Manoo and the missionary both expressed a great deal of disappointment
when I spoke in terms of disapprobation of this also as a watering-place—it
being altogether too far from the shore. On our return from the spring, we
took a different footpath from that by which we came, and ascended to a
more elevated part of the island to see the work of the missionary, as it was
called by Manoo. This consisted of two or three enclosures by means of
stakes, in the midst of the forest, where the trees had been cut down for
several acres, which was cleared and planted with sweet potatoes and
tobacco. The enclosures were made, and all the labour of clearing the forest
was done, as Manoo remarked, by such of the wicked and disobedient, as
had resisted the authority and ordinances of the white missionary during his
residence on the island some months previous. Since then, the white
missionary had returned to Otaheite, and sent this native missionary, who
belonged to that island, to represent him in his absence. Leaving the
enclosures of tobacco and sweet potatoes, we came into a thicket where the
trees were overrun with the vines of the yam, growing wild and covered
with beautiful blue flowers that gave a picturesque appearance to the forest,
and filled it with their fragrance. We passed five or six stone columns that
had been sixty or seventy feet high, and twenty or thirty in circumference.
They were in a dilapidated state, having in part been thrown down by order
of the missionaries. Manoo told me that they were monuments erected in
honour of the Indian god. Several of these ruins were standing by the side
of an old burial-place in the edge of the woods near the shore. Each of the
graves were neatly enclosed with a wall of stone. When we returned to the
village, I was taken to a large frame building called the missionary house,
where the missionary had prepared a roasted pig and some tarrow, for our
dinner. He designed to entertain me after the manner of the whites, and with
this view, had placed our repast on a large coarse table that stood in the
middle of the room with benches round it. When we were seated, he
unlocked a chest and took from it a plate for each of us, and a knife and
fork, all of which were extremely dirty, and the knives and forks quite
covered with rust. This, however, he did not seem to remark, although he
evidently wished me to think that he knew how to be polite, after the
fashion of my country people. He acquitted himself pretty well, to his own
satisfaction, until he attempted to use the knife and fork—but that was
altogether too much for him. After making several trials in vain to cut his
meat, he asked me to assist him; and finally, before he had half finished his
dinner, laid down his clumsy instruments and used his fingers. The chief,
and as many of the natives as could get into the room came round us, but
none of them were invited to partake with the missionary and myself,
except Manoo, whilst the hungry crowd stood looking wistfully at us.
Soon after we had finished our dinner, the captain and several of the
officers landed, and we exchanged several articles with the natives for their
pigs, yams, &c. The following day was their Sabbath and our Saturday, and
they insisted that we should remain until Monday, before any exchange of
commodities took place. When, however, we declared our determination to
depart that evening, they began collecting whatever might be acceptable to
us. Hogs of various sizes, were brought to the beach in great numbers.
Needles, jack-knives, and old clothes, were our articles of traffic, than
which we could have offered them nothing more valuable. By sundown, we
had collected from thirty to forty hogs, and a good supply of yams. In a few
hours more, we might have obtained twice as many upon the same terms.
Towards the close of the day, when the missionary felt assured that it
was our determination to depart, he asked if I was a doctor, or had any skill
in medicine; and, although I replied in the negative, insisted upon my going
to his house to see, and prescribe for his wife, who, he told me, was
extremely ill. Upon entering his hut, we found her laying on a mat on the
floor; and notwithstanding the weather was oppressively warm, she was
covered over with a great many pieces of the tappa cloth, head and all, and
perspiring most profusely. The missionary, with great gravity, but most
unceremoniously, removed all the covering, and pointed out to me her
infirmity, which was nothing more than a common bile, with which she
seemed to be suffering considerable pain. I declined prescribing, although
repeatedly requested to do so; and at sun-down, we embarked and made
sail. Had it been convenient for us to remain two days longer at Ramitarias,
we could have obtained an abundant supply of whatever the island
produced, for a very trifling consideration; but although there was
anchorage, it was unsheltered, and too near the shore for us to ride in safety.
At six, P.M. on the 10th of June, we took our departure from Ramitarias;
and at day-light, on the 13th, made the Island of Toubouai, bearing to the
northward and eastward, about eight leagues from us. In getting in with the
S.W. part of the island, we found an extensive reef, upon which the surf was
breaking with great violence. We hauled round to the east side, passing two
small uninhabited islands, but there was not the slightest appearance of a
landing-place, the surf breaking heavily as far as we could see. At four,
P.M. we anchored on the north side, in seven fathoms water, and sent boats
in search of the harbour, along the west shore. In the evening, they returned,
having found it, and on the following morning, we got underway, and beat
up for it. When we had advanced near the opening, through the coral reefs
that extend from the shore several miles, a Mr. Strong, an American, came
on board, and piloted us in through a difficult passage. The channel was
narrow, and very crooked; but we had not less than three and a half fathoms
water. Our anchorage was within a coral reef, about a mile from the shore,
in four and a half fathoms. On the day previous to entering the harbour, we
discovered that the head of our mainmast was decayed, and badly sprung.
In this situation, we congratulated ourselves in having found a secure
harbour, where the water was tolerably smooth, which was very essential in
fixing the mast securely.
Nearly all the inhabitants of Toubouai, consisting of about two hundred,

were living on the side of the island where we were anchored, in two
different settlements. One of them was the residence of two Otaheite
missionaries, who governed in spiritual and temporal affairs; and at the
other, was the residence of the king, who, since the coming of the
missionaries, retained but a small share of the power that formerly
appertained to his station. He lived on apparently good terms with the
missionaries, fearing their influence with the people, but secretly declaring
his aversion to them. He was the more afraid of offending them, as there
was a living example of their displeasure constantly before him, in the
person of one who had formerly exercised the regal authority in the
missionary village, of which they had divested him for disobedience, and
compelled him to live in the condition of a common private person. Soon
after the arrival of the missionaries, the people became divided into two
parties, one of which advocated matrimony, and the other the unrestrained
indulgence which is practised in a state of nature. The first, called
themselves the missionary party; the latter, the party of the Tutiori. After a
long struggle for the ascendency, the Tutiories took up arms and retired
from the habitable part of the island, declaring themselves independent of
the missionaries. They remained for several days undisturbed in their
disobedience, when a party was sent to bring them to terms. The Tutiories
at first retreated, but finally made a stand, and after a slight show of
resistance, submitted, promising to go home and live in the observance of
the missionary precepts. The dethroned king, was at the head of the
Tutiories.
At the lower village, as it was called by us, where the king lived, was a
party of our countrymen, who had been there for a number of months
building a vessel. They had completed the frame and commenced planking,
when, unfortunately, a quarrel arose between them and the people of the
missionary village, which terminated in open hostility, and the loss of
several lives. One of the white men only, was killed. Scarcely had they
made peace with the natives, when they quarrelled among themselves, and
nearly half of their number (four or five) discontinued their work, and
waited only for an opportunity to leave the island. This mutinous
disposition of a few, paralized the efforts of the whole party, and it was
probable from appearances, that the labour they had bestowed with so much
effect, would be entirely lost to themselves and their employer, Captain
Dana of Massachusetts, whom we had seen at Oahoo.
The king and myself, became high carnies, (or great friends) the day
after our arrival; and from that time until our departure, he did everything in
his power to merit my regard. My mess was constantly supplied with bread-
fruit, cocoa-nuts, tarrow, and bananas; and whenever I was on shore, he
waited upon me everywhere with the most friendly attention. Our friendship
commenced in the following manner, simple enough, it is true, but I believe
it was not the less sincere on that account. Seeing me with a jack-knife in
my hand, he expressed a wish to look at it, when I told him that he might
have it. He received it, and after observing me for a moment, put his hand
upon my arm and remarked, now you and I will be high carnies. I sincerely
reciprocated his kindness, so strongly recommended by the disinterested
simplicity with which it was proffered. Two or three days after our arrival, I
landed with a view of traversing the island. I found king Dick, as I used to
call him, upon a bank of coral that stretched out from his house, with a long
wooden spear in his hand, looking about in the holes for fish. He begged me
to wait until he had taken one for his dinner, and he would accompany me.
Accordingly, having succeeded in a few minutes afterwards, we set off
together.
The island was two or three miles wide, and we had not proceeded far,
when we came to an extensive marsh that runs through the middle of it.
King Dick stopped, and insisted upon carrying me over on his back. Feeling
that it was too menial an office to be performed by a king, although an
untutored native, I remonstrated with him, and positively refused to be
carried; but after resisting his importunity for some time, he took my
musket in his hand, and I mounted on his shoulders. The marsh was several
hundred yards wide, and king Dick found his burthen very heavy before he
landed me on the opposite side. We there entered upon a romantic and
extensive plain, covered with cocoa-nut, and bread-fruit trees, plantain
walks, papayas, &c.; interspersed through which, were numerous huts that
appeared to have been long deserted. We traversed this plain for miles, with
little variation; the same pleasing prospect everywhere presenting itself,
when suddenly king Dick stopped, and made the whole forest ring with the
shrill notes of his voice. After repeating it for several times, he was
answered at a distance, and soon afterwards, we saw a native making his
approaches towards us. King Dick said something to him, and he ascended
a cocoa-nut tree, after the manner of the people of the Marquesas, and threw
down a sufficient quantity of nuts to quench our thirst. He afterwards
conducted us to a house where there were two women and several children.
They were delighted to see us, and hospitably proffered whatever they had
of refreshment. They gave us a preparation of dried bread-fruit, of which
king Dick ate very heartily, but to me it was scarcely palatable. Near the
house there were several citron and lemon trees, the only ones that I saw on
the island.
In our route back, we met with large quantities of sugar cane in a wild
state. We passed the burial-place of the village, where, beside two or three
newly made graves, were rudely carved images placed there in conformity
to a native custom, that had not yet been abolished by the influence of the
missionaries. When we arrived at king Dick's house, we found dinner
waiting for us. It consisted of the fish he had taken in the morning before
our departure, roasted fowls, bread-fruit, tarrow, &c. The whole was
wrapped up in plantain leaves, and placed on a mat upon the floor, around
which, we all seated ourselves, there being a number of visiters present.
During our repast, king Dick went frequently to a large chest, where he kept
a bottle of rum I had given him, and, after proffering me the bottle, he
would help himself, and lock it up in the chest again, without taking the
least notice of the rest of his visiters. No miser ever guarded his treasure
more penuriously than the king did his bottle of rum; not only on this, but
all other occasions. His house was large, and a lounging place for all the
idle people of his village; and, although there were always a number present
when I made my visits, and he never failed to offer me a portion of his
favourite beverage, the wistful lookers-on received not the slightest notice. I
once ventured to propose to him to give some to his friends, but he said no,
it was too good for them. When, after a week's stay at Toubouai, our
departure was spoken of, king Dick expressed the liveliest regret, and
proposed going with us. We told him that he would never be able to get
back again; to which he replied, that he should not care about returning. The
day before we left, he sent me, on board, an abundant sea-stock, of fruits
and vegetables, and a good-sized hog. As a parting gift, I dressed him up in
an old uniform of mine, that seemed to give him infinite pleasure. To his
presents, his wife added several pieces of the tappa cloth, some of which,
were as fine specimens of the native manufacture, as I ever met with
anywhere.
At Toubouai, we added considerably to our collection of curiosities. The

most ingeniously wrought article, was a lash, used by the natives for
brushing the flies off of their backs. The handles were carved to represent a
man's face, or some animal familiar to them. The lash itself, was, in several
strands, finely braided from twine of the cocoa-nut husk. The natives were,
in general, naked, except a wrapper round their waists, and had a sickly and
feeble look. The island is very fertile, producing, in many parts, large
quantities of cocoa-nut and bread-fruit, and is capable, without further
improvement, of sustaining some thousands of people. The population has
greatly diminished within the recollection of recent visiters. It must have
been much greater when visited by the mutineers of the Bounty, who built a
fort on the island, but afterwards became dissatisfied, and left it in
consequence of the treacherous and hostile character of the natives. The
only survivor of those guilty men, who is now the patriarch of Pitcairn's
Island, states, that they had war with the natives previous to leaving
Toubouai, and that they killed a great many of them. His estimate of the
inhabitants at that time, is fifteen thousand. King Dick told me, that the huts
we saw on the side of the island opposite to where we anchored, were once
inhabited by people who were all dead. We obtained wood and water of a
good quality, without much labour. Hogs were scarce, and we got none but
what were presented to us. The natives gave us a few domestic fowls, in
exchange for writing paper. The paper was used by the women for making
paste-board for a bonnet, that had just been introduced amongst them by the
wives of the Otaheite missionaries.
On the island of Toubouai, there is a tree, the bark of which, makes

excellent cordage. It is produced in great abundance, and grows to the size
of six or eight inches in diameter. After the ship builders were interrupted in
their work, by the discontent of some of the party, the remainder made a
rope-walk, and devoted themselves to making rope of this bark. They had
several small cables, and a considerable quantity of rope. We purchased
some, and found it to wear nearly, or quite, as well as hemp. Arrow root,
grows spontaneously upon the island, and has been taken away by several
vessels, as an article of commerce. We were informed that the scarcity of
hogs was in consequence of a great many having been carried off recently,
by a vessel belonging to the missionaries. Also, that they lay all the small
islands under contribution, and annually send their small vessels to collect
the hogs, which they barrel, and send to Port Jackson. This may be true or
not. It was positively asserted.
Our stock of bread was nearly exhausted, and what remained, was in a
damaged state. Having failed in all our attempts to obtain a supply of yams,
that would enable us to reach the coast of South America, an examination
was held upon the bread, to the end, that we might adopt such expedients as
should be deemed most proper. Valparaiso, was our most direct port; there
was but one inhabited island (Oparro,) in our way, and that at some distance
from a straight course. To avoid, however, so disagreeable a circumstance
as being without bread, we determined to touch at Oparro, and get whatever
we could for a substitute. Accordingly, we put to sea on the 22d of June,
and on the 25th, made Oparro, a little before day-light, five leagues from us.
When we came near, its appearance was rude and inhospitable in the
extreme, being a mass of rugged mountains, about a thousand feet high, and
eight or ten miles in circumference. On the north-west side, there were no
signs of inhabitants. The mountains rose almost perpendicularly from the
Ocean, and we sounded frequently, close to the shore, without getting
bottom. In rounding the island, to the northward and eastward, we opened a
valley, where there was a number of huts, and some patches of tarrow. A
boat was sent in shore, and two of the natives came on board, who informed
us that there was a harbour to the eastward. We continued on, and after
landing at one or two other small valleys, where there were huts and tarrow
patches, opened a beautiful deep bay, that had an appearance of great
fertility. Soon afterwards, an Englishman came on board, and offered to
pilot us in. He had not advanced far with the vessel, before she grounded on
a bank of coral, but fell off immediately, on putting the helm down and
throwing all aback. We were everywhere surrounded by shoals of coral, and
fearful of accidents, came to outside of the harbour, where we had ten
fathoms of water on one side, and five on the other. The boats were sent off
immediately, in search of tarrow. It was planted everywhere, in large
patches, where there was a small valley, through which a stream of water
found its way from the mountains to the sea, and at a distance, the hills
were green with another species we had not before seen, called mountain
tarrow. The latter is superior to the low land tarrow, and will keep longer at
sea.
When we landed in the bay, which was several miles deep, we found
two different missionary establishments, occupied by natives of Otaheite.
No one else, that we saw, seemed to have any authority. They permitted us
to dig as much tarrow as we pleased, without asking any return for it, and
by night, we had as much on board as we knew what to do with. One of the
missionary establishments was situated at the extreme depth of the bay. On
landing there, I was met by the missionaries themselves, and conducted to
their house, where their wives, who were also from Otaheite, received me,
dressed in their own island costume, with large straw bonnets on their
heads. After remaining with them for a few minutes, I repaired to the place
where the boats' crew were employed in collecting tarrow. A group of
natives, male and female, had assembled round, none of whom, could be
prevailed upon by the rewards we offered them, to assist our people in their
occupation. They had a sickly look, almost without an exception. Their
dress differed altogether from any we had before seen. It consisted of a
heavy mat of grass, weighing from ten to fifteen pounds, which was thrown
over their shoulders, and another light mat of the same material, for the
loins. Their deportment was modest and retiring, and they evinced a
disposition to have but little intercourse with us. A few of their houses were
scattered about upon the hills. They were extremely miserable, and might,
without disparagement, be compared to dog kennels. They were long, and
very narrow, and about three or four feet high, so that when one entered
them, it was necessary to get down upon the hands and knees. The Otaheite
missionaries were distinguished from the natives, by wearing the tappa
cloth, of their own island, and an old cloth jacket they had obtained from
white visiters. I added something to their stock of clothes, before I took
leave of them, for which, they gave me many thanks. When I returned on
board, I found the other two missionaries there, and several of the natives,
who had accompanied the captain. They spent the night with us, and the
next morning, showed us where to obtain a quantity of the mountain tarrow.
It is large, and very much resembles the West India yam. For a vessel long
at sea, and requiring vegetables, there is none more valuable.
The Englishman who came on board to act as our pilot, was residing at
the island, in charge of a party which had been left there by the English
Consul at the Sandwich Islands, to collect beach la mer, a valuable article of
commerce, at Canton. The collecting of sandal-wood, was also to be an
object of their attention; but they told us, that both were scarce, and difficult
to obtain—a statement, we considered, of doubtful veracity.
At 2, P.M., on the 27th of June, we got underway, and made sail for
Valparaiso, which is distant from Oparro, about three thousand five hundred
miles. This island, which is called by the discoverer, Oparro, is called by the
natives, Lapa. It is situated in latitude 27 degrees 34 minutes south, west
longitude 144 degrees. At 5, P.M., we saw the islands, called by Quiros, Los
Corones, and hauled up, until eight, to clear them.
For the first three days after we sailed, it blew a severe gale from the
westward, after which, it became more moderate, but nearly all our passage
to Valparaiso, was wet and boisterous. It was less disagreeable, however,
than we anticipated, as the wind was almost constantly fair. We had the
more reason to apprehend a severe trial of our fortitude, as it was in the
dead of winter that we were advancing into a high latitude, after having
been a long time within the tropics, and besides that, our sails and rigging
were very much worn, some of our articles of provisions were quite
exhausted, and others, of the first necessity, reduced to a small quantity. If,
therefore, we had encountered tedious gales ahead, we must have suffered
greatly in our shattered and ill-fitted condition.
At 4, P.M., on the 19th of July, we made the island of Mas a Fuera, on

the coast of Chili, seventy miles from us, and at midnight, passed close to it.
At day-light, Juan Fernandes, was in sight, fifty miles off. We passed it a
little after meridian. It is very mountainous, but well covered with trees.
The interesting fable of Robinson Crusoe's adventures, has given it a lasting
fame, and rendered it an object of curiosity to all who visit this part of the
Pacific Ocean. It is very fertile, and has been tolerably well cultivated. The
Spanish captain-general of Chili, formerly made it a place of banishment,
and after the revolution took place in that country, it was appropriated to the
same purpose, by the patriots and royalists, as they alternately came into
power. A considerable town was built by the exiles, who were sent there at
different times, and the finest fruits of Chili are produced in great
abundance. The cattle that have been left upon the island, are running wild
in large herds, and several persons have found it profitable to send parties
there to kill them for their hides. The island produces some sandal-wood,
but it is small, and has never been collected in large quantities.
Fish, that very much resemble our codfish, and a variety of other kinds
are taken in the greatest abundance around Juan Fernandez and Mas a
Fuera. It is believed that if a fishery were established there by some of our
enterprising countrymen, it would be found a source of great emolument.
The privileges that might be considered necessary for the prosperity of a
company formed with this object, could easily be obtained from the
government of Chili, and there is no apparent cause why the most
successful results should not be realized. It seems only necessary to call the
attention of our capitalists to this subject, to have all its advantages secured
to our country. It has a fine harbour for the prevailing winds of summer, but
in the winter season, when the winds set in from the northward, it is
exposed. It lies a little more than three hundred miles from the coast of
Chili, and in the summer months I have known open boats to pass between
it and Valparaiso.
On the 23d of July, we anchored in the harbour of Valparaiso, a little
before day-light, to the gratification of our friends, who were becoming
very much alarmed for our safety, no information of us having been
received during the whole period of our absence. Thus, in a vessel of 180
tons burthen, poorly fitted, and having on board only about four months'
provisions, when we sailed from the coast of Peru, we performed a cruise of
upwards of eleven months in an unfrequented Ocean, rendering to our
countrymen, and many of the people whom we visited, important benefits,
besides realizing the most successful results in the primary object of our
cruise. Its beneficial effects will long be felt by our countrymen, who are
engaged in the whale-fishery; and, although we suffered many hardships,
privations, and dangers, we were happy in being the instruments, in the
hands of Providence and our government, of proving that crime cannot go
unpunished in the remotest part of the earth, and that no situation is so
perilous as to justify despair.
[1] A tree that resembles the locust. It bears a pod, like that of a bean, which
is given by the Peruvians to their horses.
[2] A retail grocery and tippling shop.
[3] Spirits distilled from the grape.
[4] Mattee, mattee—Very bad.
[5] Very good, or very well.
[6] Don't you want a wife?
[7] Com. Porter.
[8] A bird commonly called the sand-snipe. We afterwards saw them so

frequently at sea, where no land was known to exist, that their presence

Aristotelica Studies On The Text of Aristotles Eudemian Ethics Christopher Rowe Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aristotelica Studies On The Text of Aristotles Eudemian Ethics Christopher Rowe Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aristotelica: Studies on the Text of

Aristotle's Eudemian Ethics

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,

The following Studies are designed primarily to explain the reasoning

1214a2 συνέγραψεν (PCBL) on the face of it looks unlikely, given (a)

a5 Αmbr.’s placing of the δέ before ἥδιστον corresponds with its pos­ition

a6 συγχωροῦμεν Laur. 81,12: an easy mistake (the ου is corrected by

a10–11 καὶ περὶ τὰς πράξεις τοῦ πράγματος: if there is a problem

a13 Dirlmeier interprets the MSS’ ἦν as a ‘philosophical’ imperfect, tak-

Grundsatz, always a Grundsatz’, to paraphrase Dirlmeier). That, however,

­emendation (ὅτιπερ 〈ἂν〉 οἰκεῖον ᾖ) unnecessary.

a26 τῇ παρουσίᾳ [διὰ] τούτων, κτλ: as subject of the sentence, which

(1214a26) subject is surely εὐδαιμονία, and translators sometimes (see

rather less well with Spengel’s alternative proposal, 〈ἡ εὐδαιμονία〉 τῇ

παρουσίᾳ [διὰ] τούτων. . . .)

becomes so extended, especially with the—­unexpectedly ­expansive?—

set themselves an end: the list of possible ends is restricted to popular-­

b24 περὶ πάντων: P2 writes ἴσως: περιπάτων in the margin; L’s

b35 Spengel’s τῶν πολλῶν 〈ἐπισκεπτέον〉 is part of a solution to larger

a1–2 περὶ ἁπάντων καὶ μάλιστα περὶ ἐπισκεπτέον μόνας P1CL,

(1215a1–2) Ambr. leaves a gap after περὶ—­something must be missing

μάλιστα περὶ 〈τούτων περὶ ὧν τὰς τῶν σοϕῶν〉 ἐπισκεπτέον μόνας,

καὶ μάλιστα περὶ 〈τούτων περὶ ὧν τὰς τῶν ἐπιεικῶν〉 ἐπισκεπτέον

μόνας—­except that by borrowing an element of Dodds’s solution (see

a4 Jackson’s πειθοῦς for πάθους is surely implausible: does persuasion

a5 There are some traces of a correction above βίον in P, and it is nat­ural

1215a10 τῳ B (also P2, crossing out the circumflex accent) provides a

renders Fritzsche’s compromise, τῳ 〈τὸ〉, unnecessary.

2 A Greek–English Lexicon compiled by H. Liddell and R. Scott, revised . . . by H. Jones . . .

a28 In P a first correcting hand puts in an elision mark and rough

1215b1 The gap in B after ἀπολαυστικόν is not caused—­as some gaps

b10 ἐρόμενον BP2, ἐρώμενον P1CL: P2 corrects omega to omicron above

b14 ὡς ἄνθρωπον εἰπεῖν: both Russell’s and Richards’s emendations are

b23 B2 adds a breathing over the second alpha of ἀνακάμψαι: B is often

b29–30 ἀπέραντον, τί scripsi, ἀπέραντόν τι PCBL: changing the

solution than Rav.’s ἀπέραντόν τι 〈οὐ〉, adopted by editors.

b34 πορίζοι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις is repeated after προτιμήσειε in P but

b36 διενέγκοιεν L: the -εν is added as a compendium, unusually for

1216a2 μοναρχιῶν: Fritzsche and Susemihl both write μοναρχῶν, fol-

(1216a2) used μόναρχος (so Rackham); but μοναρχιῶν, on which

b3 The τοῦ for τὸ, before γινώσκειν, preferred by B2 (introducing a

b8 The μὲν is omitted/deleted in Marc., then by Bekker; Susemihl

b12 τέλος post ἕτερον suppl. Casaubon: we certainly cannot under-

b27 Spengel’s conjecture τούτων πάντα (with πάντα as masculine sin-

b28 P2 writes ἴσως: χρωμένους in the margin.

b35 γνωριμώτατα ends in B in what is apparently a version of the

1217a34–5 οὐδὲ τῶν ἀγαθῶν: I understand ‘so not participating in the

1218a2 Bessarion’s πρῶτον for πρότερον is perhaps just an error of tran-

a14 Susemihl, and then Walzer/Mingay, accept Rassow’s supplement

1218a15 ‘γρ. ἢ ὡς’, then (a17) ‘γρ. ἀνομολογουμένων’, Victorius.

b21 Woods adopts Ross’s καίτοι, translating ‘but an efficient cause of

Although several strangers, familiar with the arts of civilized countries,

The harbour of Onavoora, is a place of general rendezvous for the whale

The white population of Onavoora is of a varied character, from the

We passed all the winter months at Onavoora, during which we had

The harbour of Onavoora is formed by coral reefs, that extend upwards

Nearly all the inhabitants of Toubouai, consisting of about two hundred,

At Toubouai, we added considerably to our collection of curiosities. The

On the island of Toubouai, there is a tree, the bark of which, makes

At 4, P.M., on the 19th of July, we made the island of Mas a Fuera, on

[2] A retail grocery and tippling shop.

[3] Spirits distilled from the grape.

[4] Mattee, mattee—Very bad.

a5 Αmbr.’s placing of the δέ before ἥδιστον corresponds with its position

emendation (ὅτιπερ 〈ἂν〉 οἰκεῖον ᾖ) unnecessary.

becomes so extended, especially with the—unexpectedly expansive?—

set themselves an end: the list of possible ends is restricted to popular-

(1215a1–2) Ambr. leaves a gap after περὶ—something must be missing

μόνας—except that by borrowing an element of Dodds’s solution (see

a5 There are some traces of a correction above βίον in P, and it is natural

1215b1 The gap in B after ἀπολαυστικόν is not caused—as some gaps