No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The idiomatic use of ;ἤλλ' ἤ found in classical writers is familiar in Aristotle; but there is a set of passages for which the ordinary renderings of it fail, and the difficulty is such that the text has been suspected. Bonitz, for instance, Index Aristotelicus, 33b2O, says of two of these passages, Pol. 1257b21, Metaph. 1038a 14, that ⋯λλ⋯ is enough by itself, or even that ⋯λλ⋯ without ἤ seems required (ubi ipsum ⋯λλ⋯ vel sufficit vel requiri videatur), and it has been proposed in the second of these places to read ᾖ for ἤ. It must be contended that the text is sound in all the difficult passages in question.
page 98 note 1 The passages from Aristotle quoted in this article may be found, with others, in the Index Aristotelicus.
page 98 note 2 So also(e.g.) KUhner, Gr. Gr. ii. § 535, 6, Anm. 3. Kilhner does not distinguish the second category from the first, nor does he recognise the existence of pas- sages of the third category at all. Madvig, who held that 
represented 
the accent being wrong, perhaps thought the combination of constructions unlikely; but 
is a still more striking combination of adversative constructions.
page 98 note 3 For Platonic examples see Ast's Lexicon, vol. i. p. 202.
page 123 note 1 Newman's note on this passage, from the kind of construction to which he assimilates it (Plato, Protag. 354 B), would amount to putting it in the second category. It would belong to the second if we had 
instead of 