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

---

---

‘From what has been said it is by this time clear (we may now infer from the preceding statements) what the angry disposition or state of mind is, what sort of persons it is directed against or provoked by, and (what sort of things it is due to) what sort of offences or acts provoke it’.

‘As to the first, we are angry when we are vexed or annoyed; because one who is vexed is always aiming at, eagerly bent on, something; if then he be directly crossed or thwarted (ἐὰν ἀντικρούσῃ τις) in anything whatsoever,—a thirsty man, for example, in his effort to drink,—or not (i.e. if he be crossed, not directly, but indirectly), the act in either case appears to be just the same (the act in its effect or in the intention is the same; the act itself is not the same); or again if any one offers any opposition, or refuses to help, or troubles, bothers, throws obstacles in the way of, a man in this state of mind (i.e. in a state of eager desire, and ‘aiming at something’, ἐφιέμενόν τινος), with all these he is angry’.

κατ᾽ εὐθυωρίαν] is ‘in a straight line’, -ωρεῖν, -ωρος (this must be a mere termination in this word, as in θεωρός, τιμωρός, σινάμωρος, and the Latin -orus and -osus, plagosus, generosus, animosus, bellicosus; ὤρα, as in Πυλωρός, can form no part of the derivation). The phrase, which is equivalent to ἐξ εὐθείας or κατ᾽ εὐθεῖαν (γραμμήν), occurs elsewhere, in Plat. Rep. IV 436 E, τὴν εὐθυωρίαν (in a straight line, or straight) is opposed to ἀποκλίνειν, and κατὰ τὸ περιφερὲς κύκλῳ. Ar. Metaph. A 2, init. ‘in a straight line’, (see Bonitz ad loc.), de part. Anim. II 8. 7, τὴν δὲ σχίσιν ἔχει τῆς σαρκὸς οὐ κατ᾽ εὐθυωρίαν ἀλλὰ κατὰ κύκλους διαιρετήν (Vict.). Ib. c. 10. 16, ἀκούει γὰρ οὐ μόνον κατ᾽ εὐθυωρίαν ἀλλὰ παντόθεν, ἡ δ̓ ὄψις εἰς τὸ ἔμπροσθεν, ὁρᾷ γὰρ κατ̓ εὐθυωρίαν (directly forwards, in a straight line) (Gaisford), Probl. XI 58, εὐθυωρεῖν, Eth. Eudem. VII 10, 1243 b 15, τοῖς μὴ κατ᾽ εὐθυωρίαν (φίλοις), of indirect friendships, where the two friends are not of the same kind, but associated from different motives; Fritzsche, note ad loc. (who refers also to Tim. Locr. p. 94 B, τῷ μήπω κατ᾽ εὐθυωρίαν νοεῖσθαι ἀλλὰ κατ̓ ἀναλογίαν, and to this passage of the Rhetoric). Add Arist. de part. Anim. IV 9. 6, ἡ εὐθυωρία τῶν ἐντοσθιδίων, and de Anima a 3, 406 b 31, τὴν εὐθυωρίαν εἰς κύκλον κατέκαμψεν. περὶ Ἐνυπνίων c. 2. 5, κατ᾽ εὐθυωρίαν ᾗ συμβαίνει τὴν ὄψιν ὁρᾷν.

ἀντικρόυειν, ‘to strike or knock against’, ‘to come into collision with’, hence metaphorically, to interfere with, interpose an obstacle, to hinder or thwart a man's designs or efforts. The word is not common: it occurs in Dem. de Cor. § 198, and ἀντίκρουσις (a check, sudden stoppage), Rhet. III 9. 6. In the neuter sense in which it is here employed it follows the analogy of συγκρούειν, προσκρούειν, and hundreds of other transitive verbs which by the suppression of the reflexive pronoun pass from active to neuter—a process common, I should suppose, to most languages, and certainly found in our own.

ἐνοχλεῖν, ‘to mob’ (ὄχλος), only once in Plato: but frequent in Demosth., Xenoph., Aristoph.; applied to troublesome and vexatious annoyances and to vexatious conduct in general; ‘to trouble, annoy, bother’.