On a passage in the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. 345 1st, because dvaXoyla is made to bear a sense neither natural in itself, nor consistent with that which it bears in the rest of the chapter; 2ndly, because an equality existing before exchange must, from the nature of the case, also exist afterwards. Other explanations might be cited, equally unsatisfactory. In proposing a new interpretation, it will be necessary, first, to settle the meaning of the words proportion and equality. What is meant by avTiireirovBos or avrtdoais Kar dvaXoyiav and kclt lo-oTtjTa ? In these two expressions, taken by themselves, there is not the slightest difficulty : that there should ever have been two explanations has only arisen from the forcing apparently required by a misunderstood context. The natural and obvious meaning of an exchange in proportion is one in which the value of the goods exchanged is proportional to the wealth or ability of the parties exchanging ; so that e. g. if A is ten times as rich as B, his gift will be ten times as great as B's return. An exchange in equality is as obviously one in which the goods exchanged are of precisely the same value, whatever may be the circumstances of the parties. What then does Aristotle mean by saying (according to the ordinary interpretation) that commercial exchanges are to be <ar avakoylav Ka firj nar la-oTTjra? Could commerce possibly be con- ducted on a principle of raising or lowering the price of an article according to the means of the purchaser as compared with those of the seller ? Is a tradesman to estimate the value of his own entire property as compared with that of his customer, before he determines whether to charge the latter a high or a low price for his goods? The true solution of this apparent absurdity has escaped, as far as I am aware, the notice of all the commentators. It lies in the simple fact that Aristotle is not speaking of commerce at all. This might be inferred from the context, *h yap to KaK&s r)TOi>aiv' el 8e fir}, dovkeia doKel eivai, el p.r) avTirroirjcrei' rj to cv' el 8e jut/, peraboais ov yiverai, rfj perabocrei de avfi/xevovcriv. Ato Kal Xapirav iepbv epwobcov iroiovvTai, 1v avranodoais fj' tovto yap 'ibiov x^P LT0S - What pa- rallel can possibly exist between avenging an injury and dealing with a tradesman ? Or what propriety is there in the mention of the temple of the Xapires (Gratitude) as an inducement to a fair equivalent in commerce ? Is it Gratitude that requires me to pay my bills? Is Gratitude the Greek correspondent to a modern bum-bailiff?
