1996.9.8, Halliwell, et al., Aristotle/Longinus/Demetrius Loeb edition

This is a ‘re-make’ of a Loeb volume first published in 1927; the critical editions of the Greek texts as well as the translations contained in that volume look now rather dated, and so it was a very good idea to have all of its contents re-examined and re-established by scholars of today. The result—to put this quite clearly already at the beginning—is a very useful book for everyone interested in three of the most important texts of ancient literary criticism. All three editors/translators have long been experts on their respective authors: Halliwell (henceforth H.) not only has published a monograph and several articles on the Poetics, ¹ he has also once before already brought out a translation of it. Donald Russell (from now on R.) has edited On the Sublime already twice: once in his still invaluable commentary of 1964 and for the OCT series four years later ²; he brought out a translation in 1972 ³ and published critical reconsiderations of his earlier work in 1981. ⁴ Doreen Innes (hereafter I.) has been working on Demetrius’On Style since her doctoral dissertation (which, as far as I know, unfortunately still remains unpublished); she has translated On Style (with some omissions) for the same volume in which R.’s translations of On the Sublime appeared (see n. 3), and she, too, has published several studies on Demetrius and related matter of Greek literary criticism. ⁵ So the reader of this Loeb volume may expect solid, reliable work from the outset; and he is not disappointed.

All three scholars preface their authors with a concise and informative introduction, providing a general outline of the following work, its characteristics, remarks on the establishing of text and translation and a useful selective (and very up-to-date) bibliography. R. and I. also give a detailed “analysis” or “synopsis” (respectively) of the contents of their text, while H. restricts himself to elucidating Aristotle’s original and basic concept of the Poetics and how it came to be centered mainly on tragedy; he adds shorts discussions of some of the main notions to be found in the Poetics (elevated action, transformation, pity and fear, Hamartia, and—inevitably—catharsis). Generally, these discussions are very helpful, only the last one (on catharsis) remains somewhat vague (H. defines catharsis as a “concept which is interconnected with various components in Aristotle’s theory of tragedy, and which in some sense completes his account of the genre by framing the experience of it as psychologically rewarding and ethically beneficial”, p. 19); but then you really can’t expect a definitive nailing-down of a concept which has tantalized innumerable scholars for many generations in an introduction of this kind.

The other two editors/translators have some particular problems of their own to deal with in their respective introductions, and they do it well: R. gives a carefully balanced summary of the questions of date and authorship of On the Sublime (p.145-8); he settles for a date “in the first century A.D. It is harder to be more precise” (p. 147), and he seems inclined to at least consider the possibility that the author might actually have born the name Dionysius Longinus, ⁶ as he is called in the one basic manuscript on which the text depends (p. 148); this may explain, too, why R. never refers to his author in the usual round-about way as “Pseudo-Longinus” or “the author of On the Sublime“, but simply calls him Longinus (in 1964 he had used the intentionally “non-committal” capital letter L). In the case of the treatise On Style, the author (whose transmitted name Demetrius, though, has itself never been called into question) proves similarly elusive, and I., in her discussion of date and authorship (p. 312-321), has to settle for a kind of split (and therefore not wholly satisfactory) answer (but again this may be the best that is attainable): “the contents at least do not preclude and may best reflect the second century B.C.” (p. 313); “there may … be a few points of language to suggest a date of composition as late as the early first century B.C.” (p. 321).

Now for the texts themselves, all three of them accompanied by a selective apparatus criticus. H. states that his text “has been broadly based on the edition by Rudolf Kassel”, but that he has sometimes preferred different readings and that he has tried to print “as ‘clean’ a text as possible, minimising such things as editorial brackets” (p. 21; indeed, I haven’t found any in his text). It remains to be seen, whether such a policy is advisable in all instances; even after more than two thousand years of classical philology, there is no such thing as a really “clean” Greek text, and every reader might be better off, if he is told about places where a solution has not yet been found or at least remains very doubtful (in the same volume, I. has not shunned editorial cruces, and she is right in doing so). As to H.’s deviations from Kassel’s text, there may indeed be some places where an alternative may reasonably be considered ⁷; but in the majority of cases where H. has printed something different from Kassel’s OCT, his new text—to me at least—does not seem to be an improvement. Examples:

In 1447a28-b2, H. edits ἡ δὲ μόνον τοῖς λόγοις ψιλοῖς ἢ [instead of Lobel’s/Kassel’s <καὶ [instead of Kassel’s ἀνώνυμοι τυγχάνουσι] μέχρι τοῦ νῦν; by this he makes Aristotle speak of one single art, regardless whether in prose or in metres, while subsequently Aristotle quite clearly gives separate instances of the two (1447b9-13). In 1448a23f. H. should have kept Kassel’s cruces around τοὺς μιμουμένους; the words seem like odd intruders, and H. doesn’t really translate them. Regarding 1450a12-14, H. at least acknowledges in a footnote that “text and sense are here greatly disputed”, but prints a text (without Kassel’s obeloi, and introducing two conjectural changes), in which the second sentence contradicts the first. ⁸ As to 1450a17-20 (καὶ εὐδαιμονία … ἢ τοὐναντίον), Halliwell should at least have signalled to the reader that these lines were excluded by Kassel; though H. defends them in his 1987 translation as “a clear link between Ar.’s view of dramatic action and his general ethical philosophy” (p. 67), they are not without problems in the textual tradition and seem—in this context—rather superfluous. In 1450b8-10 (ἔστιν δὲ ἦθος μὲν τὸ τοιοῦτον ὃ δηλοῖ τὴν προαίρεσιν, ὁποία τις [ἐν οἷς οὐκ ἔστι δῆλον ἢ προαιρεῖται ἢ φεύγει]), H. keeps ὁποῖά (transmitted by A and B) as well as ἐν OI(=S—φεύγει deleted by Immanuel Bekker and bracketed by Kassel; this leads to an awkward repetition in the very next clause. H. tries to overcome this by translating ἐν OI(=S OU)K E)/STI DH=LON with “when otherwise unclear” and adds in a footnote “sc. from the action”; but as we are dealing here with tragedy, where everything is represented by speech, this “otherwise” loses its sense. In 1450a12, not much is gained by the “unbracketing” of τῶν μὲν λόγων, nor in 1451b32 by re-integrating καὶ δυνατὰ γενέσθαι; as Aristotle has already stated a few lines before that everything that has happened must be something possible (1451b17f.), he would be contradicting himself if he now stated that some things that happened are possible; and as he is now concerned with probability (as something to be depicted by poetry) and not possibility, καὶ δυνατὰ γενέσθαι has to go. ⁹ In 1452a35 simple excision of the words ἐστὶν ὥσπερ εἴρηται συμβαίνει still seems better than their labored resurrection with the help of Spengel’s conjecture. In 1454a22, H. should at least have mentioned Kassel’s A)NDREI/AN—which in his 1987 translation he still followed—instead of ἀνδρεῖον, which introduces a noticeable clumsiness into the sentence (as his new translation shows). 1454b14f.: if one really is to make some sense out of παράδειγμα σκληρότητος οἷον τὸν Ἀχιλλέα ἀγαθὸν καὶ ὏μηρος (bracketed by Kassel), Lobel’s transposition of παράδειγμα σκληρότητος after καὶ (adopted by H.) is not enough; one might consider something like KAI/PER παράδειγμα σκληρότητος O)/NTA, but one would be hard put to explain how then the transmitted text came to look like it does. 1459b5-7 (πλέον O)KTW/—Τρῳάδες): Not one word that this enumeration of tragic titles is quite beside the point of Aristotle’s argument and therefore probably spurious (it was so regarded by H. himself in his 1987 translation). In 1460a34f. the words A)N DE QH=| καὶ FAI/NHTAI EU)LOGWTE/RWS ἐνDE/XESQAI καὶ A)/TOPON seem to be a well-nigh hopeless case; in his translation, H. tries valiantly to make sense out of them, but he has to add some expressions which are simply not there (“If a poet posits an irrationality, and a more rational alternative is apparent, this is an absurdity”), and the whole doesn’t fit too well into its context. Moreover, in his earlier translation, H. tried just as valiantly and got a completely different translation out of this jumble (“But even absurdity can sometimes be handled more or less reasonably”¹⁰); all of which very much justifies Kassel’s obeloi. In 1461b9, H. has dropped Kassel’s cruces around εἰκός ἐστιν, but the resulting expression is totally out of character with Aristotle’s normally crisp diction. In 1461b18, H. assumes αὐτὸν (obelized by Kassel) to be sound, but has to translate something (“so that the poet himself contradicts) which is not really in the text; he should at least have mentioned Kassel’s conjectural replacement of αὐτὸν by ἐνANTI/ON. In 1462a16, Spengel’s deletion of καὶ TAS ὄψεις (adopted by Kassel) still makes sense; just in the preceding sentence, Aristotle has stated that tragedy may reach its full impact just by reading, without any movements by actors, and in 1450b15-20 (to which H. himself draws attention in a note) he has even declared that ὄψις is not really a poetical part of the art of tragedy—and should he now argue the superiority of tragedy with regard to another poetical art (epics) by pointing to ὄψεις? Moreover, if καὶ TAS ὄψεις is deleted, changing the subsequent δι’ ἧς into δι’ ἅς (so Vahlen, followed by H.) becomes unnecessary.

As for the text of On the Sublime, R. has apparently rethought his former text very extensively; all in all, I noted about 80 differences from his OCT (which is virtually identical to his 1964 text). Only once R. has put in obeloi (in 10,2 at the end of the Sappho quotation), while in his former editions there are many more; and, as in H.’s case, it might have been advisable not to let the text appear more sound than it really is. In many cases R. has now rejected emendations formerly adopted and returned to the manuscript tradition; in others he has done the reverse. Many of his changes look like improvements, but not all of them.

Improvements by returning to the tradition: 5 (l. l. 5) ἐπίφορον instead of von Arnim’s ἐπεὶ φορόν; 8,2 (l. 2) καί (deleted by Pearce) before ἔδοξεν; 11,2 (l. 7) ἄρα νὴ Δία ἢ instead of ἄρ’ ἢ νὴ Δία .’s own conjecture!); 16,2 (l. 8) no more κατά (an early conjecture) before τῶν ἀριστέων; 17,1 (l. 8 and 9) no more obeloi around καὶ ταῦθ’ (“especially”), no more πάντας τοὺς before ἐν ὑπεροχαῖς; 20,1 (l. 6) no more ἔχοντα .’s own conjecture!) before τὰ ἀσύνδετα; 22,1 (l. 3) no more lacuna (Wilamowitz) between οἱονεὶ and καρακτὴρ; 22,2 (l. 5) οὖν instead of Spengel’s γάρ; 26,1 (l. 2) καί (deleted by R. himself) before πολλάκις; 29,1 (l. 1) τό (deleted by Weiske) before πρᾶγμα (the sentence becomes a bit more rugged in this way, but this may well be the original tone); 34,2 (l. 12) no more ἔχων (added by Selb) after κωμικόν; 42 (l. 6) no more obeloi around ἐπ’ εὐθύ (so that a characteristically terse expression of our author results);

—by introducing a conjecture: 2,1 (l. 2) ¹¹ Upton’s πάθους instead of βάθους; 4,5 (l.4) Reiske’s κατὰ τό instead of καὶ τό; 7,1 (l. 5) Reiske’s οὐδ’ (not cited in R.’s former editions) instead of οὐκ; 10,3 (l. 5) Weiske’s deletion (not cited in R.’s earlier editions) of ἢ γὰρ φοβεῖται ἢ παρ’ ὀλίγον τέθνηκεν, a neat solution; 10,7 (l. 8) εἰς (inserted by Roberts) before μεγέθη; 15,4 (l. 4) καίων (Richards) instead of κάτω; 31,1 (l. 3-5) Vahlen’s καινὸν ἐπαινετόν instead of καὶ τὸν ἐπήνετον (after that, R. puts διὰ τὸ A)NA/LOGON—δοκεῖ between parenthetical dashes, a quite attractive solution); 34,2 (l. 16) Buecheler’s TI after διεξοδεῦσαι (instead of ἔτἰ; 34,4 (l. 8) Richards’ καίριον instead of κύριον; 40,2 (l. 6) von Arnim’s δεόντως (not cited in the former editions) instead of δ’ ὅμως (compare 42,1 l. 4); 43,4 (l. 8) αὐτὰ καὶ ῤητῶς (Richards) instead of αὐτάρκη οὕτως; 44,1 (l. 2) καί (an old conjecture) between ἐπιπροσθῆναι (Manutius for –θῆναι) and διασαφῆσαι; 44,7 (l. 8) εὐθύς (Matthews) instead of εἰς A(S;

—by exchanging conjectures: 7,2 (l. 2f.) Manutius’ παράστημα instead of ἀνάστημα (apogr., Ruhnken), supported by 9,1 (τὰς ψυχὰς … ὥσπερ ἐγκύμονας ἀεὶ ποιεῖν γενναίου PARASTH/MATOS);

—by a new combination of tradition and conjecture: In 9,14 (l. 4) R. restores ἐκ Κίρκης (instead of Faber’s ἐν κ.) and adopts Valckenaer’s συομορφουμένους (not noted, however, in the apparatus) instead of σουφορβουμένους; in 27,2 (l. 8) he replaces Roberts’ ἀπόλησθε with Cobet’s ἀπολέεσθε (without, however, informing the reader of this conjecture) and then restores the transmitted τρώσετε (instead of Roberts’ τρώσητἐ; in 43,1 (l. 8-9) he restores δρασσομένους (conceivable), replaces ἀχάριστον by Herodotus’ ἄχαρι (much less conceivable after keeping the un-Herodotean δρασσομένους) and exchanges <καὶ (Roberts) for )διωτικὸν (Wilamowitz).

The following changes seem no improvement: 4,2 (l. 10) no more ἐν (Cobet) after μέν (but compare the following line); 4,4 (l. 15) no more lacuna between ὀφθαλμοῖς and ἰταμὸν (in a footnote, R. still acknowledges the transition to be “very abrupt”); 4,7 (l. 5) OI( (deleted by Wilamowitz) before βάρβαροι (but the speakers are not all the barbarians, but simply some barbarians, as in R.’s own translation of 1972, and the following KAI ἐν ME/QH| links up rather awkwardly with OI( βάρβαροι); 9,12 (l. 6) PROEGNWSμένOUS instead of Reiske’s PROEGNWSμένOIS (rightly praised by R. in the 1964 commentary); 13,4 (l. 2) ἠθῶν η( (as in the 1964 edition, while in the OCT R. had obelized the transmitted ἠθῶν η)/, which still seems the best solution, as R.’s translation doesn’t really sound satisfying, and he himself considers an alternative in a note); 14,2 (l. 8) πεπαῖχθαι instead of R.’s own πεπλάσθαι ¹²; 16,3 (l. 17) ὅρκων (deleted by Kayser) before πίστις; 16,4 no more obelos before καὶ ὀνόματα (but the translation—rather different from the one of 1972—lets the uncertainty of the text still come through). In 31,1 (l. 1-2), as the text resumes after a loss of four leaves, ¹³ it is indeed impossible to tell how the first sentence has to be divided: τὸ δ’ Ἀνακρέοντος may be sound, but no one can say whether the subsequent οὐκέτι belongs to it or to the following quotation, so at least οὐκέτι should better remain obelized. 32,5 (l. 30): Can ἀραιοῦ (un-obelized as in the 1964 text) … αὐλῶνος really mean “a conduit full of passages”? ¹⁴ 32,8 (l. 1-2) no more obeloi around ὅμως αὐτὸ καὶ, but the words still seem redundant ¹⁵; 32,8 (l. 6) no more deletion of the second τῷ παντί within a few lines; 35,3 (l. 1-2) τῇ θεωρίᾳ καὶ διανοίᾳ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἐπιβολῆς instead of Ruhnken’s τῇ θεωρίας καὶ διανοίας τῆς ανθρωπίνης ἐπιβολῇ, but the restoration does not advance the intelligibility of the sentence (in R.’s translation, “the speculative intelligence of human thought”, the term ἐπιβολή is not rendered); 38,4 (l. 7) ὁμοίως instead of Schurzfleisch’s ὅμως (which still gives a better sense). In 39,4 (l. 11), deleting τό τε before ἐπείτοιγε probably does the text much less justice than R.’s former assumption of a lacuna. 40,1 (l. 2-5): If we accept R.’s placement of a colon (rejected in his 1964 commentary) before οὕτως in l. 5 and the Loeb translation of the whole period, we ought to put an additional comma after καθάπερ τὰ σώματα. ¹⁶ In 44,6 (l. 12) Spengel’s γάρ before νόσημα is not necessary, if you put a comma (instead of a colon) before φιλαργυρία.

Apart from all this carping, however, this is a text where the editor’s meticulous rethinking of every phrase and sentence gives one a lot to ponder; it is a pity, though, that this text is not free from misprints, some of them rather serious, ¹⁷ while the other two are better in this respect, though not faultless. ¹⁸

Last not least, the text of On Style. It may be worthwhile to compare it with the French edition recently brought out by P. Chiron, ¹⁹ because the two differ quite significantly in their understanding of the manuscript tradition: While Chiron believes that two manuscripts, P (Parisinus gr. 1741, 10th cent.) and M (Marcianus gr. 508, later 14th cent.), are basically independent of each other (in Chiron’s eyes, M even presents a fuller and more correct text), I. is convinced that “M is ultimately an idiosyncratic descendant of P” (p. 334) and therefore only to be regarded as a source of (sometimes) interesting conjectures. With these differences of opinion, it is to be expected that text and apparatus of both these editions vary considerably. The proof of the pudding, however, is in the eating; if one compares both editions, one may well come to the conclusion, that I.’s position is the right one: In no instance does her text appear inferior to that of Chiron, ²⁰ and in quite a number of cases it even seems rather superior—not only because she bases her text on P, but also because she is generally more willing to consider conjectural emendation as a means for improving the text. Examples:

In 9 (l. 4), TE in τό τε “διονύσιος ἐν κορίνθῳ“, which introduces an illogicality after τὸ προειρημένον (only διονύσιος ἐν κορίνθῳ is in fact προειρημένον, but TE would couple it with two further examples), is rightly deleted by I. (following Hahne); Chiron leaves it untouched, but translates, as if it wasn’t there. In 42 (l. 2), I. posits a lacuna before οὐδὲ εὔρυθμος, arguing that otherwise heroic verse would here be restricted to spondees; Chiron sees no lacuna and thinks that for Demetrius ‘heroic metre’ or ‘heroic rhythm’ could really have meant only spondees, which might be very hard to prove. In 50 (l. 6f.), Radermacher’s deletion (adopted by I.) of οἷον καταπεπτωκέναι ἀπὸ ἰσχυροτέρου ἐπὶ ἀσθενές rids the text of a laborious and unnecessary explanation. In 52 (l. 3), ἐπανιόντι … <ἔοικεν (adopting an old conjecture) gives the text a typically Demetrian turn of phrase, while Aujac’s ἐπανιών τι (adopted by Chiron) introduces a meaningless TI and leaves ἐπανιών (after καί) somehow dangling in mid-air. 57 (l. 1): P’s ungrammatical παθητικοῖς is easily changed into παθητικῶς, and this is well attested in Gregory of Corinth’s quotation of this Demetrius passage (so I.); M’s E)PI παθητικοῖς (adopted by Chiron) looks like an effort to correct P’s reading. In 58 (l. 3) Nauck’s ἐπιλέγουσιν (adopted by I.) makes good sense out of P’s ἔπος λέγουσιν, while Chiron’s PROS OU)DEN ἔπος λέγουσιν (this is also the text of Rhys Roberts’ older Loeb) is clumsy. In 93 (l. 7), I. well-advisedly adopts Spengel’s δεῖ πολλά (for the transmitted διπλᾶ), which Chiron, again, does not even cite. In 95 (l. 6) Rutherford’s insertion of O( before ὀνοματουργῶν makes good sense; Chiron has no such insertion, but translates as if the article was there (“le créateur de mots”). At the end of the chapter, I.’s positing a lacuna shows her close attention to the development of Demetrius’ argument. In 96 (l. 4) I.’s adoption of Rutherford’s μεταξὺ Ἑλληνίζων τοῖς ὀνόμασι makes excellent sense, while Chiron clings to the manuscript reading (of both P and μ and translates something which isn’t in it (“tout en usant de mots grecs”). At the beginning of 128, Kassel’s insertion of ὅς (adopted by I.) before χαριεντισμός fully vindicates the original reading of P (and M), whereas Chiron has to take refuge in an altered (and rather clumsy) version of the sentence standing in the margins of both manuscripts, obviously a conjecture. In 142-143, I.’s adoption of the conjectures of Finckh (καταυλεῖ. ἢ instead auf καταυδείη) and of Wilamowitz (change of speaker after μελανοπτερύγων and reading πυρροπτερύγων instead of πρὸ πτερύγων) makes her text markedly superior to that of Chiron in this passage. In 151 (l. 9), Victorius’ μιμικώτερα (adopted by I.) certainly suits its accompanying καὶ αἰσχρά much better than the transmitted μιμητικώτερα (kept by Chiron). In 164 (l. 6f.), the words ὥσπερ E)/XEI—γέγονα, presenting a quotation already dealt with in 144, where neologisms were the subject, are rightly cut out by I. (following Hahne), as this passage is concerned with ὀνόματα κοινότερα. Chiron sees the contradiction (cp. his note), but does not take appropriate action. In 172, I.’s insertions (τό in l. 1 before μέν, following von Arnim, and ἀποκαλοῦντες τόN—with ἀποκ. coming from Radermacher and τόN from I. herself—before μακρόν) restore grammar and sense; Chiron tries to make do (more or less) with the transmission. In 180 (l. 6), the transmitted αὐτῶν (kept by Chiron, but not translated) after ἡμῶν is superfluous, Kroll’s αὐτά (adopted by I.) very apt. In 195 (l. 3), von Arnim’s deletion of τῷ ὄρνιθι (adopted by I.) removes an awkward gloss, which is kept by Chiron, but not translated. In 204 (l. 3 and 4), by deleting ἡρωικῶν (Spengel) and ὄν (Radermacher, Roberts) I. establishes a clear and intelligible sentence, whereas Chiron, keeping ἡρωικῶν and reading M’s ὅ (instead of ὄν), is reduced to some quite tortuous logic. In 232 (l. 7), a vivid and pointed expression is gained by adopting Cobet’s ἀπὸ μηχανῆς (as I. does), while by keeping the transmitted μηχανῆς one would have to understand DIA μηχανῆς, and what would that mean? Chiron translates LALEI=N DIA μηχανῆς with “s’exprimer trop ingénieusement, avec trop d’art et d’habileté”; but there seem to be no parallels for this expression, nor does it go well with the preceding δι’ ἐπιστολῆς. In 250 (l. 3), M has γράμματα after ἐδίδασκες in the Demosthenes quotation, but this supplement (although ἐδίδασκες γράμματα is the original text) is quite unnecessary for what Demetrius wants to demonstrate, and in other instances he doesn’t keep to the entire original wording either; so I. is probably right in regarding γράμματα as an addition by M and not (as Chiron does) as Demetrius’ own text. A similar case is 279 (l. 5), where Chiron, following M, adds καὶ παρεσπόνδει (as in the original Demosthenes text), but I., following P., leaves it out. In 271 (l. 3), τοῦτ’ ἔστι δεινότητα is another gloss rightly deleted by I. (following Radermacher) and wrongly kept by Chiron. In 280 (l. 5-6), I. posits a lacuna after the Demosthenes quotation, Chiron before it; I.’s proposal (explained in her note d on p. 509) clearly seems the better one.

As this review has already gone on too long, and as I am not a native speaker of English, I will add only comparably few remarks about the translations, all of which come helpfully equipped with footnotes explaining various matters raised in the text. Each of the three translators evidently conceived his task somewhat differently: H. gives a whole new translation of the Poetics (he even states that he did not consult his own earlier one while writing it, adding that in this new one he aimed “to give a somewhat closer rendering than the earlier”, p. 22), while R.—although already being a well-established translator of On the Sublime in his own right—has tried to keep as much as possible to Fyfe’s earlier version (“I have tried not to tamper with it where it did not seem positively misleading”, p. 156), and I., on the other hand, apparently was allowed more freedom to deviate from Rhys Roberts’ former version, on which her own, however, still is “based” (she does not herself comment on her translation in her introduction). A short comparison of the present translations with their earlier counterparts seems to confirm these differences of approach:

In H.’s case, his more recent translation indeed markedly differs from the 1986 one (while some turns of phrases, of course, still sound similar)—though I wouldn’t always agree that the newer one is closer to the original Greek than the former. Right at the beginning, in 1447a19 he translates συνήθεια with “knack” and in a20 ταῖς εἰρημέναις τέχναις with “all the poetic arts”, while in 1986 he used the more accurate expressions “practice” and “all the arts mentioned above” (would “all the poetic arts” include—in Aristotle’s view—αὐλητική and κιθαριστική, which, however, have clearly been “mentioned above”?). In 1447b15, προσαγορεύοντες is rendered rather loosely as “this is not to classify”, and in b19 μᾶλλον ἢ ποιητήν has completely dropped out (not in the former translation, where also φυσιολόγον in this line is better rendered as “natural philosopher” than as the modernistic “natural scientist” now in the Loeb volume). One could raise more quibbles like this, ²¹ but in general H.’s translation seems reliable and readable.

R., in his part of the work, faithfully keeps to his task of “merely” revising Fyfe’s older translation; in comparing the original and the reworked version, one can really see how respectfully he went about his job (which, however, must have been fully as laborious as writing an entirely new translation of his own), but everywhere he has introduced changes, the translation now is closer to the Greek or more comprehensible to our ears and minds. Quibbling, of course, is possible even here; sometimes one might wish that R. had introduced some more changes of his own. ²²

Compared to R.’s procedure, I.’s translation of On Style takes a much freer path with regard to its predecessor, of whom much less is still recognizable (a turn of phrase every few lines; very rarely a whole sentence has remained as it once was). But this much more extensive reworking (which makes this text really I.’s own translation) is all to the benefit of the modern reader. I. has consistently modernized terminology (rendering, e. g., κῶλον as “clause” instead of “member”), adapted sentence structure to the modern reader’s expectations, and simultaneously managed to give a close rendering of the original (a closer one, in fact, than her predecessor). Again, criticism of details is possible ²³; but, again, this does not really detract from the overall achievement.

The book ends with three short indexes, each displaying the proper names and literary works cited in each of the three texts respectively. This is a useful addition; an even more useful one might have been a unified index listing all the Greek terms of literary criticism as they are employed by the three authors. In the predecessor volume, Rhys Roberts provided such an index (though of terms in English) at least for Demetrius; having something of the kind for all three texts together would have been a real treat.

All in all, this is a volume whose buyer gets real worth for his money: a generally reliable Poetics, a thoroughly re-thought On the Sublime and probably the best text of On Style currently available; so this book will be nothing less than essential for everyone doing work on ancient literary criticism.