[5] A man habitually drunk in private is viewed by our law as confining his vice to himself, and the law therefore does not attempt to touch him; a religious hermit may be viewed as one who confines his virtue to his own person.
[6] See the account of Sejanus and Livia. Tac. Annal. IV. 3.
[7] Cardwell’s text, which here gives [Greek: paranomon], yields a much easier and more natural sense. All Injustice violates law, but only the particular kinds violate equality; and therefore the unlawful : the unequal :: universal Injustice the particular i.e. as whole to part.
There is a reading which also alters the words within the parenthesis, but this hardly affects the gist of the passage.
[8] There are two reasons why the characters are not necessarily coincident. He is a good citizen, who does his best to carry out the [Greek: politeia] under which he lives, but this may be faulty, so therefore pro tanto is he.
Again, it is sufficient, so far as the Community is concerned, that he does the facts of a good man but for the perfection of his own individual character, he must do them virtuously. A man may move rightly in his social orbit, without revolving rightly on his own axis.
The question is debated in the Politics, III. 2. Compare also the distinction between the brave man, and good soldier (supra, Book III. chap. xii.), and also Bishop Butler’s first Sermon.
[9] Terms used for persons.
[10] By [Greek:——] is meant numbers themselves, 4, 20, 50, etc, by [Greek:——] these numbers exemplified, 4 horses, 20 sheep, etc.
[11] The profits of a mercantile transaction (say £1000) are to be divided between A and B, in the ratio of 2 to 3 (which is the real point to be settled); then,
A : B :: 400 : 600.
A : 400 :: B : 600 (permutando, and assuming a value for A and B, so as to make them commensurable with the respectiy sums).
A+400 : B+600 :: A : B. This represents the actual distribution; its fairness depending entirely on that of the first proportion.
[12] i.e. where the ratio is that of equality, thus 2 : 2 :: 40 : 40
[13] Her Majesty’s “Justices.”
[14] I have omitted the next three lines, as they seem to be out of place here, and to occur much more naturally afterwards; it not being likely that they were originally twice written, one is perhaps at liberty to give Aristotle the benefit of the doubt, and conclude that he put them where they made the best sense.