^{page 192 note 1} See Jaeger, W., Aristoteles, eine Grundlegung der Geschichte seiner Entwicklung (English translation by Robinson, R., Oxford, 1934)Google Scholar. See further Neue Phiologische Untersuchungen IV and VIII and cp. with regard to Aristotle's theology Guthrie, W. K. C., C.Q., 1933, 162Google Scholar and 1934, 90 ff., and with regard to the locial writings ProfessorStocks', J. L. paper (C.Q., 1934, 90 ff.)Google Scholar.

^{page 192 note 2} Cp. Cooper, L. and Gudeman, A., A Bibliography of the Poetics of Aristotle in Cornell Studies in English XI (1928), Yale University PressGoogle Scholar.

^{page 192 note 3} See also 1453b 1 ff., 1454b 15 ff. Cp. about ὂψις Bywater, I. in Festschrift für Th. Gomperz (Wien, 1902), 166Google Scholar.

^{page 192 note 4} Aristotle on the Art of Poetry (Oxford, 1909), 233Google Scholar.

^{page 193 note 1} Also the recognition occurring in Eur. Iph. T. is mentioned in both chapters, but looked upon from different standpoints.

^{page 193 note 2} Both passages are concerned with the δέσις and λύσις which must occur in any tragedy. We can, however, not go any further here owing to the corruption in 1456a 8.

^{page 193 note 3} See Tkatsch, I., Die arabischc Uebersetzung der Poetik des Aristoteles etc., Wiss, Wiener Akad. d.. II (1932), 179–83Google Scholar. Tkatsch translates the passage in question: ‘Et manifestum quod exitus fabularum oportet ut accidant iis et superveniant iis tantum e more ipso.’

^{page 194 note 1} πρς γρ τοτοις which is the reading of the better mss., gives no reasonable sense. So we cannot help adopting πρς δ τ. with Dr. Gudeman, thought it is not at all certain that it has not sprung from mere conjecture.

^{page 195 note 1} I cannot agree with Professor Bywater's rendering (in his edition and in the Oxford translation of Aristotle) of this passage: ‘… Its (scil. epic poetry's) parts too must be the same, as it requires peripeties, discoveries, etc. Lastly the thought and diction in it must be good in their way.’ ‘Lastly’ conveys to the reader the impression that there is a third thing besides the εἲδη and the μέρη in common to epic and tragedy. It does not appear, then, that thought and language are amongst the μέρη. Moreover peripeties and discoveries must not be classed under the parts (μέρη), but under the εἲδη; see above, Owen's, A. S. summary in his ‘Analytic Commentary’ (Aristotle on the Art of Poetry, Oxford, 1931), 40Google Scholar, is open to nearly the same objections.

^{page 195 note 2} He had just, as it was pointed out above (p. 193), added an account of the four εἲδη τραγῳδίας to his earlier treatment of tragedy.

^{page 196 note 1} See Soph. 235c ff., 267a ff.; Crat. 423 ff. Rep. III, 392d ff. shows that the notion of μίμησις was originally more limited. It is worth while to compare the theories of μίμησις underlying Legg. II, in particular 669a ff., with those of arist. Poet. I.

^{page 196 note 2} Aristoteles περ ποιητικ ς mit Einleitung, Text, adnotatio critica, exegetischem Kommentar etc. (Berlin and Leipzig, 1934).—Cp. also Hardie, R. P., Mind, N.S. IV, 356Google Scholar(‘a definition resulting from a division after the familiar manner of Plato in his later dialogues’), and Ross, W. D., Aristotle (² 1930, London), 277Google Scholar.

^{page 197 note 1} The εἴδη mentioned in this sentence are explained in the immediately following one as ῥνθμς, ρμονἰα, μλος, which are important in the first διαρεσις as ν οἶς ποιονται τν μμησιν.

^{page 198 note 1} Cp. Finsler, , Plato und die aristotelische Poetik (Leipzig, 1900), 50Google Scholar; Bywater, l.e., 178; Rostagni, ad loc. (1450b 35 ff.). See also Pl. Leges II, 668e ff.

^{page 198 note 2} Cp. Neue Philolog. Untersuchungon IV, 81 ff.; Stocks, J. L., C.Q., 1933, 122Google Scholar.

^{page 198 note 3} See Rep. III, 401b c, 402b ff., Legg. II, 661b. Cp. Tate, J., C.Q., 1928, 20 ff.Google Scholar, 1932, 161 ff. Concerning the relation between εἴδη and poetry Platonists had to choose between two views. The one was that maintained by Plato in Rep. X. Yet Aristotle is not inclined to support the doctrine that the poet's work is but a τρτον π τς ληθεας. He would not place temporal things between the poet and the εῖδοσ, but rather bring the poet face to face with the idea. In the Poetics he does not even speak of the εῖδοσ ν τ ψνϰῇ (scil. of the artist) as e.g. in the Metaphysics (Z 7, 1032b 1, 23; cp. Hardie, R. P., Mind, N.S. IV, 353Google Scholar and Butcher, S. H., Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art [⁴ 1920], 157 f.)Google Scholar, but thinks of the poet as contemplating a καθγον, a process of intrinsic unity, from which everything accidental is kept away.

^{page 198 note 4} Cp. Cooper, L., The Poetics of Aristotle (in Our Debt to Greece and Rome), 30Google Scholar. Attempts have been made, even of late, to eliminate this part of the definition (see Gilbert, A. H., Philosoph. Rev., 1926, 304 f.)Google Scholar.

^{page 198 note 5} La Poetica di Aristotile (Torino, 1927) XLI ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 198 note 6} Riv. di Fil. IV (1926), 433Google Scholar; V, 1. Rostagni does not fail to do justice to J. Bernays' famous explanation of κθαρσις, which is, with some modifications, embodied in his own theory. This explanation is indeed, as Bywater, J. has proved (J. of Ph. XXVII, 267 ff.)Google Scholar, much older than Bernays.

^{page 199 note 1} See for instance Anal. Pest.A 4, 73a 21: πε δ' δνατον ἄλλως ἔϰειν οὖ στιν πιστμη ποδεικτικ, ναγκαῖον ἄν εἴη τ πιστητν τ κατ τν ποδεικτικν πιστμην … ναγκαων ἄρα συλλογισμς στιν πδειξις. See further b 16 ff., b 23 ff., b 27: φανερν ἄρα ὃτι ὃσα καθλου (καθλου is one of the principal notions of Aristotle's Apesdeictic) ξ νγκης ὑπρϰει τοῖς πργμασιν; 6, 74b 6 ff.: τ δ καθ' αὑτ ὑπρϰοντα ναγκαῖα τοῖς πργμασιν and other passages of ch. VI such 74b 13 ff., 75a 28 ff.

^{page 200 note 1} Cp. Gudeman, I.c. 229.

^{page 201 note 1} See for instance 1451b 27 ff. and b 33 ft.