E. M. Cope, Commentary on the Rhetoric of Aristotle

---

---

καὶ οἷς χαριοῦνται] and those by whom, i. e. by whose injury, they will oblige either their friends, or those whom they admire and respect, or love, or their masters (any one who has power over them) or those by whose opinions or authority they direct their life and conduct.

πρὸς οὓς ζῶσιν] in reference to whom they live, who are their guides and authorities in life and action: or, on whom they depend, to whom they look for support or subsistence; as a ‘dependant’ does. To which is opposed in I 9. 27, ἐλευθέρου τὸ μὴ πρὸς ἄλλον ζῇν, ‘independence’, αὐτάρκεια, where you don't look to any one else but yourself. See the note there, p. 173.

καὶ πρὸς οὕς] ‘those, in reference to whom’, that is in our relations (or dealings) with whom, it is possible (we may expect) to meet with indulgence or merciful consideration. On ἐπιείκεια, see Introd. p. 190—93.

Victorius, followed by Vater, would connect this clause immediately with the preceding, πρὸς οὓς ζῶσιν αὐτοί, καὶ πρὸς οὕς κ.τ.λ. in order to avoid a supposed repetition of a former topic, § 14, καὶ οἷς ἂν τοῦ ἐπιεικοῦς τυχεῖν. Vater, who supplies this explanation, forgets that the two topics are differently applied; in § 14 the expectation of indulgent consideration is assigned as a motive of action in the agent; in this section it is a disposition in the patient which subjects him to wrong: though it is true that the feeling or tendency itself resides in both cases in the same person. Besides this, the union of these two seems to be an improper conjunction of two heterogeneous dispositions, a sort of moral ζεῦγμα; taking a man for the guide of your life or depending upon him, and relying upon his merciful consideration, are not closely enough connected to warrant their being classed together. I have therefore retained Bekker's punctuation, which makes them separate topics.