Tools

Magna Moralia

been continually in my hands. With its illuminating essays, notes, and paraphrases it forms probably, for a British student, the best introduction to the moral philosophy of the Peripatetic School. The Notes on the Nicomachean Ethics of Prof. J. A. Stewart (Oxford, 1892) provide a valuable store of illustrative passages; while the more compact commentary of Prof. J. Burnet (Methuen, 1900) has the merit of adding to the Nicomachean text the parallel passages of the Eudemian.

The Greek text of the present edition is reprinted, by kind permission of Messrs. Teubner of Leipzig, from the edition of Prof. Susemihl, to whose Introduction I refer the reader for information about the MSS. and critical editions. (The pages, columns, and lines of Bekker’s text are given in the margin.) After completing my translation, I compared it with Mr. Rackham’s version of Nicomachus in this series, with a view to bringing my renderings of the ethical and psychological terms into agreement with his. Where I felt unable to do this, I have noted the difference. Adequately to represent these terms is one of the hardest parts of the translator’s task. No English words bear the whole connotation of ἀρετή, λόγος, φρόνησις, θυμός, προαίρεσις, and the like; to convey as much of it as I could, I have had frequent recourse to adjectives or alternatives.

Angular brackets < > in the translation denote that words are inserted to complete the sense.

I have occasionally consulted Mr. Stock’s translation of the Magna Moralia in the Oxford edition, and have been enabled thereby to detect one or two misprints in the Teubner text.

The work of Prof. E. Zeller on Aristotle and the

444

Magna Moralia

Earlier Peripatetics (Longmans, 1897) comprises a discussion of the relations between the three treatises, as well as an abstract of the Nicomachean. I may also mention the essays of Dr. Hans von Arnim (Die drei aristotelischen Ethiken, 1924, and Der neuste Versuch, die Magna Moralia als unecht zu erweisen, 1929), to whose view I alluded above (p. 427); and on the other side, the tract of Prof. R. Walzer (Magna Moralia und aristotelische Ethik). These may be found in the Library of the British Museum. Lastly, Dr. K. Oskar Brink, in Stil und Form der pseudaristotelischen Magna Moralia (Ohlau, 1933), undertakes a careful comparison of the language and structure of the “drei Ethiken.” He concludes from the stiffer and more formal style of the Magna Moralia that they are a post-Aristotelean compilation; and shows, as I have already mentioned, that they follow the main lines of Nicomachus rather than those of Eudemus.

I have only to add that any corrections or suggestions with which readers may favour me will be very gratefully received.

G. C. A.

June 1935.

A second impression affords the opportunity of making a few corrections and alterations. To a notice in the Classical Review by Mr. D. J. Allan I owe the suggestion of several improvements in the translation of this and the preceding treatise.

G. C. A.

March 1936.

445
DOI: 10.4159/DLCL.aristotle-magna_moralia.1935