This text is part of:
εὐτεκνία (εὔτεκνος, εὔπαις, εὐπαιδία, εὐτεκνεῖν, Aeschylus and Euripides), and εὐγηρία, εὔτεκνος, and εὐγήρως, ‘blessing in children, and in old age’, are applied by Aristotle to animals, as well as to the human race, in his works on Natural History: e.g. to birds, in the sense of ‘prolific’, Hist. An. IX II, 1; 12, 3; 17, 1; IX 12, 3; εὔγηροι ὄρνιθες. πολυφιλία, χρηστοφιλία, both defined by Aristotle himself in § 16, ‘number of friends, worthiness of friends’. The latter is defined by Liddell and Scott, ‘the love of good men or good deeds’, [a slip corrected, however, in a subsequent edition. S.] τὰς τοῦ σώματος ἀρετάς] The ἀρετή or ‘excellence’ of anything is determined by its ἔργον or special function or business; that which it was made to do. On this notion of ἔργον, see the reff. given in note on c. 2, § 12. ἀρετή therefore is so far from being confined to moral virtue, though it is applied to this κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, that it may be extended to everything which has any use or object, animate or inanimate; but in the highest and most appropriate sense is attributed to human faculties bodily, mental, and moral. μέγεθος] So Homer and Hesiod reckon size as well as strength and beauty amongst personal advantages. Od. ζ 276, τίς δ᾽ ὅδε Ναυσικάα ἕπεται καλός τε μέγας τε ξεῖνος; Ib. ς 248, περίεσσι γυναικῶν εἶδός τε μέγεθός τε. ω 252, οὐδέ τί τοι δούλειον ἐπιπρέπει εἰσοράασθαι εἶδος καὶ μέγεθος. ς 218. ω 373. Il. B 58, &c. Hesiod, Scut. Herc. 3, and Plato, Alc. I p. 123 E, in an enumeration of the personal qualities and other advantages that a young man might be proud of, εἰ οὖν λέγοιμεν ὅτι κάλλει τε καὶ μεγέθει καὶ γένει καὶ πλούτῳ καὶ φύσει τῆς ψυχῆς... Charmid. 154 C, θαυμαστὸς ἐφάνη τό τε μέγεθος καὶ τὸ κάλλος. So Ovid's Romulus, after his deification, pulcer et humano maior. Arist. Eth. Nic. IV 7, 1323 b 7, ἐν μεγέθει γὰρ ἡ μεγαλοψυχία, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ κάλλος ἐν μεγάλῳ σώματι, οἱ μικροὶ δ᾽ ἀστεῖοι (pretty or neat) καὶ σύμμετροι, καλοὶ δ᾽ οὔ. Pol. IV (VII) 4, 1326 a 33, τό γε καλὸν ἐν πλήθει καὶ μεγέθει εἴωθε γίνεσθαι. Poet. VII 4, τὸ γὰρ καλὸν ἐν μεγέθει καὶ τάξει ἐστί, ap. Zell, ad loc. Eth. δόξαν] ‘reputation’, estimation in men's thoughts or opinion. (‘Fame is the spur that the clear spirit doth raise, that last infirmity of noble minds, to scorn delights, &c.’ Lycidas).—τιμήν honours, substantial and externally manifested, which are conferred upon a man, offices, titles, προεδρίαι, civil privileges, and such like. See further in § 9. On the value of τιμή in general, Eth. Nic. IV 7, 1123 b 18, μέγιστον δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἂν θείημεν ὃ τοῖς θεοῖς ἀπονέμομεν, καὶ οὗ μάλιστ̓ ἐφιένται οἱ ἐν ἀξιώματι, καὶ τὸ ἐπὶ τοῖς καλλίστοις ἆθλον. τοιοῦτον δ̓ ἡ τιμή. μέγιστον γὰρ δὴ τοῦτο τῶν ἐχτὸς ἀγαθῶν, 1124 a 17. εὐτυχίαν] distinguished from εὐδαιμονία, Pol. IV (VII) 1, 1323 b 20 seq., quoted above in note on § 3. ἢ καὶ τὰ μέρη αὐτῆς, φρόνησιν ἀνδρίαν δικαιοσύνην σωφροσύνην] These words are omitted by MS A^{c}, put in brackets as doubtful by Bekker [4to ed. 1831], and rejected by Spengel. αὐταρκέστατος] referring to the second definition, § 3. See note on § 3, p. 73. τά τ᾽ ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ τὰ ἐκτὸς ἀγαθά] When Aristotle adds ‘besides these there are no others’, he includes, as he tells us in the following sentence, the goods of body and mind under the first head, τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ. His usual division of goods, called the Peripatetic division, is into three kinds; goods of ‘mind, body, and estate’. This division, however, was not his own invention; as he tells us in Eth. Nic. I 8, 1098 b 17, ταύτην τὴν δόξαν (the opinion in question) παλαιὰν οὖσαν καὶ ὁμολογουμένην ὑπὸ τῶν φιλοσοφούντων. Cic. Tusc. V 30, tria genera bonorum, maxima animi, secunda corporis, externa tertia, ut Peripatetici, nec multo veteres Academici secus. Eth. Nic. I 8, sub init. νενημημένων δὴ τῶν ἀγαθῶν τριχῇ, καὶ τῶν μὲν ἐκτὸς λεγομένων τῶν δὲ περὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα, τὰ περὶ ψυχὴν κυριώτατα λέγομεν καὶ μάλιστα ἀγαθά. Pol. IV (VII) 1 sub init. τριῶν οὐσῶν μερίδων, τῶν τε ἐκτὸς καὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι καὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ, πάντα ταῦτα ὑπάρχειν τοῖς μακαρίοις δεῖ. Zell ad Eth. Nic. I 8, 2. Cic. de Fin. III 13, 43, et alibi. Schrader ad h. l. This division cannot be at all events confined to the Peripatetics or derived from them alone, for it appears in the Rhet. ad Alex. c. I (2 Oxf.) 8, διαιρήσεις δὲ τοῦτο (τὸ συμφέρον) τοῖς μὲν ἰδιώταις εἰς σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ τὰ ἐπίκτητα: unless indeed this be taken as an argument of the later authorship of the Rhet. ad Alexandrum. δυνάμεις] either ‘power’ of various kinds, ‘opes ac civilem potentiam’, Muretus, Victorius, ‘potentiam’, Vet. Transl.; or faculties and capacities, bodily and mental, ‘facultates’, Riccob. The nrst seems to agree better with εὐτυχίαν. ἀσφαλέστατος] referring to the third definition of § 3.
Commentary on the Rhetoric of Aristotle. Edward Meredith Cope. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 1877.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
This text was converted to electronic form by professional data entry and has been proofread to a medium level of accuracy.
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.