his rival. The world rung with the disputes of the Aristotelian and the Platonist; nor can the days of romance produce an instance where greater zeal and devotion were displayed by rival knights and squires in the service of some earthly goddess of their idolatry, than was shown by the rival champions of Aristotle and Plato in vindicating the peerless superiority of their respective masters £.

This dispute, however, although perhaps trivial in itself, was great and beneficial in its consequences. These literary skirmishes taught men to feel their own powers, opened their eyes to a more perfect appreciation of the ancient philosophy; and they who had been engaged

This controversy commenced in an amusing way, originating with Gemistius Plethon, who had inspired Cosmo di Medici with a predilection for Platonism. This brisk and staunch old scholar had been sent to the Council of Ferrara to take part in the conferences between the two Churches; upon which occasion he combated so warmly for his own, that, contrary to the example of several of his compatriots, he refused to make a single confession. He wrote a treatise in Greek upon the difference between the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, in which he turned into ridicule the opinions of those who thought the two philosophers could be reconciled, and treated with much contempt both Aristotle and his followers. Upon this the Aristotelians took fire, and entered the lists against him; but Plethon died before he could reply. Two of the most earnest and eminent who engaged in this quarrel were Cardinal Bessarion and George of Trebisond. See Ginguené, Hist. Litt. d'Italie, iii. p. 357.

in contending for others, had now learned to venture for themselves. The names of some who were most eagerly engaged in these disputes, are still illustrious in the annals of literature, and Europe still venerates the memory of Bessarione, Don. Acciajuoli, Argiropulo, Erm. Barbaro, Marsiglio Ficino, Giov. Pico dalla Mirandola, Cristoforo Landino, Poliziano, Alexander and his son Franc. Piccolomini, Laur. Donati, Franc. Patrizi, Charpentier, and Bembo.

But it would be superfluous to enter here into a detail of the merits of this controversy, to show what advantages it produced towards the illustration of Aristotle generally, or of the Ethics in particular; nor shall I weary the reader's patience by enumerating the host of modern commentators, who have devoted their time to the illustration of this treatise, particularly after the labors of Buhle, Zell, and Hoffman. I shall therefore only mention those which after some examination appear to me to be the most deserving of notice.

1. The earliest of these is Jo. Argiropulo with his disciple Acciajuoli, to whose deserts the celebrated Victor has paid a merited eulogiums. Argiropulo was a native of Byzantium, and upon the capture of that city by the Turks retired to Florence, where he was liberally received by Cosimo di Medici. In this splendid

See p. 357, note to this Edition.

retreat he became tutor to Peter the son, and Lorenzo the grandson, of Cosmo; and numbered among other pupils the celebrated Angelo Poliziano. To avoid the plague which devastated Tuscany during the latter part of his life, he retired to Rome, where he died in 1480. His Latin version of the Ethics was first published in 1488, and republished several times within that century. In 1535 it was reprinted at Venice, with the commentary of his pupil Acciajuolih, and again at Paris more accurately

in 1555.

2. The next and most important is the commentary of Victorius (Pietro Vettori), born of noble parents at Florence, July 11, 1499. The attentions of this eminent scholar were not confined merely to literary exertions; he took an active part in the political divisions which agitated his country. Upon the tragical death of Alexander of Medici, he intended to settle at Rome, but was diverted from his purpose by the Grand Duke Cosmo di Medici, who appreciated his talents, and recalled him the following year (1538) to Florence. Here he was appointed Professor of the Greek and Latin tongues; and having filled the chair with much reputation and ability, was elected by acclama

This commentary is attributed by Buhle to Argiropulo incorrectly. See the dedication prefixed to the Paris Edition of this version and commentary, and Acciajuoli's own dedication to Cosmo di Medici.

tion President of the Florentine Academy in 1542. He died at an advanced age at Florence, loaded with civil and literary honours, December 18, 1585, a year after the publication of his Commentary upon the Ethics '.

3. Johannes Magirus, Doctor of Medicine, and Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Academy of Marpurg; author of an ingenious commentary upon the Ethics, which he was prevented from completing by a premature death. His work was published at Frankfort in 1601, 12mok.

4. Hubert Van Giffen, (Giphanius), a celebrated jurist, born in 1534 at Burn, a little village in the ancient duchy of Gueldres. After commencing his studies at Louvain, he removed to Paris, and finally to Orleans in 1566, where he received a Doctor's degree the subsequent year. Having travelled over Italy, he at length fixed himself at Strasbourg, where he taught philosophy and civil law. In consequence of his reputation he was appointed Professor of Civil Law at Ingolstadt; but attracting the notice of Rodolph the Second, was

i Petri Victorii Commentarii in X libros Aristotelis de Moribus ad Nicomachum. Positis ante singulas declarationes Græcis verbis auctoris: iisdemque ad verbum Latine expressis. Florentiæ ex officina Junctarum 1584. fol. On the reverse is a portrait of him in his 81st (86th ?) year.

Dr. Joannis Magiri Philosophiæ professoris in Academia Marpurgensi inclyti, Corona virtutum Moralium, &c.

by that Emperor invited to Prague, where he died 26th July, 1604. His commentary upon the Ethics was not printed till after his death in 1608.

Of all the critics now mentioned, Acciajuoli is most valuable for his acuteness, and the knowledge he displays of the other writings of Aristotle. Magirus furnishes a clear and easy interpretation and paraphrase of the argument, aiming at little else than rendering the terse and sometimes involved reasoning of Aristotle familiar and intelligible to the beginner. The commentary of Vettori is more distinguished for its critical scholarship, and its illustrations produced principally from the Latin classics ; but in explaining the philosophy of Aristotle, or the systems of others which he is employed in supporting or refuting, this commentator is inferior to any of the others. The most valuable is the commentary of Giphanius, who, to an intimate knowledge of the writings of Aristotle and great natural acuteness, united the study of the other Greek philosophers. In the labors of this excellent scholar the reader will frequently find that satisfaction which elsewhere will be sought in vain. Of the notes of Zell (1820) and Michelet (1833) it is needless to speak; with the former I am no otherwise acquainted than through the extracts of Dr. Cardwell, whose selections from the ancient commentators are extremely useful, and had they