3 I 1 V. On the Interpretation of a passage in the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. Book v. Ch. 8. This chapter, in which Aristotle treats of the relation be- tween strict retribution and justice, principally, as is generally supposed, with reference to commercial transactions, is justly considered one of the most obscure in the treatise. The obscurity mainly arises from an apparent contradiction between two nearly consecutive passages. (1) 'AXX' ev pev raxs Koivaviais rais aWaKTiKais o~vvex fi to toiovtov biKatov to avTiireirovOos, Kar avahoy'iav kcu prj kot taorrjTa' ra> avrnroielv yap dvaXoyov avppevei rj ttoKis. . . . Tloiel 8e ttjv avribocriv ttjv kot dvao- yiav r) Kara, didperpov crvfcvijis. (2) Els o-ijfia 8* dvaXoyias ov del ayetv, orav ada>vrai' el 8e pr), dpcporepas eei ras im-epo^hs to erepov aicpov. In the first of these passages it seems clearly maintained that a barter of goods should be conducted according to a rule of proportion, not of equality. In the second, it seems to be as positively asserted that the form of proportion is not to be observed. None of the various commentators whom I have been able to consult on this passage arrive at any satisfactory explanation. Some, (as Lambinus, Muretus, and Magirus,) cut the knot by reading els o~xw a & dvaXoyias 8el ayeiv, a solution strongly savouring of Ratcliffe's reading of the eighth commandment, " Thou shalt steal," which, as that shrewd rogue truly observes, "makes u unco difference." The omission of the negative, notwithstanding the assertion of Muretus, accepted by Zell, " in qua librorum dis- crepantia," does not appear to be countenanced by a single MS. hitherto collated. In the Scholia attributed to Michael Ephesius vxnpa avakoyias is interpreted to mean the equalization of goods, with a view to exchange; and the apparent contradiction is explained by supposing that the equality is to exist before exchange, but not afterwards. This explanation is objectionable,
