MS
cf
The translator appears to have understood 
as meaning 
, cf. Eth. N. VI 8: 
. Ross translates ‘ in the political form of friendship ’, supplying 
. But Thomson renders ‘ in the relations between citizen and citizen’.
The translator thus, as always, translates the emphatic 
, so making a point that is lost in the modern translations.
It would have been more correct to render 
by 
or perhaps 
, see Lane 1 1734.
Perhaps we should read 
for 
, since 
is rendered by 
.
Note this coinage for rendering 
, generally translated ‘ perhaps ’ (Ross), ‘ it might be of course ’ (Thomson). The translator is slavishly literal.
followed by 
which the copyist perhaps understood as 
, but the emendation is required by 
.
The translator appears to have read 
(as Bekker conjectured) for 
, cf. below where 
renders 
The translator, or the copyist, has missed 
.
MS.
which is perhaps (though less aptly) to be read as 
.
MS.
.
There is no justification for this in the original; it perhaps derives from a gloss.
MS
.
presumably corresponds with 
, and we then require to add 
. The phrase 
has evidently dropped out, and to complete the sense we need to read the whole passage somewhat thus: 
The translator has not recognized 
as a quotation from Hesiod.
MS.
cf.
The translator evidently read 
with all the codd., and not 
as Bywater (following Bonitz) and the modern translators (of. Boss ‘ for the sake of the other party ’) read.
The translator has understood 
as referring to 
and not (as do the modern interpreters) to 
This is the imperfect paraphrase of 
. The Arabic text is in any case corrupt; it should perhaps read; but the translator has missed the point that is to be understood as the subject of the clause, or perhaps he misread
but the translator has missed the point that 
is to be understood as the subject of the clause, or perhaps he misread 
.
The masculine termination of 
(which qualifies 
) has deceived the translator into inaccuracy.
We should read 
cf.
So the translator understands 
, as against the modern interpreters, ‘ with a view to a return ’ (Ross), ‘ may not have this disinterested character’ (Thomson).
MS.
cf.
A misrendering of 
taking 
. in the sense of ‘ choose ’ (which it frequently has) rather than ‘ take for oneself’. The immediately following passage seems to be corrupt; there is one 
too many, and 
hangs in the air and perhaps requires to be connected with 
This is not quite the sense of 
‘ in some places’ (Ross), ‘ in some communities ’ (Thomson).
The translator has apparently read 
, and this has thrown him out in his construing of the whole passage. 
is a poor literal rendering of 
and the rest of the sentence is little better translated.
This is a faulty version of 
and 
is equally poor for 
MS
MS
cf
MS.
cf
We should presumably read 
is entirely lost.
Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Endress, Gerhard
1990.
Philosophie et science au Moyen Age / Philosophy and Science in the Middle Ages.
p.
651.
Ghazanfar, S. M.
2000.
The Economic Thought of Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali and St. Thomas Aquinas: Some Comparative Parallels and Links.
History of Political Economy,
Vol. 32,
Issue. 4,
p.
857.
Polansky, Ronald
2014.
The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle's <I>Nicomachean Ethics</I>.
Oskvig, Kyle
2018.
Observations on Vat. Barb. Gr. 75, A Neglected MS of theNicomachean Ethics.
Classical Philology,
Vol. 113,
Issue. 3,
p.
340.
Karimullah, Kamran I.
2020.
Editions, translations, transformations: refashioning the Arabic Aristotle in Egypt and metropolitan Europe, 1940–1980.
Palgrave Communications,
Vol. 6,
Issue. 1,