¹ The dust jacket dishonestly promises a text of ‘the eight books which comprise the work’: the ‘common’ books, i.e. EN V–VII = EE IV–VI, are not printed.

² Harlfinger, D., ‘Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der Eudemischen Ethik’, in Moraux, P. (ed.), Untersuchungen zur Eudemischen Ethik (Berlin, 1971).Google Scholar

³ Susemihl had a collation of C^c only for the first two Bekker pages of the work.

⁴ An early Latin tradition, meagrely represented by the de bona fortuna for 46b37 48b11 and by the ‘fragmentum’ for 48bll–49b25 (unknown to S.), is independent of the surviving Greek MSS. The anonymous Latin translation (‘In.’ in S., A ¹in WM) was d one from the Aldine edition: Harlfinger, pp. 24–5.

⁵ Their bibliography omits e.g. Dirlmeier, F., Merkwürdige Zitate in der Eudemischen Ethik des Aristoteles (SB Heidelberg, 1962);Google ScholarHall, R., ‘The Special Vocabulary of the Eudemian Ethics’, CQ (1959), 198–206;Google ScholarMargueritte, H., ‘Notes critiques sur le texte de l'Éthique á Eudéme’, Revue de l'histoire de la philosophie (1930), 86–97.Google Scholar

⁶ See Harlfinger, p. 17.

⁷ But they do not print the pointed brackets.

⁸ But S., who does not employ the obelus in his text, marks the passage as corrupt in the app. crit.

⁹ But see below.

¹⁰ They curiously print ἤ {εἰ}.

¹¹ Which gets no support from b22–23, to which the app.crit. refers.

¹² It is found uniquely in Marc.: Harlfinger, p. 39, n. 90.

¹³ I have noticed a handful of misprints, the most amusing of which is at 15b9: for ⋯ρ⋯ν read ⋯ρ⋯ν. The misprint is inherited from S. (who corrected it in his addenda): Mingay presumably sent a marked up copy of S. to the printers – this explains the numerous vagaries in WM's punctuation.