^{page 2 note 1} Aristotelis Ethica Nicomachea.Oxford, 1890. The passage occurs on pp. 178–181.

^{page 2 note 2} The Works of Aristotle.Vol. IX. Oxford, 1925.

^{page 2 note 3} The Ethics of Aristotle.London (Allen and Unwin), 1953.

^{page 3 note 1} MScf

^{page 3 note 2} The translator appears to have understood as meaning , cf. Eth. N. VI 8: . Ross translates ‘ in the political form of friendship ’, supplying . But Thomson renders ‘ in the relations between citizen and citizen’.

^{page 3 note 3} The translator thus, as always, translates the emphatic , so making a point that is lost in the modern translations.

^{page 3 note 4} It would have been more correct to render by or perhaps , see Lane 1 1734.

^{page 3 note 5} Perhaps we should read for , since is rendered by .

^{page 4 note 6} Note this coinage for rendering

^{page 4 note 7} , generally translated ‘ perhaps ’ (Ross), ‘ it might be of course ’ (Thomson). The translator is slavishly literal.

^{page 4 note 8} followed by which the copyist perhaps understood as , but the emendation is required by .

^{page 4 note 9} The translator appears to have read (as Bekker conjectured) for , cf. below where renders

^{page 4 note 10} The translator, or the copyist, has missed .

^{page 4 note 11} MS.which is perhaps (though less aptly) to be read as .

^{page 4 note 12} MS..

^{page 4 note 13} There is no justification for this in the original; it perhaps derives from a gloss.

^{page 4 note 14} MS.

^{page 4 note 15} There is a lacuna here; presumably corresponds with , and we then require to add . The phrase has evidently dropped out, and to complete the sense we need to read the whole passage somewhat thus:

^{page 4 note 16} The translator has not recognized as a quotation from Hesiod.

^{page 5 note 17} MS.cf.

^{page 5 note 18} The translator evidently read with all the codd., and not as Bywater (following Bonitz) and the modern translators (of. Boss ‘ for the sake of the other party ’) read.

^{page 5 note 19} The translator has understood as referring to and not (as do the modern interpreters) to

^{page 5 note 20} This is the imperfect paraphrase of . The Arabic text is in any case corrupt; it should perhaps read; but the translator has missed the point that is to be understood as the subject of the clause, or perhaps he misreadbut the translator has missed the point that is to be understood as the subject of the clause, or perhaps he misread .

^{page 5 note 21} The masculine termination of (which qualifies ) has deceived the translator into inaccuracy.

^{page 5 note 22} We should read cf.

^{page 5 note 23} So the translator understands , as against the modern interpreters, ‘ with a view to a return ’ (Ross), ‘ may not have this disinterested character’ (Thomson).

^{page 5 note 24} MS.cf.

^{page 5 note 25} A misrendering of taking . in the sense of ‘ choose ’ (which it frequently has) rather than ‘ take for oneself’. The immediately following passage seems to be corrupt; there is one too many, and hangs in the air and perhaps requires to be connected with

^{page 5 note 26} This is not quite the sense of ‘ in some places’ (Ross), ‘ in some communities ’ (Thomson).

^{page 5 note 27} The translator has apparently read , and this has thrown him out in his construing of the whole passage. is a poor literal rendering of and the rest of the sentence is little better translated.

^{page 6 note 28} This is a faulty version of and is equally poor for

^{page 6 note 29} MS

^{page 6 note 30} MScf

^{page 6 note 31} MS.cf

^{page 6 note 32} We should presumably read

^{page 6 note 33} This concluding sentence has been completely misunderstood; the force of is entirely lost.