This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
τὸ ἀγαπητο<*>ν κ.τ.λ.] not here ‘to be acquiesced in’, ‘that which one may be content with’, (as in Eth. Nic. I, 1094 b 19); nor in the reputed Homeric sense of ‘unique’, ‘only1’, but ‘highly valued’, ‘dearly prized’ (‘beloved’, something which one is very fond of. Comp. unicus, as in Catullus, Carmen 64, 215). So it is used in Eth. Nic. IX 12 init. ὥσπερ τοῖς ἐρῶσι τὸ ὁρᾷν ἀγαπητότατον. In Pol. II 4, 1262 b 23, the meaning is more doubtful, and the sense of ‘unique’ possible. Here it cannot have this meaning, because in some cases it is μετ᾽ ἄλλων, and it is only by the addition of μόνον that the ‘great rarity’ which gives it its high value becomes the ‘solitary specimen’. Comp. Buttm. ad Mid. p. 567, note 398. ἑτερόφθαλμον] Gaisford refers to a very pertinent passage of Dem. c. Timocr. p. 744, in which the orator tells with admirable conciseness a story of a one-eyed man of Locri, who under a law framed on the retaliatory principle (‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’) was threatened by an enemy with the loss of his solitary visual organ. ‘Vexed at this, and thinking life intolerable at the price, he is said to have ventured to propose a law, that if any one deprived a one-eyed man of an eye, he should lose both his own in return, that the loss of each might be equalized’. This is a case of ἐπιείκεια, the spirit of the law rectifying the imperfection of the letter. Rhet. I 13. 13—19. This concludes the treatment of the general principles and topics from which arguments may be derived by the political rhetorician in the deliberative kind of Rhetoric: there remains one special subject under this head, which is indispensable to the orator who takes part in public business, and is sketched very briefly in outline in the next chapter, with a reference to the Politics for complete details.
1 Of the four places in which ἀγαπητός occurs in Homer, and is interpreted μονογενής, unicus, one, Od. β́ 365, has the addition of μοῦνος, which seems to shew that there, at any rate, ἀγαπητός cannot mean μοῦνος or μονογενής; and in the others the translation ‘dearly beloved’ is just as suitable and probable. It is similarly explained (in the supposed Homeric sense) by many of the Interpp. of Matth. iii. 17, Mark i. 11, Luc. iii. 22, and other places where Christ is called ὁ ἀγαπητὸς υἱὸς Θεοῦ. Dr Lightfoot, in Camb. Journ. of Classical and Sacred Philol. Vol. III. p. 92, No. 7, thinks that from the primary notion of ἀγαπᾶν ‘to welcome’—which is undoubtedly its original and Homeric sense—it expresses rather the external act than the inward feeling, and should be translated in Homer rather by ‘fondled or caressed’, than ‘beloved’. Fritzsche, on Eth. Eud. III. 6, 1233 b 2, renders τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ, filii unice dilecti. See the references in his note. Heinsius, Exercit. Sacr. in Marc. i. 11 (quoted by Gaisford), pronounces very decidedly in favour of this interp. unicus, unigenitus, praeter quem alius non datur: referring to this passage (which is decisive against him), to Homer, and to Hesychius ἀγαπητόν, μονογενῆ. Victorius more in accordance with facts says, “carum valet, ut puto, idque significare voluit Catullus cum inquit ‘si quid carius est oculis’ quo uno se aliquis consolatur, in quo omnem spem suorum gaudiorum collocatam habet, quo impetrato ac retento contentus vivere potest:” which exactly defines it. The use of the Latin unicus is precisely similar.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.