The Poetics translated by S. H. Butcher/Preface to second

by Aristotle

 

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

 

The following Text and Translation of the Poetics form part of the volume entitled Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, second edition (Macmillan and Co., 1898). In this edition the Critical Notes are enlarged, and the Translation has been carefully revised. The improvements in the Translation are largely due to the invaluable aid I have received from my friend and colleague, Professor W. K. Hardie. To him I would express my warmest thanks, and also to another friend, Professor Tyrrell, who has most kindly read through the proof-sheets, and talked over and elucidated various questions of interpretation and criticism. In making use of the mass of critical material which has appeared in recent years, especially in Germany, I have found it necessary to observe a strict principle of selection, my aim still being to keep the notes within limited compass. They are not intended to form a complete Apparatus Criticus, still less to do duty for a commentary. I trust, however, that no variant or conjectural emendation of much importance has been overlooked.

In the first edition I admitted into the text conjectural emendations of my own in the following passages:—iii. 3: xix. 3: xxiii. 1: xxiv. 10: xxv. 4: xxv. 14: xxv. 16. Of these, one or two appear to have carried general conviction (in particular, xxiii. l): two are now withdrawn,—iii. 3 and xxv. 14, the latter in favour of <οἱονοῠν> (Tucker).

In the first edition, moreover, I bracketed, in a certain number of passages, words which I regarded as glosses that had crept into the text, viz.:—iii. 1: vi. 18: xvii. 1: xvii. 5. In vi. 18 I now give Gomperz's correction τῶν λεγομένων, for the bracketed words τῶν μὲν λόγων of the MSS., and in xvii. 5 Bywater's conjecture ὅτι αὑτός for [τινὰς αὐτός].

There remains a conjecture which I previously relegated to the notes, but which I now take into the text with some confidence. It has had the good fortune to win the approval of many scholars, including the distinguished names of Professor Susemihl and Professor Tyrrell. I refer to οὐ (οὕτω MSS.) τὰ τυχόντα ὀνόματα in ix. 5. 1451 b 13, where the Arabic has 'names not given at random' For the copyist's error cf. ix. 2. 1451 a 36, where A^c has οὕτω, though οὐ τὸ rightly appears in the 'apographa': and for a similar omission of οὐ in A^c cf. vi. 12. 1450 a 29, οὐ ποιήσει ὃ ῆν τῆς τραγῳδίας ἕργον, the indispensable negative being added in 'apographa' and found in the Arabic. The emendation not only gives a natural instead of a strained sense to the words τὰ τυχόντα ὁνόματα, but also fits in better with the general context, as I have argued in Aristotle's Theory of Poetry, etc. (ed. 3 pp. 375-8).

Another conjecture of my own I have ventured to admit into the text. In the much disputed passage, vi. 8. 1450a 12, I read <πάντες> ὡς εἰπεῖν for οὐκ ὀλίγοι αὐτῶν ὡς εἰπεῖν of the MSS., following the guidance of Diels and of the Arabic. I regard οὐκ ὀλίγοι αὐτῶν as a gloss which displaced part of the original phrase (see Critical Notes). As a parallel case I have adduced Rhet. i. 1. 1354a 12, οδὲβ ὡς εἰπεῖν, the reading in the margin of A^c, ought, I think, to be substituted in the text for the accepted reading ὀλίγον. The word ὀλίγον is a natural gloss on οὐδὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν, but not so οὐδὲν ὡς εἱπεῖν on ὀλίγον.

In two other difficult passages the Rhetoric may again be summoned to our aid. In xvii. 1. 1455a 27 I have (as in the first edition) bracketed τὸν θεατήν, the object to be supplied with ἐλάνθανεν being, as I take it, the poet, not the audience. This I have now illustrated by another gloss of a precisely similar kind in Rhet. i. 2. 1358a 8, where λανθάνουσίν τε [τοὺς ἀκροατὰς] has long been recognised as the true reading, the suppressed object being not the audience but the rhetoricians.

Once more, in xxiv. 9. 1460a 23, where A^c gives the meaningless ἄλλου δέ Be, I read (as in the first edition) ἀλλ' οὐδέ, following the reviser of A^c. This reading, which was accepted long ago by Vettori, has been strangely set aside by the chief modern editors, who either adopt a variant ἄλλο or resort to conjecture, with the result that προσθεῖναι at the end of the sentence is forced into impossible meanings. A passage in the Rhetoric, i. 2. 1357a 17 ff., appears to me to determine the question conclusively in favour of ἀλλ' οὐδέ . . . ἀνάγκη . . . προσθεῖναι. The passage runs thus: ἐὰν γὰρ ᾖ τι τούτων γνώριμον, οὐδέ δεῖ λέγειν• αὐτὸς γὰρ τοῦτο προστίθησιν ὁ ἀκροατής, οἷον ὅτι Δωριεὺς στεφανίτην ἀγῶρα νενίκηκεν, ἱκανὸν εἰπεῖν ὅτι Ὀλύμπια γὰρ νενίκηκεν, τὸ δ' ὅτι στεφανίτης τὰ Ὀλύμπια, οὐδέ δεῖ προσθεῖναι• γιγνώσκουσι γὰρ πάντες. The general idea is closely parallel to our passage of the Poetics, and the expression of it is similar, even the word οὐδέ (where the bare οὐ might have been expected) in the duplicated phrase οὐδὲ δεῖ λέγειν, οὐδὲ δεῖ προσθεῖναι. One difficulty still remains. The subject to εἶναι ἢ γενέσθαι, is omitted. To supply it in thought is not, perhaps, impossible, but it is exceedingly harsh, and I have accordingly in this edition accepted Professor Tucker's conjecture, ἀνάγκη <κἀκεῖνο> εἶναι ἢ γενέσθαι.

The two conjectures of my own above mentioned are based on or corroborated by the Arabic. I ought to add, that in the Text and Critical Notes generally I have made a freer use than before of the Arabic version (concerning which see p. 4). But it must be remembered that only detached passages, literally rendered into Latin in Professor Margoliouth's Analecta Orientalia (D. Nutt, 1887), are as yet accessible to those like myself who are not Arabic scholars; and that even if the whole were before us in a literal translation, it could not safely be used by any one unfamiliar with Syriac and Arabic save with the utmost caution and subject to the advice of experts. Of the precise value of this version for the criticism of the text, no final estimate can yet be made. But it seems clear that in several passages it carries us back to a Greek original earlier than any of our existing MSS. Two striking instances may here be noted:—

(1) i. 6-7. 1447a 29 ff., where the Arabic confirms Ueberweg's excision of ἐποποιία and the insertion of ἀνωνυμος before τυγχάνουσα, according to the brilliant conjecture of Bernays (see Margoliouth, Analecta Orientalia, p. 47).

(2) xxi. 1. 1457a 36, where for μεγαλιωτῶν of the MSS. Diels has, by the aid of the Arabic, restored the word Μασσαλιωτῶν, and added a most ingenious and convincing explanation of Ἑρμοκαϊκόξανθος (see Critical Notes). This emendation is introduced for the first time into the present edition. Professor Margoliouth tells me that Diels' restoration of ἑπευξάμενος in this passage is confirmed by the fact that the same word is employed in the Arabic of Aristotle's Rhetoric to render εὔχεσθαι.

Another result of great importance has been established. In some fifty instances where the Arabic points to a Greek original diverging from the text of A^c, it confirms the reading found in one or other of the 'apographa,' or conjectures made either at the time of the Renaissance or in a more recent period. It would be too long to enumerate the passages here; they will be found noted as they occur. In most of these examples the reading attested by the Arabic commands our undoubting assent. It is, therefore, no longer possible to concede to A^c the unique authority claimed for it by Vahlen.

I have consulted by the side of Professor Margoliouth's book various criticisms of it, e.g. by Susemihl in Berl. Phil. Wochenschr. 1891, p. 1546, and by Diels in Sitzungsber. der Berl. Akad. 1888, p. 49. But I have also enjoyed the special benefit of private communication with Professor Margoliouth himself upon a number of difficulties not dealt with in his Analecta Orientalia. He has most generously put his learning at my disposal, and furnished me, where it was possible to do so, with a literal translation. In some instances the Arabic is itself obscure and throws no light on the difficulty; frequently, however, I have been enabled to indicate in the notes whether the existing text is supported by the Arabic or not.

In the following passages I have in this edition adopted emendations which are suggested or con firmed by the Arabic, but which did not find a place in the first edition:—

ii. 3. 1448a 15, ὥπερ οἰ τοὺς^[1]

vi. 7. 1450a 17, <ὀ δὲ βίος>, omitting καὶ εὐδαιμονίας καὶ ἡ εὐδαιμονία of the MSS.

xi. 6. 1452b 10, [τούτων δὲ. . .εἴρηται]

xviii. 6. 1456a 24, <καὶ> εἰκὸς^[2]

xx. 5. 1456b 35, <οὐκ> ἄνευ^[2]

xxi. 1. 1457a 34, [καὶ ἀσήμου]. The literal translation of the Arabic is 'and of this some is compounded of significant and insignificant, only not in so far as it is significant in the noun'

xxi. 1. 1457a 36, Μασσαλιωτῶν (see above, p. ix.)

xxv. 17. 1461b 12, <καὶ ἴσως ἀδύνατον>

I hesitate to add to this list of corroborated conjectures that of Dacier, now admitted into the text of xxiii. 1. 1459 a 21, καὶ μὴ ὁμοίας ἱστορίαις τὰς συνθέσεις, for καὶ μὴ ὁμοίας ἱστορίας τὰς συνήθεις of the MSS. The Arabic, as I learn from Professor Margoliouth, is literally 'and in so far as he does not introduce (or, there do not enter) into these compositions stories which resemble.' This version appears to deviate both from our text and from Dacier's conjecture. There is nothing here to correspond to συνήθεις of the MSS.; on the other hand, though συνθέσεις may in some form have appeared in the Greek original, it is not easy to reconstruct the text which the translation implies. Another conjecture, communicated privately to me by Mr. T. M'Vey, well deserves mention. It involves the simpler change of ὁμοίας το οἵας. The sense then is, 'and must not be like the ordinary histories' ; the demonstr. τοιούτους being sunk in οἵας, so that οἷαι ἱστορίαι αἱ συνήθεις becomes by attraction, οἵας ἱστορίας τὰς συνήθεις.

I subjoin a few other notes derived from correspondence with Professor Margoliouth:—

(a) Passages where the Arabic confirms the reading of the MSS. as against proposed emendation:—

iv. 14. 1449a 27, ἐκβαίνοντες τῆς λεκτικῆς ἁρμονίας: Arabic, 'when we depart from dialectic composition.' (The meaning, however, is obviousy misunderstood.)

vi. 18. 1450b 13, τῶν μὲν λόγων: Arabic, 'of the speech.' The μέν is not represented, but, owing to the Syriac form of that particle being identical with the Syriac for the preposition 'of,' it was

likely to be omitted here by the translator or copyist.

xviii. 1. 1455b 25. The Arabic agrees with the MSS. as to the position ofπολλάκις, 'as for things which are from without and certain things from within sometimes.'

xviii. 5. 1456a 19, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀπλοῖς πράγμασι: Arabic, 'and in the simple matters.'

xix. 2. 1456a 38, τὰ πάθη παρασκευάζειν: Arabic, 'to prepare the sufferings.'

More doubtful is xvii. 2. 1455a 30, ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως: Arabic, 'in one and the same nature.' The Arabic mode of translation is not decisive as between the MSS. reading and the conjecture ἀπ' αὑτῆς φύσεως, but rather favours the former.

(b) Passages where the conjectural omission of words is apparently supported by the Arabic:—

ix. 9. 1451b 31, οἷ ἂν εἰκὸς γενέσθαι καὶ δυνατὰ γενέσθαι: Arabic, 'there is nothing to prevent the condition of some things being therein like those which are supposed to be.' But we can hardly say with certainty which of the two phrases the Arabic represents.

XVI. 4. 1454b 31, οἷον Ὀρέστης ἐν τῇ Ἰφιγενείᾳ ἀνεγνώρισεν ὄτι Ὀρέστης: Arabic, 'as in that which is called Iphigenia, and that is whereby Iphigenia argued that it was Orestes.' This seems to point to the omission of the first Ὀρέστης.^[3]

In neither of these passages, however, have I altered the MSS. reading.

(c) Passages on which the Arabic throws no light:—

i. 9. 1447b 22. The only point of interest that emerges is that in the Arabic rendering ('of all the metres we ought to call him poet') there is no trace of καί, which is found alike in A^c and the 'apographa.'

x. 3. 1452a 20. The words γίγνεσθαι ταῦτα are simply omitted in the Arabic.

xxv. 18. 1461b 18, ὥστε καὶ αὐτὸν MSS. The line containing these words is not represented in the Arabic.

XXV. 19. 1461b 19, ὄταν μὴ ἀνάγκης οὔσης μηδὲν . . . The words in the Arabic are partly obliterated, partly corrupt.

In conclusion, I desire to acknowledge my obligations to friends, such as Mr. B. Bosanquet (whose History of Aesthetic ought to be in the hands of all students of the subject), Dr. A. W. Verrall, Mr. W. J. Courthope, Mr. A. O. Prickard, and Rev. Dr. Lock, who have written me notes on particular points, and to many reviewers by whose criticism I have profited. In a special sense I am indebted to Professor Susemihl for his review of my first edition in the Berl. Phil. Wochenschr., 28th September 1895, as well as for the instruction derived from his numerous articles on the Poetics, extending over many years in Bursian's Jahresbericht and elsewhere. Among other reviewers to whom I feel grateful, I would mention Mr. Herbert Richards in the Classical Review, May 1895; Mr. R. P. Hardie in Mind, vol. iv. No. 15; and the authors of the unsigned articles in the Saturday Review, 2nd March 1895, and the Oxford Magazine, 12th June 1895.

To Messrs. R & R. Clark's Reader I would once again express no merely formal thanks.

Edinburgh, November 1897.

1. In ed. 3 I simply give the MSS. reading in the text, ὥστερ ✝γᾶς✝.
2. In ed. 3 the words here added are omitted in the text.
3. Vahlen (Hermeneutische Bemerkungen zu Aristoteles' Poetik ii. 1898, pp. 3-4) maintains that the inference drawn from the Arabic is doubtful, and he adds strong objections on other grounds to Diels' excision of the first Ὀρέστης.