The Definitions of and in Aristotle, "Poetics" ch. 20 Author(s): R.

R. van Bennekom Reviewed work(s): Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 28, Fasc. 4 (1975), pp. 399-411 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4430531 . Accessed: 09/07/2012 15:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

Mnemosyne, Vol. XXVIII,

Fase. 4

THE

DEFINITIONS IN ARISTOTLE,

OF

S????S??S POETICS BY

AND CH. 20

??T???

R.

VAN

BENNEKOM

1456 1457

b38 a t

????e?

s??des??? d? ?st?? f??? ?s???? ? ?dte ?? p?e????? ?dte p??e? f???? ??a? s??a?t???? ?p? s??t??es?a? ?a? t?? ????? ?a? ?p? pef????a f???? t?? ??s?? ?? ?? ????tte? ?? a??? ????? t????a? ?a?* a?t??, ???? ??? ?t?? d?. ? f??? ?s???? ? ?? p?e????? ??? f?d? p??e?? p?f??e? ??a? s??a???? ??a? s??a?t???? t???? f????. ?????? d' est? f??? ?s???? ? ????? a???? ? t???? ? d????s??? d????. ???? t? ??f? ?a? t? pe?? ?a? ta ???a. ? f??? ?s???? ? ?dte ????e? ?dte p??e? f???? t??es?a? ?? p?e????? f???? ??a? s??a?t???? pef????a ?a? ?p? t?? ????? ?a? ?p? t?? ??s??.

??

of Kassel, the most recent et confusa" is the verdict "Corrupta I have whose text here. editor of the Poetics printed (OCT 1965), in their despair, have been more eloquent Other editors notably Gudeman of an ad loe), who speaks Poetik, 1934, die des und der Nebel, Er?rterung s??des??? "undurchdringlicher the to the ars nesciendi as and on umh?llt" recommend goes ?????? to show that the situation This paper is an attempt best approach. (Aristoteles is not as hopeless we have of the framework evidence (admittedly meagre) a earliest of Greek grammatical theory, stages fits can be constructed into which the present passage as that. to say, many contributions take another of the points to the paper I shall make subject; of this size x). to discuss Out of the

well. Needless reasonably from earlier are derived these fully, however,

would

*) I give here a list of the proposed emendations of the passage which are known to me: J. Vahlen in his edition of the Poetics (1885) and in Beitr?ge zu Aristoteles' Poetik (i965a), 109-117 and 284-290 (where see references to

400

THE

DEFINITIONS

OF S????S??S

AND

??T???

to my mind, to recognize It is essential, from the start that the as given above, which in the main is that of the ms. A, is the of two versions: a short and faulty one, due to result of a conflation text and a full one. The short and faulty one is the version haplography, of the ms. B. It runs from b 38 to a 3 (?p? t?? ??s??) and results from a copyist's eye having leapt from f??? ?s???? (b 38) to f??? the full version is that of A, minus the (a 8). Accordingly, ?s???? words the ? ?dte conflation (b 38) ... in A in ?p? t?? various ??s?? ways, (a 3)? One the easiest can of explain is which

of A and ? ancestor that ?, the proximate to assume perhaps the of B, but had short version on stemma Kassel's p. xii), (see or otherwise added to it, in the margin version with the correct which ? noticed2). first by Margoliouth of b 38 - a 3 has been proposed The seclusion of 1911. It is not only palaeographically in his edition relatively text with parallel definisimple, but it yields a clearly articulated the awful colit obviates and ??????. Moreover, tions of s??des??? ?p? t?? ??s?? ?p? t?? ?a? ?a? of s??t??es?a? location ????? pef????a and ?? ?? ????tte? ?? a??? ????? t????a? ?a?' a?t??, which no one has been able to explain away 3).

earlier literature); I. Bywater (ed. 1909); D. S. Margoliouth (ed. 1911J; A. Rostagni (ed. 1927); M. Pohlenz in NGG III 6 (1939), 151 ff., repr. in Kleine Schriften I, 48 ff. ; C. Gallavotti, Parola del Passato 9 (1954), 241 ff. ; A. Pagliaro in Nuovi Saggi di critica semantica (Messina-Firenze 1956), 79 ff. ; A. von Fragstein in Die Diairesis bei Aristoteles (Amsterdam 1967), in Linguistica e stilistica di Aristotele (Roma ch. 1; G. Morpurgo-Tagliabue, 1967), 41 ff. sake, I add Tkatsch's translation of the Arabic 2) For completeness' version: coniunctio autem est vox composita non indicata velut 'quidem' et 'nonne'. Etenim quod auditur ex iis est non indicatum, compositum e vocibus multis, quae quidem sunt indicantes vocem verbi unam compositam non indicatarn. Articulus autem est vox composita non indicata aut initium orationis aut aut 'propter' aut 'sed'. Et finem eius aut discrimen indicans, velut 'fe<mi>' dicitur vox composita non indicata, quae non prohibet neque facit vocem unam indicatam, cuius negotium (est) ut componatur e vocibus multis et in principiis et in medio. Gallavotti has a full discussion of it. It will be seen that the first definition of s??des??? is left out altogether; for the rest it does not seem very helpful. 3) Bywater brackets ?a? ?p? t?? ????? ?a? ?p? t?? ??s??, but the resulting phrase f???? ??a? s??a?t???? ?? p?e????? f???? pef????a? s??t??es?a? does not make sense. B's pef????a must be right.

THE The

DEFINITIONS

OF S????S??S runs as follows

AND

??T???

401 subat

restored

text,

then,

argument sequent the same time) : S S ? ? ? 2 ? 2

by printing

smaller

(I anticipate my emendations conjectural

d? ?st?? f??? ?s???? ?? ?? ????tte? ?? a??? ????? s??des??? t????a? ?a?' a?t??, ???? ??? ?t?? d?. d? ?s???? ? ?? p?e????? ??? f???? ? f??? ??a? s??a?t???? p??e?? p?f??e? ??a? s??a?t???? f????. d* ?st? f??? ?s???? ? ????? a???? ? t???? ? d????s??? t? <? > [f.?.?] ?a? t? pe?? ?a? ta ???a. ???? d????, ? f??? ?s???? ? ??te ????e? ??te p??e? f???? ??a? s??a?t???? ?? p?e????? ?a? ?p? t?? <s?? >t??es?a? f????, pef????a ?????? ????? ?a? ?p? t?? ??s??.

Translation: A conjunction is a non-signifying which it is not fitexpression of a phrase-or-sentence, ting to place by itself at the beginning such as ???, ?t??, d?. Or: a non-signifying whose nature expression it is to make out of more than one, already signifying, expressions one single A joint which marks beginning, expression in a phrase-or-sentence, such as ?, pe?? and the rest. Or: a non-signifying which neither nor effects hinders expression the formation whose of one nature pressions, middle. What out of more exsingle signifying expression it is to be put at either end as well as in the expression. signifying is a non-signifying

end or break

here are two pairs of alternative definitions, A I have A 2. Pedantlabelled S S 1 and them 1, 2, disjoined by ?. are such Arisdefinitions unaristotelian; ically speaking, optional of ? totle's "real definition" io, 13 with conception (An. Post. Ross's notes) involves that there can be only one definition of each we item, a maxim which (p?e???? ??? e?d??eta? he expressly formulates e.g. But ta?t?? ???s???? e??a?) 4). Top. 142 b 35 in view of the

have

4) Compare, however, Top. 102 b 4 ff., where two alternative definitions of s???e????? are given, linked by ?a? (? in one ms.). Aristotle proceeds to say that he prefers the second definition to the first, because it does not make use of undefined terms, a point which will come to interest us also. 26

402

THE

DEFINITIONS

OF S????S??S

AND

??T???

unfinished and sketchy state of the Poetics, this is in confessedly itself no ground for athetizing one or both alternatives. For all we know, it may have been a whole later or to select nevertheless Aristotle's either intention to work adequate. that S 2 and A 2 were tacked possible I shall give reasons editor of the Poetics) presently that at least in the case of S 2 this is not so. Another regarded in favour firmly is whether question as a later interpolation. of this view. Whereas in Aristotle's in the third as the more them up into It is of course on by a later for the belief

A 1 and A 2 together should not be There are some serious arguments the s??des??? as a part of speech is of ????? (he refers to them theory

embedded

frequently mentioned do so e.g. comments whether

book of the Rhetoric), ????a are nowhere else he would have had enough reason to by him, although in the Sophistici Elenchi or in An. Pr. A 40, where he it makes on the difference to a syllogistic argument statement that to a predicate. there Secondly, of Halicarnassus by Dionysius d), followed Aristotle of recognized only three parts is added

or not the article

is the explicit by Quintilian6),

And thirdly, in the enumeration speech, d???a, ???a and s??des???. of the st???e?a t?? ???e?? at the beginning of ch. 20, ?????? does not in its after but is inserted between figure proper place, s??des???, and pt?s??. Neither of these arguments is decisive in itself a classification (Poetics 20 is the only place where Aristotle attempts of ?????; Dionysius informed, may have been been wrongly etc.); a case for A 1 + A 2 as a make still, together they strong ejecting later addition on the paradigm modelled of S 1 and S 2 by someone ???a (a pupil of Aristotle?) who felt that the Stagirite had been in-

6) De comp. verborum 2 (about the st???e?a t?? ???e??) ta?ta d? Te?d??t?? t??? ??????? ???? ??? ?a? '???st?t???? ?a? ?? ?at' e?e????? f???s?f?sa?te? t???? p????a???, ????ata ?a? ???ata ?a? s??d?s???? p??ta ???? t?? ???e?? p?????te?. ?? d? ?et? t??t??? ?e???e???, ?a? ????sta ot t?? St????? a???se?? ??e???e?, ??? tett???? p??????asa?, ????sa?te? ?p? t?? s??d?s??? ta ????a. De Vita Demosth. 48 e?te t??a ta?t' ?st??, ?? Te?d??t? te ?a? ???st?t??e? d??e?, ????ata ?a? ???ata ?a? s??des???, e?te t?tta?a, ?? t??? pe?? ?????a t?? St?????, e?te p?e??. e) Inst. Or. I 4, 18 veteres enim, quorum fuerunt Aristoteles quoque atque Theodectes, verba modo et nomina et convinctiones tradiderunt (...) paulatim a philosophis ac maxime Stoicis auctus est numerus, ac primum convinctionibus articuli adiecti, post praepositiones, etc.

THE

DEFINITIONS

OF S????S??S

AND

??T???

403 the

complete. definitions The also) between criteria. stress

But let us suspend themselves. S 1 and with each

judgment

until for that more

we have

examined

definitions are consistent them

is that

S 2 (and, other, S 1 concentrates

A 1 and A 2 matter, the difference precisely: on formal, S 2 on functional

S 1 first, its formulation turns out to be not very Taking What is the exact force of ?a?' a?t??, 'by itself ? If we satisfactory. these words, we are led to think which that Aristotle has in mind do not occur in isolation, such the suits assumption

paired conjunctions typically as ??? . . . d?, t? . . . ?a? and ?t?? ... ?. This then well; however, (1) we must give an imprecise examples and (2) it to ?? ???? ?????, since ?t?? can open a sentence, meaning the fact that in Rhet. 1407 a 26 ff. among listed s??des??? neglects On the other hand, we find ??? and ?pe?, which do occur in isolation. if we maintain 'which be corrupt; cannot that ?? ?? ????tte? ?? ???? ????? t????a? must mean be the first word of a ?????', the example ?t?? must Another accordingly, Bywater proposed d? t?? instead.

would be Gallavotti's of ???? ??? ? t? d?, on the analogy possibility ?a? a '?d?sse?a ????? ? ?spe? *)? (Poet. 1449 On the hypothesis But perhaps this is already overinterpretation. that we are dealing with a provisional draft here, it makes little the less so sense to pin the author down upon inner contradictions, since the alternative S 2 is in many ways superior to S 1. To begin of the undefined term ?????, which with, it avoids the introduction There can be no makes S 1 open to methodological objections7). to the need for doubt that the cumbrous of S is due 2 phraseology economy of definition, which dictates the avoidance of the terms d???a, ???a and ????? at this stage. What is more, S 2 is in harmony with the discussion of ????? later on in the chapter, as well as with Aristotle's doctrine of ????? in general. In 1457 a 28 ff. it is said that a ????? can be unified thing (t? Sv s??a??e??) one (e??) in two ways, either by signifying In the first kind of ?????, or by s??des???. of which are e.g. ?f?? d?p??? (the definition of man), examples ? 2) and ?? ??fes? of thunder, An. Post. ??f?? (the definition ?????p?? ?ad??e? (De Int. ch. 10) 8), s??des??? on Aristotle's have no part to play; 7) Cf. ?. 4 above. ?) It is not mere clumsiness

part that he lumps together

404 but

THE

DEFINITIONS

OF S????S??S

AND

??T???

the ????? which are s??d?s?? e??, e.g. the Iliad, are just what for. Even if it is granted that in 1457 a 29 s??d?s?? S 2 is designed with the part of speech is rather = s??d?se?, the verbal coincidence accidental. cannot be s??des??? The same treatise

of syntax from the emerges rudimentary theory which is closely related in contents De Interpretatione, to there are d???a, 20 9). The only parts of speech discussed Poetics is existence of at least implied in and the but s??des??? ?????, ???a 17 a 15 ff. : est? d? e?? ????? ?p?fa?t???? ? ? e? d???? ? ? s??d?s?? ?? to 1457 ?? p???? ?a? ?? as??det??. d? p????? e??, Compared ?? ? a 29 ff., this passage appears to be a fuller version of the dichotomy is drawn drawn there. Within the genus p????? ?????, a subdivision the genus e?? ?????. However, this refineto that within parallel of the scheme: it is ment only serves to bring out the clumsiness that there will be a large degree of overlap between the evident In De Int. e?? and p????? t? p???? s??a??e??. species ????? s??d?s?? ?st?? ???t??? ?e???? (where of things which are both a ???t??? horse and a man) into ?st?? ?pp?? ?a? ?????p?? ?e???? and again into Aristotle ?st?? ?pp?? ?e???? ?a? ?st?? ?????p?? ?e????. This sequence, if a ?a? is s??des???, says, p???? s??a??e? ?a? e?s? p???a? (?8 a 24) ; yet, ch. stands it should also count as a ????? s??d?s?? e??. The case is illustrative of the way in which Aristotle confuses regularly grammar and logic. In AckrilTs words (Aristotle's and De Categories Interpretatione, 127), to blend criteria which are not of the same type, and "he attempts he fails to make himself clear". the difficulty. In De Int. ch. 11 he However, Aristotle has sensed 8 Aristotle the sentence analyses for the imaginary class

sentences and simple noun-phrases under the common denominator ?????. For him, the logical form of any sentence ? is B' (and also of noun-verb sentences, for ?????p?? ?ad??e? is equal to ?????p?? ?ad???? est?: cf. De Int. 2i b 9) is '?st?? (AB)': a noun-phrase with a truth-value, expressed by ?st?? (or ??? ?st??). Cf. Met. ? 10 and Coin's note on De Int. 16 b 21 (Organon, p. 758-774). Occasionally, this view leads him into trouble, as in An. Post. 90 b 33 ff. (not further arguable here). ?) Not the least argument in favour of the genuineness of Poet. 20-21 as a whole, if any is needed, is that it must be by the same author as the De Interpretatione. The variance between the two treatises in the treatment of ????a, ???a and ????? is too small to be explained by conscious opposition, and too great for slavish imitation.

THE

DEFINITIONS

OF S????S??S

AND

??T???

405

discusses

the sequence "? est?? ?????p?? (?a?) ?e???? (?a?) ?ad????". the decomposition to this compound techpredication Applying of we "? ?a? ? ch. est?? ? est? est? ?a? 8, ?e???? ?????p?? nique get: What The is or p????? knot cut is this, e?? ????? ?????? ?ad????". by that it is f??? d? p???a? (2? b 20). ??? ??a, ?ataf?se?? decreeing Thus Aristotle is for once of a more driven to abandon his holistic concept of ????? in favour terminology: f??? for the the other for des?at?fas?? (among terms) logical grammatical, of So a of the second formulation language. advantage cription f???? instead of ??a ????? in S 2 becomes apparent: ??a? s??a?t???? he avoids the objection that in a by using the weaker description, like S????t?? est? ?e???? ?a? ?ad???? do not sense sequences constitute e?? ????? 10). That grammatical unity is weaker than logical unity is no more than a corollary in Met. stated of his general theory of unity, which is most fully Aristotle ? 6 and I 1^3. Broadly, distinguishes ?a?3 a?t? and unity under the ?at? s???e?????; differentiated

between latter

unity in such as the musical and the just, embodied fall aggregates such a man (1015 b 16 ff.). The ????? expressing a just musical will naturally be only a unity, viz. ???s???? (?a?) d??a??? ?????p??, too. A somewhat ?at? s???e?????-unity higher degree of unity is to things which are one in virtue of a band (des???) or awarded glue, such as a bundle or wooden structure they are said to be one ?a?' a?t?, a chunk of ice. This intermediate (1016 a 1, cf. 1052 a 24) ; but in a less strict sense than e.g. in class again has its counterpart

the Iliad, Aristotle's of a ????? s??d?s?? stock example language: e??, is surely not one in a logical sense, but on the other hand he would not like to call it an accidental unity either. with To sum up the results so far: the definition S 2 is consistent has to say about grammatical Aristotle elsewhere. conjunction but therein it reflects It is a rather poor definition, the primitive of his grammatical in general. It is, however, character observations what an improvement upon the purely formal and insufficiently precise

10) Of course, in some cases simple ?a? can effect strong unity, as when we say S????t?? est? ???? ?a? d?p???. But ???? d?p??? is already a strong unity by itself, and Aristotle prefers to leave out ?a? in such cases : note the ?s?? in De Int. 20 b 17, and cf. An. Post. 92 a 29 ff.

4?6

THE

DEFINITIONS

OF S????S??S

AND

??T???

version S I. As to the examples, ??? and d? seem certain, ?t?? may be, but need not be, corrupt. Other conjunctions regarded expressly are t? and ?a? (Probi. 919 a 23, on which see as such by Aristotle below, n. 18, Rhet. 1407 b 39), ?pe? and ??? (Rhet. 1407 a 26). The ??????-section of a different and historicalpresents problems The character. definitions themselves more hardly interesting ly a what sort of be clue to words meant. as give may They are clearly S 1 and S 2 ; but A 2 does not say much more than A 1 is perhaps that an ?????? does not function as a s??des???. the phrase d????s??? d????, somewhat more promising, especially well. For the which fits the only certain example pe?? tolerably modelled upon other example Kassel has printed ??f? after H?rtung; the mss. uniformly give f.?.?. It will be best to look into the history of the term ?????? to see if A 1 and A 2 fit in somewhere of our era, in the u). At the beginning the classical work of Apollonius term Dyscolus, ?????? had come to ? ? t? (?????? p??ta?t????) and the relative The 6 of the term had d? ? origin pronoun (?????? ?p?ta?t????). become a matter of dispute. There were three current explanations, designate the article by Schneider (Gramm. Graeci II 3, p. 130): ?. ?? t?? 2. pa?? ?a? pt?t????? s??a?t?s?a? ??d?p?te d??a a?t?? e???s?es?a?; t?? ?p? t? ??????? ta ????ata ?at' a?????? ?a? ????? ?a? pt?s??; 3? t? d ?a? t??? pt?t????? d???? d???as?, ???, a????eta? a?????, te ?a? ??t?????a??, ?a? ??d?p?te ????? a?t?? e???s?eta?. ?et??a?? assembled first etymology is favoured by Apollonius (e.g. De constr. 118, he to third one as well: but seems the cf. ad 5, accept Uhlig 24,12), De pron. 9, 5 ?a??t? p??t?te ??a??????? pt?t???. The second, which is rather different and is combated underlies 5 ff.), apparently lonian, a Stoic grammarian of Athens of Apollodorus by Apollonius (De constr. 35, the Babythe definition by Diogenes of the second cent. B.C. and the teacher and Dionysius Thrax: ?????? d? ?st? The

11 For the history of the parts of speech, see R. Schmidt, Stoicorum ) grammatica (1839, repr. 1967), G. F. Schoemann, Die Lehre von den Redetheilen nach den Alten (1862), H. Steinthal, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und R?mern (1890a, repr. 1965), and a very important monograph by M. Pohlenz, Die Begr?ndung der abendl?ndischen Sprachlehre durch die Stoa, NGG 1939, repr. in Kleine Schriften I, 39-86.

THE

DEFINITIONS

OF S????S??S

AND

??T???

407

?a? t??? ????? pt?t????, d??????? ta ???? t?? ?????t?? ???? ? ?? a? L. VII t? ? t?, (Diog. 58, SVF III, p. 214). a???????, own definition does not give out much in the form we Dionysius' have it : ?????? est? ????? ????? pt?t????, ?a? ?p?tasp??tass??e??? t?? ?a? ?st? ???se?? t?? ?????t??, s??e??? p??ta?t???? ??? ?, st???e??? ?p?ta?t???? d? d? (p. 6l Uhlig). nor are the proposed All this is not very helpful12), explanations at all likely. we know that the Stoics had a different However, should have given theory about ????a. It is strange that Diogenes such a narrow and

since it was a well-known tenet of Stoic definition, a issue between them and the linguists, Alexandrians, major that ?????? covered not only the article and relative but pronoun, all other sorts of pronouns as well (Ap. Dysc. De pron. 5, 13 18). This looks like an older, because less differentiated, classification, and Apollonius has preserved an interesting of it, justification clue for understanding the true promising term: De pron. 5, 15 ?a? d? t??p??, fas? (sc. o? provenance ?p? t?? St???), t? ?????? d???? ??e?ta? (? te ?a? s?????? t?? ?????, ?? f fa?e? ??a?????, ?a? a?t? t? ?????, ?? f fa?e? ?e?????? ??????? gives of the ?e???s?a? t?? de??a), ??t? ?a? t? ?? t? ???? ?????? t?? a?t?? t??p??. A neat analogy from anatomy, which was no doubt primarily to account for the that ? and d? must belong designed feeling together (0 as a ????? e.g. II. A 12 ? ?a? ???e), but which at the same time became a powerful device for generating endless varieties ? of ????a: ??t?? ? d?, t?? ? d?, t????t?? ? ????, t??????t?? ??????, etc. That the Stoics actually followed this line of thought is confirmed by Priscian Inst. XVII, p. 139, 22 Keil: infinitis vel relativis vel interrogativis causa nominibus, (= correlative) quae relationis inter art?culos poner? solebant. Thus Schoemann 14) seems which us a more

Stoici

ia) Pohlenz (Begr?ndung, 50) sees a connexion between d????s??? d???? in A 1 and d??????? ta ???? in Diogenes' definition. But the resemblance is merely verbal, and can only be exploited at the cost of violent alterations in A 1. 13) Cf. Pohlenz, Begr?ndung, 52. Apollodorus and Dionysius adopted the of calling the demonstrative compromise pronouns ????a de??t??? (??. Dysc, ibid.). 14) De Dionysii Thracis arte grammatica II, Greifsw. Progr. 1841, repr. in Opuscula Acad?mica III, 260 n. 13.

4?8

THE

DEFINITIONS

OF S????S??S

AND

??T???

that "t?? s??????? t?? ????? veram causam in concluding justified We may add that the fuisse, cur hae dictiones ????a vocarentur". as d? will ? under the same heading for bringing motive primary and that the anatomical have been their morphological similarity, was analogy corroboration. relative set up started afterwards its career by way of a more sophisticated

So the article

Priscian information: in Part. p. 501, 11 Keil he says a piece of essential dubia (i.e. the correlative about the pronomina again) : pronouns cum art?culos inter praepositionibus quae Stoici quidem antiquissimi et Herodianus et vero solebant Apollonius Dionysius (...), poner? rationabiliter Hertz, is warranted followed is bracketed by praepositionibus of the remark but the authenticity 15), Priscian uses only here a qualification by antiquissimi, them quite often. Priscian knew he mentions although inter nomina. Cum by Pohlenz

variant of the as a morphological d?. But we can go still further back. It is again pronoun evidence, who, in default of contemporary supplies us with

of the Stoics, better than we do ; I take it that he drew here upon his Apollonius lost treatises, one of Apollonius' ?e?? "?????? or ?e?? ?????se??. link with the we have the missing all to Here, appearance, ??????-section in the unlikely order in Aristotle's Poetics. But we do not have to believe figure of an early to explain the occurrence Stoic interpolator of pe?? there. '????a in the Poetics

in

as parts of We are B.C. informed older than fact are in 300 by probably speech his and that Cat. 10, Theophrastus 24 Kalbfleisch) (In Simplicius ?a? whether with the question had dealt associates s??des??? ????a There ?a? ???a t??? should is also a passage where be included in the the parts of speech. ad Rhetorica pseudo-Aristotelian among

Alexandrum

discussed: 1435 a 34-b 16 ????a d? ?a? t??? by ??t?? d ???????, exemplified ??????????? p??se?e It is now ad??e?. t?? t??t?? agreed commonly ?????p?? ?????p?? that this treatise was written not long after 340 B.C. by Anaximenes are explicitly

u) Begr?ndung, 53. Schoemann (Redetheile, 205 ?. ?) retains cum praepositionibus, but wrongly concludes that for the old Stoa both prepositions and ????a must have belonged to the s??des???. The classification of the prepositions as p???et???? s??des??? is a later Stoic development, which presupinvention of the term p???es??. poses the (Alexandrian?)

THE

DEFINITIONS

OF S????S??S

AND

??T???

409

the extent to which it has been rewritten of Lampsacus, although later is a matter of dispute le). If the passage in question is authenof ????a may have to be pushed back beyond the tic, the invention middle of the the hypothesis the including source. In Halicarnassus the Stoics, and Zeno However that may be, nothing forbids 4th century. that the Stoics borrowed of ????a, their inventory from an earlier, prepositions, peripatetic possibly this connexion it must be noted that of Dionysius does not ascribe the creation to an indeterminate of ????a exclusively to Aristotle between period

but rather

A 1 and A 2 now, if the original To of ??????, 'joint', is kept in mind, the expression meaning a???? ? for a joint does just t???? ? d????s??? d???? ceases to be puzzling, the position that. To illustrate at beginning or end 77. A 218 may ?e ?e??s' At the same time, t' a?t??. ?????? serve, d? ep?pe???ta?, ???a the variety of functions a few promof d?, ? and pe?? (to mention for the lack of precision in A 2. On the one ????a) accounts as 'joints' and can make one d? and pe?? function proper, of out more signifying expression signifying expressions (e.g. d? and ep?st??? pe??pate? ???e?ta? is one single sentence, pe?? ??s?? is one single noun-phrase) ; but the article has no such power, nor has hand, the pose, like pe???a?????17). I supHence, prefix pe?? in compounds ??te ????e? ?dte p??e?: in itself, an ?????? does not function as a it can like look one. This differentiation s??des???, though half-way inent

(see n. 5 above). return to the definitions

of joints and conjunctions marks a first step away from the still more primitive of where all the little words which stage grammar were not either nouns or verbs were thought of as somehow binding or gluing Note that Dionysius speech together. (loc. cit.) speaks of the of from the and cf. a scholion on 'separation' ????a s??des???, Thrax I Graeci : ?? Dionysius 3, p. 515, 19) (Gramm. ?e??pat?t???? d?? ???? ????? ?d??asa? e??a?, d???a ?a? ???a, ta d? ???a ?? ?????s?? 1?) See the references in Lesky, Gesch. der gr. Lit. (19713), 663 f. 17) Greek grammar never made a fundamental distinction between prepositional prefixes and prepositions proper (which no doubt is bound up with their lack of a defined concept of 'word') : Dion. Thrax p. 70 Uhlig p???es?? ?st? ????? p??t????e?? p??t?? t?? t?? ????? ?e??? ?? te s????se? (as prefixes) ?a? s??t??e?. Apollonius employs the distinction s??ta??? ? pa??t???? (De constr. 178, 3 ff).

410

THE

DEFINITIONS

OF S????S??S

AND

??T???

?a? ?????? pa?a?a????es?a? e??a? ???? ?????, ???' ??e?e? s??d?se?? (which does not mean that they did not regard them as ???? t?? the distinction Comm. in is made by Simplicius, ???e?? either: Arist. Cat. io, by the corrupt t? f.?.?. Hartung's t? ??f? is generally by editors, but has little to commend accepted itself. I venture to suggest that f.?.?. is a gloss per compendium (i.e. = f???? = or F.??. even F.?.G. f???? ??a? ???es?a?) on ??a?, A difficult problem possible in the wrong place 19). It will then become ????e?, inserted to read ???? t? <?> ?a? t? pe?? ?a? ta ???a 20). Another is ???? to t? 6 read possibility f??? ?a? t? pe?? ?a? ta ???a, "I mean In Aristotle, the ???? ???? is someand rest". for example ?, pe?? ??te times found instead of ???? ????: An. Post. 97 b 15, De Sensu 448 b 23. In 1457 24 ff.) 18). is posed

a 9 I have restored pef????a s??t??es?a? from ? as lectio sense as well, but s??t??es?a? the ???es?a? gives difficilior. required can be used in the sense of p??st??es?a? : cf. De Int. 19 b 21 (t? ?st?? t??t?? f??? s???e?s?a? e? t? ?ataf?se?) and De An. 43o bl21). The arguments Who, finally, is the author of the ??????-section? retain their force. The Aristotle listed on above against p. 402 testimony of Dionysius must be given great weight ; it is true that

18) In Probi, ig, 919 a 22 ff. Aristotle (if the work is really his) has this to say about conjunctions: ????? ??a??e???t?? s??d?s??? ??? ?st?? 6 '????????? ?????, ???? t? t? ?a? t? ?a?, ?????d? ????? ??p??s?. This looks somewhat like the distinction between S 2 and A 2, and it were indeed similar observations that led to the establishment of the separate part of speech ??????. But ????a as defined in the Poetics can certainly not be dispensed with in Greek; by the 'harmless' conjunctions the author of the Probi, may have meant particles like ??. 1#) For such abbreviations see V. Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeographie II, 329. G. F. Else (Aristotle*s Poetics [i957[, T97) nas drawn attention to a curious gloss on 1449 b 6 in the Arabic translation : ut relinquatur omnis sermo qui est per compendium. Else argues persuasively that this may go back to a warning in the margin of a Greek ms. not to transcribe abbreviated insertions. F.?.?. may thus have escaped its fate. I wonder if a similar solution could not be found for the mysterious ?a? in 1448 a 15 and ??? in 1459 a 36. 20) It is of course immaterial whether we print 6 or 6 ; the point is that they were felt as the same word.?The Arabic version implies t? ???a instead of ta ????a; a mere slip ? 21) The clause pef????a . . . ?p?, t?? ??s?? may be seen as an attempt to make up for the negative character of A 2, and thus to integrate A 1 into A 2.

THE

DEFINITIONS

OF S????S??S

AND

??T???

411

was familiar he may not have known the Poetics, but he certainly of the period rhetorical literature with the technical (including have which dealt with these must Theophrastus) questions. 22), on the other hand, is a better candidate. himself, Theophrastus of not is excluded We have seen that a pre-Stoic by theory ????a connexions between and moreover, Dionysius; Theophrastus* in other doctrines have been traced Zeno's logico-grammatical are possible also 23). But other early Peripatetics as well. in above of his testimony Simplicius p. 408) speaks (see Te?f?ast?? and any of these may have tried te ?a? ot pe?? a?t?? ?e??af?te?, respects their bound still hand at to remain possible improving obscure Much is Aristotle's linguistic chapter. in this field are here, but that discoveries of a on papyrus fragment by a recent treatise which is closely related to another Staatsund

is proved

grammatical Peripatetic der Hamburger section of Poetics 20 (Griechische Papyri Univ. Bibl. [1954], p. 36, ed. ?. Snell) 24). Amsterdam, 225 Rozengracht

II, 467. 2a) See Schmid-St?hlin 23) Cf. ?. Gr?ser, Die logischen Fragmente des Theophrast (Berlin 1973), 44. am grateful to Prof. 24) See D. W. Lucas, Aristotle*s Poetics, 202.?I D. M. Schenkeveld, Prof. J. L. Ackrill, Mr. D. A. Russell and Dr. P. A. M. Seuren for reading and criticizing an earlier draft of this paper.