Aristotle next proceeds to the second Quaternion, where he points out, as the characteristic distinction, that [Greek: ou)k a)/nthrôpos] comes in and [Greek: a)/nthrôpos] disappears, while [Greek: di/kaios] and [Greek: ou) di/kaios] remain included, as in the first. This is declared plainly by Aristotle in line 37:--[Greek: au(=tai me\n ou)=n du/o a)nti/keintai] (referring to the two pairs of antithetical propositions in the first Quaternion), [Greek: _a)/llai de\ pro\s to\ ou)k a)/nthrôpos_ ô(s u(pokei/meno/n ti prostethe/n; e)/sti di/kaios ou)k a)/nthrôpos, e)/stin ou) di/kaios ou)k a)/nthrôpos-ou)k e)/sti di/kaios ou)k a)/nthrôpos, e)/stin ou) di/kaios ou)k a)/nthrôpos-ou)k e)/stin ou) di/kaios ou)k a)/nthrôpos.] When we read these words, [Greek: a)/llai de\ du/o pro\s to\ ou)k a)/nthrôpos ô(s u(pokei/meno/n ti prostethe/n], as applied to the second Quaternion, we see that there must have been some words preceding which excluded [Greek: _ou)k a)/nthrôpos_] from the first Quaternion. Waitz contends for the necessity of changing [Greek: prostethe/n] into [Greek: prostethe/ntos]. I do not concur with his reasons for the change; the words that follow, p. 20, line 2, [Greek: ô(s o)no/mati tô=| _ou)k a)/nthrôpos_ chrô/menai (proschrô/menai)], are a reasonable justification of [Greek: prostethe/n--_ou)k a)/nthrôpos_ ô(s _u(pokei/meno/n ti_ prostethe/n] being very analogous to [Greek: ou)k a)/nthrôpos ô(s o)/noma]. This long note, for the purpose of restoring clearness to an obscure text, will appear amply justified if the reader will turn to the perplexities and complaints of the ancient Scholiasts, revealed by Ammonius and Boethius. Even earlier than the time of Alexander (Schol. p. 122**, b. 47) there was divergence in the MSS. of Aristotle; several read [Greek: tô=| dikai/ô|] (p. 19, b. 25), several others read [Greek: tô=| a)nthrô/pô|]. I think that all of them were right in what they retained, and wrong by omission only or mainly.]