Table Of ContentK^(6^l^:^^i^2^>i>U^
THE POETICS OF ARISTOTLE
TRANSLATION & COMMENTARY
STEPHEN HALLIWELL
i
mMM^i^^
k' ?
Digitized by the Internet Archive
2012
in
http://archive.org/details/poeticsofaristotOOaris
The Poetics ofAristotle
The
Poetics of
Aristotle
translation and commentary
Stephen Halliwell
The University ofNorth Carohna Press
Chapel Hill
—
FirstpublishedinGreatBritain 1987by
GeraldDuckworth& Co. Ltd.
TheOldPianoFactory
43GloucesterCrescent, LondonNWl
©
1987byStephenHalliwell
Allrightsreserved. Nopartofthis
publicationmaybereproduced, storedina
retrievalsystem, ortransmitted, inany
formorbyanymeans, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recordingorotherwise, without
thepriorpermissionofthepublishers.
FirstpublishedintheUnited States 1987
byTheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress
07 06 05 04 03 10 9 8 7 6
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Aristotle
ThePoeticsofAristotle.
Bibliography: p.
Includesindex.
—
1. Poetry Earlyworksto1800. 2. Aesthetics
Earlyworksto 1800. I. Halliwell, Stephen. 11. Title.
PN1040.A513 1987b 808.2 87-16255
ISBN 0-8078-1763-5
ISBN 0-8078-4203-6(pbk. : alk. paper)
PhotosetinNorthWalesby
DerekDoyle&Associates, Mold, Clwyd.
PrintedandboundinGreatBritainby
RobertHartnoll (1985) Ltd., Bodmin, Cornwall.
Contents
Preface vii
Guide for the reader ix
Introduction 1
Translation 31
Textual notes 66
Commentary 69
Further reading 185
Glossary 186
Preface
This book is intended to provide a type of guidance and
interpretative stimulus tothe studyofthePoetics which is not at
present easily available to the Greekless reader. Translations of
the work are usually accompanied by separate notes on
particular points, but what many students and other readers
may find more valuable, I believe, is a continuous exposition
which follows with critical attention the structure and
implications of Aristotle's argument. Comparison with the one
already available work ofthis kind, by Golden and Hardison (see
Further Reading), will show why there has not seemed to me
muchrisk ofduplicatingtheirviews.
To base such a commentary on someone else's version of the
work would have entailed making too many defensive
qualifications of a distracting kind. As it is, I have at any rate
been able to achieve consistency between the translated text and
the commentary, and this has been my main justification for
adding to the already large number of English renderings of the
treatise. Without launching on a disquisition concerning
translation, I would wish tosay that my version stays close to the
best Greek text we have of the Poetics, while striving to be as
clear and intelligible as it can honestly be made. The Poetics is
not as garbled or unreadable as is sometimes alleged. On the
other hand, I cannot claim to have given any real impression of
Aristotle's idiosyncratic style: anyone who wants that will have
tolearn Greek.
In writing my commentary, I had in mind chiefly such readers
as serious students of Greek literature in translation, ofDrama,
and of European literature in general - as well as interested
readers of a less easily classifiable kind. Most points of factual
detail have been dealt with in the Glossary, so that I was free in
the commentary to concentrate on ideas and argument. I
viii Preface
presume that anyone who has a real interest in the work does not
wish to be served up only idees regues (from which the Poetics
continues to suffer, particularly in general textbooks on poetry
and criticism), and I have not shirked strong judgements of a
kind which may provoke the questioning reader into thinking
independently aboutAristotle's intentions and achievement.
Where appropriate, I have indicated ways in which Aristotle's
views might be brought to the test ofsurviving tragedy. We are
fortunate in possessing the two plays which he cites most often,
Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus and Euripides' Iphigeneia in
Tauris: all readers of the Poetics should also read these texts in
conjunction with the treatise (togetherwith as many other Greek
tragedies as possible), and should be prepared to think carefully
about them in relation to the theory oftragedy. Myown views on
ways in which I believe Aristotle misrepresents, or offers heavily
one-sided approaches to, these plays, will emerge clearly enough,
but the reader will want to test my views too against the works
themselves.
Although some ofthe arguments presented here are inevitably
close to those which I have put forward at greater length in my
study, Aristotle's Poetics (London & Chapel Hill, NC 1986), this
smaller work was separately conceived and is not intended as a
potted version of the earlier one..I have managed to include in
both the Introduction and the Commentary many points and
suggestions which did notfind a place in the largerbook.
S.H.
