^{page 115 note 1} Thus in the passage in the Ethics(Eth. Nic. 1096a 13) τò πϕλους ἄνδρας εσαγαγεῖν τâ εἴδη, the verb would imply here not that they invented the εἴδη, but that they were the first to bring them into the consideration of the good. It is worth noticing that Aristotle could hardly have spoken of Socrates or the Pythagoreans as πϕλους ἄνδρας.

^{page 115 note 2} Note Alexander's gloss in the first sentence of this chapter: ὧν ἰδϕων ἒν ἦν αὐτοû κα τò περϕ τν δεν.

^{page 115 note 3} There is a most curious suggestion of ProfessorBurnet's, (Greek Philosophy, p. 242, n. I)Google Scholar that this is Aristotle's inference from the Cratylus and the Theaetetus. But it is surely obvious that if Aristotle believed in the historical character of the Plato's portrait of Socrates, he could not infer anything about Plato from his representation of Socrates.

^{page 115 note 4} I suppose if the meaning of τ ἠθικ and τς ὃλης πσεως is interpreted in a sufficiently ‘Pickwickian’ sense the statements in the passage could just be made to fit in with the picture of Socrates in the Phaedo. But it is interesting to note that the reference to τν ν τοῖς λóγοις σκΨιν on which Burnet relies for his identification, is made by Aristotle when speaking of Plato, not of Socrates.

^{page 116 note 1} This sense of the word seems to be implied even more definitely in 1078b 31, where he says of those who first said there were Ideas οϕ δ' χώρισαν, καἰ τ τοιαûτα τν ντων ίδας προσηγóρευσαν.

^{page 119 note 1} Syrianus does not help us much. He is chiefly occupied with a polemic against Aristotle for casting doubts upon the historical character of Plato's representation of Socrates. It is a question which need not be discussed here whether his own views on the subject are of any value. But he makes it quite clear that in his opinion Aristotle's account here is absolutely incompatible with the picture of Socrates given in the Platonic dialogues.

^{page 119 note 2} The joining on certainly looks as if it were done intentionally. I see nothing improbable in supposition that it is done by Aristotle himself. The Metaphysics, as we have it, may well include more than one course of lectures; and Aristotle, as other lecturers have been known to do since, may have used over again a passage out of an earlier course.

^{page 120 note 1} With the ideas in the sense defined as οὐσϕαι σώματοι. Theophrastus knew, of course, that Democritus called his atoms εἴδη or ἰδαι(cf. Diels, Dox. Gr., p. 514Google Scholar). But they were not incorporeal essences. It is curious that Aristotle, though he must have known this, and is constantly speaking of Democritus, never, so far as I have found, uses the word εῖδος or ἰδα in connection with the atoms.

^{page 123 note 1} See the passage in the Poetics (1449b 10)and Bywater's note on it for evidence that κολουΘεῖν does not necessarily imply succession in time.