Arresi

about-to-be-born1

Αἴτιον δὴ τοῦ τοῖς μὲν ἄρρεσι μὴ πᾶσιν εἶναι περίττωμα γεννητικὸν τοῖς δὲ θήλεσι πᾶσιν, ὅτι τὸ ζῷον σῶμα ἔμψυχόν ἐστιν. ἀεὶ δὲ παρέχει τὸ μὲν θῆλυ τὴν ὕλην τὸ δ’ ἄρρεν τὸ δημιουργοῦν· ταύτην γὰρ αὐτῶν φαμεν ἔχειν τὴν δύναμιν ἑκάτερον, καὶ τὸ εἶναι τὸ μὲν θῆλυ τὸ δ’ ἄρρεν τοῦτο. ὥστε τὸ μὲν θῆλυ ἀναγκαῖον παρέχειν σῶμα καὶ ὄγκον, τὸ δ’ ἄρρεν οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον· οὔτε γὰρ τὰ ὄργανα ἀνάγκη ἐνυπάρχειν ἐν τοῖς γιγνομένοις οὔτε τὸ ποιοῦν. ἔστι δὲ τὸ μὲν σῶμα ἐκ τοῦ θήλεος ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ ἐκ τοῦ ἄρρενος· ἡ γὰρ ψυχὴ οὐσία σώματός τινός ἐστιν.
(Aristotle, Gen. An. 738b)

Why does this generative residue, then, not occur in all males, although it occurs in all females? The answer is that an animal is a living body, a body with a Soul in it. The female always provides the material, the male provides that which fashions the material into shape; this, in our view, is the specific characteristic of each of the sexes: that is what it means to be male or to be female. Hence, necessity requires that the female should provide the physical part, i.e., a quantity of material, but not that the male should do so, since necessity does not require that the tools should reside in the product that is being made, nor that the agent which uses them should do so. Thus the physical part, the body, comes from the female, and the Soul from the male, since the Soul is the essence of a particular body. (tr. Arthur Leslie Peck)

Chelidōn

swallow6

Εἰ δὴ οὕτως, ἀνθρώπου δὲ τίθεμεν ἔργον ζωήν τινα, ταύτην δὲ ψυχῆς ἐνέργειαν καὶ πράξεις μετὰ λόγου, σπουδαίου δ’ ἀνδρὸς εὖ ταῦτα καὶ καλῶς, ἕκαστον δ’ εὖ κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν ἀρετὴν ἀποτελεῖται· εἰ δὴ οὕτω, τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἀγαθὸν ψυχῆς ἐνέργεια γίνεται κατ’ ἀρετήν, εἰ δὲ πλείους αἱ ἀρεταί, κατὰ τὴν ἀρίστην καὶ τελειοτάτην. ἔτι δ’ ἐν βίῳ τελείῳ· μία γὰρ χελιδὼν ἔαρ οὐ ποιεῖ, οὐδὲ μία ἡμέρα· οὕτω δὲ οὐδὲ μακάριον καὶ εὐδαίμονα μία ἡμέρα οὐδ ὀλίγος χρόνος.
(Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1.7.14-161098a12-20)

If this is so, and if we declare that the function of man is a certain form of life, and define that form of life as the exercise of the soul’s faculties and activities in association with rational principle, and say that the function of a good man is to perform these activities well and rightly, and if a function is well performed when it is performed in accordance with its own proper excellence—from these premises it follows that the Good of man is the active exercise of his soul’s faculties in conformity with excellence or virtue, or if there be several human excellences or virtues, in conformity with the best and most perfect among them. Moreover, to be happy takes a complete lifetime; for one swallow does not make spring, nor does one fine day; and similarly one day or a brief period of happiness does not make a man supremely blessed and happy. (tr. Harris Rackham)

Megalopsuchia

590611giantdwarf

δοκεῖ δὴ μεγαλόψυχος εἶναι ὁ μεγάλων αὑτὸν ἀξιῶν ἄξιος ὤν· ὁ γὰρ μὴ κατ’ ἀξίαν αὐτὸ ποιῶν ἠλίθιος, τῶν δὲ κατ’ ἀρετὴν οὐδεὶς ἠλίθιος οὐδ’ ἀνόητος. μεγαλόψυχος μὲν οὖν ὁ εἰρημένος. ὁ γὰρ μικρῶν ἄξιος καὶ τούτων ἀξιῶν ἑαυτὸν σώφρων, μεγαλόψυχος δ’ οὔ· ἐν μεγέθει γὰρ ἡ μεγαλοψυχία, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ κάλλος ἐν μεγάλῳ σώματι, οἱ μικροὶ δ’ ἀστεῖοι καὶ σύμμετροι, καλοὶ δ’ οὔ.
(Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 4.3.3-5 = 1123b1-7)

Now a person is thought to be great-souled if he claims much and deserves much; he who claims much without deserving it is foolish, but no one of moral excellence is foolish or senseless. The great-souled man is then as we have descried. He who deserves little and claims little is modest or temperate, but not great-souled, since to be great-souled involves greatness just as handsomeness involves size: small people may be neat and well-made, but not handsome. (tr. Harris Rackham)

Ageōmetrētos

22260228591_07b8528ce5_b

Ἐπεγέγραπτο ἔμπροσθεν τῆς διατριβῆς τοῦ Πλάτωνος ὅτι ἀγεωμέτρητος μηδεὶς εἰσίτω· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἄνισος καὶ ἄδικος. ἡ γὰρ γεωμετρία τὴν ἰσότητα καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην τηρεῖ. (Scholia in Aelii Aristidis Πρὸς Πλάτωνα ὑπὲρ τῶν τεττάρων 125.14)

In front of Plato’s school had been inscribed, “Let noone enter un-geometried” rather than “unequal” or “unjust,” for geometry maintains equality and justness. (tr. Dennis McHenry)

Διὰ τούτων μὲν οὖν καὶ διὰ πλειόνων ἑτέρων δῆλον ὅτι ἄλλα τινὰ ᾐνίττοντο ἐκεῖνοι. εἰ γὰρ μάλιστα πάντων τῆς τῶν μαθημάτων γνώσεως ἐπεμελοῦντο οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι (Πυθαγόρειος δὲ ὁ Πλάτων, οὗ καὶ πρὸ τῆς διατριβῆς ἐπεγέγραπτο ‘ἀγεωμέτρητος μὴ εἰσίτω’) οὐδεὶς δ’ οὐδ’ ἄκρῳ δακτύλῳ γεωμετρήσας τοιοῦτό τι λέγειν ἀνέξεται, τίς οὕτως ἠλίθιος ὡς οἴεσθαι τὸν Πλάτωνα ταῦτα οὕτω κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον λέγειν; ἴσως δὲ οὐκ ἄκομψον ἐπὶ ὀλίγων συντόμως τῶν συμβόλων τὴν διάνοιαν δηλῶσαι.
(Joannes Philoponus, In Aristotelis De Anima 1.3 (Arist. p. 406b25))

For these reasons therefore, and for many others, it is clear that they [Timaeus, Plato and the Pythagoreans] hinted at other things. Indeed, given that nobody was more concerned about (acquiring) the knowledge of mathematics than the Pythagoreans (and Plato was a Pythagorean: in front of his school he had inscribed: “let no one enter un-geometried”), and that nobody who has practised geometry with more than the tip of his finger would tolerate such a manner of speaking, who would be so foolish as to think that what Plato says here is limited to the visible? (tr. David Bauwens)

Οἱ δὲ τὴν φυσιολογικὴν λέγοντες προηγήσασθαι φασιν ὅτι δεῖ ἀπὸ τῶν φυσικῶν ἄρξασθαι, ἐπειδὴ ταῦτα σύντροφα ἡμῖν ἐστι καὶ συνήθη. οἱ δὲ λέγοντες τὴν μαθηματικὴν ἔφασαν διὰ τοῦτο δεῖν προηγήσασθαι τὰ μαθηματικὰ διὰ τὸ ἐπιγεγράφθαι ἐν τῷ τοῦ Πλάτωνος μουσείῳ ‘ἀγεωμέτρητος μηδεὶς εἰσίτω.’ (Olympiodorus, Prolegomena et in Categorias commentarium 8v (Comm. in Arist. Gr. vol. 12.1 (Busse) 8.37-9.1)

Those who say the study of nature comes first, say that one has to start from the natural elements, because these are innate and familiar to us. But those who say that the study of mathematics takes precedence, say that this needs to be of primary importance, because in Plato’s school the words “Let no one unversed in geometry enter” were inscribed. (tr. David Bauwens)

Ὁ μὲν οὖν Πλάτων εἰς φυσιολογικὸν καὶ θεολογικὸν αὐτὸ διαιρεῖ· τὸ γὰρ μαθηματικὸν οὐκ ἠβούλετο εἶναι μέρος τῆς φιλοσοφίας, ἀλλὰ προγύμνασμά τι ὥσπερ ἡ γραμματικὴ καὶ ἡ ῥητορική· ὅθεν καὶ πρὸ τοῦ ἀκροατηρίου τοῦ οἰκείου ἐπέγραψεν ‘ἀγεωμέτρητος μηδεὶς εἰσίτω’. τοῦτο δὲ ὁ Πλάτων ἐπέγραφεν, ἐπειδὴ εἰς τὰ πολλὰ θεολογεῖ καὶ περὶ θεολογίαν καταγίνεται· συμβάλλεται δὲ εἰς εἴδησιν τῆς θεολογίας τὸ μαθηματικόν, οὗτινός ἐστιν ἡ γεωμετρία.
(Pseudo-Galen, De partibus philosophiae 6.2-7 (Wellmann))

Plato divided [theoretical philosophy] into physiology and theology. In fact, he did not want mathematics to be a part of philosophy, but a sort of progymnasma like grammar and rhetoric. That’s why, before his private lecture-room, he inscribed “Let no one enter un-geometried.” He inscribed this since he discoursed on theology in all matters and dwelt on theology, and included mathematics, of which geometry is a part, into theology’s forms of knowledge. (tr. Dennis McHenry)

Πρὸ τῶν προθύρων τῶν αὑτοῦ γράψας ὑπῆρχε Πλάτων· “Μηδεὶς ἀγεωμέτρητος εἰσίτω μου τὴν στέγην.” (Joannes Tzetzes, Chil. 8.972-973)

Over his front doors Plato wrote: “Let no one unversed in geometry come under my roof.” (tr. Ivor Thomas)

Dunamin

Ὅτι δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ ἠθικὴ* κατὰ προαίρεσιν, δῆλον, ἐπεὶ κἂν εἰ μεγάλα παθὼν μὴ ἀποδῴη δι’ ἀδυναμίαν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἠδύνατο, καλῶς· καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἀνέχεται κατὰ δύναμιν λαμβάνων τὰς θυσίας. ἀλλὰ τῷ πωλοῦντι οὐχ ἱκανῶς ἕξει, ἂν μὴ φήσῃ δύνασθαι πλέον δοῦναι, οὐδὲ τῷ δανείσαντι.

* sc. φιλία

(Aristotle, Eud. Eth. 1243b)

But it is clear that moral friendship is a matter of intention, since even if a man after having received great benefits owing to inability did non repay them, but only repaid as much as he was able, he acts honorably; for even God is content with getting sacrifices in accordance with our ability. But a seller will not be satisfied if a man says he cannot pay more, nor will one who has made a loan. (tr. Harris Rackham)

Dusōdian

gluck-4

Καὶ τῆς Ἀρχελάου δ’ ἐπιθέσεως Δεκάμνιχος ἡγεμὼν ἐγένετο, παροξύνων τοὺς ἐπιθεμένους πρῶτος· αἴτιος δὲ τῆς ὀργῆς ὅτι αὐτὸν ἐξέδωκε μαστιγῶσαι Εὐριπίδῃ τῷ ποιητῇ· ὁ δ’ Εὐριπίδης ἐχαλέπαινεν εἰπόντος τι αὐτοῦ εἰς δυσωδίαν τοῦ στόματος.
(Aristotle, Poet. 1311b13)

Also Decamnichus took a leading part in the attack upon Archelaus, being the first to stir on the attackers; and the cause of his anger was that he had handed him over to Euripides the poet to flog, Euripides being angry because he had made a remark about his breath smelling. (tr. Harris Rackham)

Tōthasmon

Ὅλως μὲν οὖν αἰσχρολογίαν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως, ὥσπερ ἄλλο τι, δεῖ τὸν νομοθέτην ἐξορίζειν (ἐκ τοῦ γὰρ εὐχερῶς λέγειν ὁτιοῦν τῶν αἰσχρῶν γίνεται καὶ τὸ ποιεῖν σύνεγγυς), μάλιστα μὲν οὖν ἐκ τῶν νέων, ὅπως μήτε λέγωσι μήτε ἀκούωσι μηδὲν τοιοῦτον· ἐὰν δέ τις φαίνηταί τι λέγων ἢ πράττων τῶν ἀπηγορευμένων, τὸν ἐλεύθερον μὲν μήπω δὲ κατακλίσεως ἠξιωμένον ἐν τοῖς συσσιτίοις ἀτιμίαις κολάζειν καὶ πληγαῖς, τὸν δὲ πρεσβύτερον τῆς ἡλικίας ταύτης ἀτιμίαις ἀνελευθέροις ἀνδραποδωδίας χάριν. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ λέγειν τι τῶν τοιούτων ἐξορίζομεν, φανερὸν ὅτι καὶ τὸ θεωρεῖν ἢ γραφὰς ἢ λόγους ἀσχήμονας. ἐπιμελὲς μὲν οὖν ἔστω τοῖς ἄρχουσι μηθὲν μήτε ἄγαλμα μήτε γραφήν εἶναι τοιούτων πράξεων μίμησιν, εἰ μὴ παρὰ τισι θεοῖς τοιούτοις οἷς καὶ τὸν τωθασμὸν ἀποδίδωσιν ὁ νόμος.
(Aristotle, Poet. 1336b 7-8)

The lawgiver ought therefore to banish indecent talk, as much as anything else, out of the state altogether (for light talk about anything disgraceful soon passes into action) – so most of all from among the young, so that they may not say nor hear anything of the sort; and anybody found saying or doing any of the things prohibited, if he is of free station but not yet promoted to reclining at the public meals, must be punished with marks of dishonour and with beating, and an older offender must be punished with marks of dishonour degrading to a free man, because of his slavish behaviour. And since we banish any talk of this kind, clearly we must also banish the seeing of either pictures or representations that are indecent. The officials must therefore be careful that there may be no sculpture or painting that represents indecent actions, except in the temples of a certain class of gods to whom the law allows even scurrility. (tr. Harris Rackham)