Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T14:43:37.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Fragment Of Aristotle's Poetics From Porphyry, Concerning Synonymy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

R. Janko
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Cambridge

Extract

An important fragment of the lost portion of Aristotle's Poetics is the definition of synonyms preserved by Simplicius, which corresponds to Aristotle's own citation of the Poetics for synonyms in the Rhetoric, 3. 2.1404b 37 ff. I shall argue elsewhere that this derives from a discussion of the sources of verbal humour in the lost account of comedy and humour. Here it is my aim to show that Simplicius definitely derived the quotation from Porphyry, which pushes back the attestation of this part of the Poetics by more than two centuries (although the citation in the Antiatticist, Poet. fr. 4 Kassel, is older still). Furthermore, I shall show that some of the words in the definition are a gloss added by Porphyry for the purposes of his own polemic.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ap. Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca viii, Simplicius in Categorias, ed. Kalbfleisch, K. (Berlin, 1907).Google Scholar

2 In a book nearing completion I argue that this part of the Poetics is in fact still extant, albeit in heavily epitomised form, in a tenth-century ms. in Paris, and in extracts elsewhere.

3 First to suggest this was Rose, V., De Aristotelis librorum ordine et auctoritate Commentatio (Berlin, 1854), p. 133;Google Scholar cf. Heitz, E., Die verlorenen Schriften des Aristoteles (Leipzig, 1865), pp. 92Google Scholar f., Montmollin, La Poétique d'Aristote (Neuchâtel, 1951), pp. 348 f.; none proved the point. I thank Prof. R. Kassel for drawing my attention to their comments. Gudeman, A., Aristoteles Περ⋯ Πoιητικ***ς (Berlin and Leipzig, 1934), p. 1, noted the testimonium but ascribed it to Simplicius without discussion.Google Scholar

4 ‘Homonymy in Aristotle and Speusippus’, CQ n.s. 21 (1971), 65–80. Barnes quoted the citation of the Poetics by Porphyry, but drew no conclusions. Cf. also Taran, L., ‘Speusippus and Aristotle on homonymy and synonymy’, Hermes 106 (1978), 7399, with full bibliography.Google Scholar

5 Kalbfleisch's text; cf. Kassel, , Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica (Berlin, 1976) ad 3. 2. 1404b39.Google Scholar The accentuation Ф⋯ρoς of the mss. should be kept; Ф***ρoς in several editions of the Poetics is not native to Attic, but poetic (cf. Lejeune, , Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien (Paris, 1972), p. 159).Google Scholar

6 Rose, loc. cit. (cf. Tarán, art. cit. n. 40), suggested that Porphyry invented the reference from his knowledge of Rhet. 3. 2; otherwise, why cite Rhet. 3 but only Poet., not Poet. 2? Why Porphyry's citation takes this form I know not, but it is not his custom to invent quotations from Aristotle, and there is no good reason to doubt Porphyry's veracity.

7 cf. Bonitz, Index Aristotelicus s.v. λωπιo;ν.

8 ap. Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca XII. 1, ed. Busse, A. (Berlin, 1902).Google Scholar

9 ap. Mélanges Mansel i (Ankara, 1974), pp. 267 f. I am very grateful to Professor Kassel for knowledge of this article.Google Scholar

10

11

12 In both Simplicius and Olympiodorus the preceding argument is the same, namely that Aristotle aims at concision, and we are meant to deduce the two missing types from the others. Olympiodorus has made nonsense of the ideas here, changing ‘verbal’ to ‘dialectical’, which destroys Syrianus’ antithesis (and that of Porphyry); he confuses the distinction between what is said in the rhetorical and similar works and what is said in the Categories:

13 Compare Syrianus’ and Porphyry's closing sentences.

14 Simplicius has repeated his antithesis between verbal and ontological analysis, ending

15 The statement of Haupt, S., Philologus 69 (1910), 252,CrossRefGoogle Scholar that Jacob Bernays had proved that Plotinus and Porphyry knew the lost part of the Poetics, is wholly false: cf. Bernays, , Zwei Abhandlungen über die aristotelische Theorie des Drama (Berlin, 1880), pp. 32 ff., 107.Google Scholar