^{Page 73 note 1} O.C.T. (καθ⋯περ εἴρητει secl. Zeller).

^{Page 73 note 2} About 1913, on the tragic plot. I am greatly indebted to Mrs. Cornford for allowing me access to this unpublished source.

^{Page 73 note 3} εἰςὐ εὐτɛχ⋯αν ⋯κ δɛστɛχ⋯ας ἣ ⋯zξ εὐτɛχ⋯ας εἰς δɛστɛχ⋯αν. See Bywater' s commentary, p.200.

^{Page 73 note 4} στε ⋯κ τ⋯ν προγεγενημ⋯νων σɛμβα⋯νειν ἣ ⋯ ảν⋯γκης ἣ κατ⋯ τ⋯ εἰκ⋯ς γ⋯νεσθαι τα⋯τα. so Bonitz, changing τα⋯τα to τảναντ⋯α. But this is rather ὣσπερ λ⋯γομεν.

^{Page 73 note 5} ὣστ' ⋯ν⋯γκη τοĐτοɛ εἷν καλλ⋯οɛςμ⋯θοɛς, 1452^a10. That this does not refer merely to well-constructed simple plots appears to be shown by 1452^b31 ⋯πειδ⋯ οὖν δεῖ τ⋯ν σ⋯νθεσιν εἷναι τ⋯ς καλλ⋯στης τραγῳδ⋯ας μ⋯ ⋯πλ⋯ν ⋯λλ⋯ πεπλεγμ⋯νην κτλ.74 Except for this passage in 1454^a2–4, Aristotle has given no reason for preferring the complicated plot. In 1450^a33 the powerful psychoto logical effect of περιε⋯τεια and ⋯ναγνώρισις (τ⋯μ⋯γιστα οἷς Ѱɛχαγωγεῖ ⋯ τραγῳδ⋯α) is mentioned, but without any explanation of the reason. As a general principle of construction, the rule that So events should occur παρ⋯ τ⋯ν δ⋯ ἂλλνλα may apply to both simple and complicated plots, but it is a special reason for preferring the latter, since περιπ⋯τεια and ⋯ναγνώρισις are both ways of introducing an unexpected causal connexion into the plot.

^{Page 73 note 6} First mentioned in 1450^a33, see note 5 above.

^{page 74 note 1} Or is Aristotle attributing the appearance of design not to the gods but to the statue?

^{page 74 note 2} Butcher, , Aristotle' s Theory of Poetry Fine Art, p. 331, noteGoogle Scholar.

^{page 74 note 3} Bywater's translation ‘bringing them in (sc.σημєῖα all of a sudden’ must, if it means anything, mean something like this. Bywater takes the essence of a πєρɩπέτєɩα to be its suddenness, but suddenness, unless it is mere rapidity, can hardly be denned without reference to expectation.

^{page 74 note 4} ὢστ ⋯νάуκη τοὺς τοɩούτοʋѕ єΪναɩ καλλίοʋςμύθοʋѕ, 1454²10. That this does not refer' merely to well-constructed simple plots appears to be shown by I452^b3i ⋯πєɩδ⋯ οὐν δєȋ τ⋯ν σύνθєσɩν єіναɩτ⋯ς καλλίοτης τραуῳδίας μ⋯ ⋯πλ⋯ν ⋯λλ⋯ πєπλєуμένην κτλ. Except for this passage in 1454^*2–4, Aristotle has given no reason for preferring the complicated plot. In 1450^*33 the powerful psychological effect of πєρɩπέτєɩα and ⋯ναуνώρɩσɩѕ (т⋯μέуɩστα οίς ψʋχαуωуєȋ ή τραуῳδία) is mentioned, but without any explanation of the reason. As a general principle of construction, the rule that So events should occur παρ⋯ τ⋯ν δόξαν δɩʼ ἅλληλα may apply to both simple and complicated plots, but it is a special reason for preferring the latter, since πєρɩπέτєɩα and ⋯ναуνώρɩσɩς are both ways of introducing an unexpected causal connexion into the plot.

^{page 73 note 6} First mentioned in 1450^*33, see note 5 above.

^{page 74 note 1} Or is Aristotle attributing the appearance of design not to the gods but to the statue?

^{page 74 note 2} Butcher, , Aristotle's Theory of Poetry Fine Art, p. 331, noteGoogle Scholar.

^{page 74 note 3} Bywater‘s translation ‘bringing the m in (sc.σημєȋα all of a sudden’ must, if it means anything, mean something like this. Bywater takes the essence of a πєρɩπέτєɩα to be its suddenness, but suddenness, unless it is mere rapidity, can hardly be denned without reference to expectation.

^{page 74 note 4} Comparing the use of the phrase in Ploybius (32. 8. 4)οὺ τύχη τò πλєȋον σʋνєρуῷ χρώμєνος οϋθʼ ⋯κ πєρɩπєтєίας, ⋯λλ⋯ δɩ⋯ τ⋯ς ⋯уχɩνοίας καì ϕɩλοπονίας, ἒτɩ δ⋯Ϣπράξєως τ⋯ς αύτο⋯. Cf. id. 9. 12. 6–8 and 38. 9. 2 κατ⋯ πєρɩπέτєɩαν… κατ⋯ πρόθєαɩν. Professor Cornford compares the use of the verb πєρɩπίπτєɩν in E.N. 1100a5 for a chance encounter with misfortune: πολαì у⋯ρ μєταβολαì уίνονταɩ καì παντοȋαɩ τύχαɩ κατ⋯ τòν βίον, καì ⋯νδέχєταɩ τòνμάλɩστʹ єὺθηνο⋯ντα μєуάλαɩς σʋμϕοραȋς πєρɩπєσєȋν ⋯πì уήρως. Cf. 1153b20.

^{page 74 note 5} On the view of Vahlen and Lock, (C.R. ix. 251Google Scholar)πєρɩπέτєɩα occurs whenever the intention of an agent is overruled to produce the opposite of the effect intended.

^{page 74 note 6} Cf. Phys. 233^b, 205^a. For the genitive τ⋯νπραττομένων Cf. Cat. 14. 7 ή ⋯ναντίον το⋯ποɩο⋯ μєταβολή, Where similarly το⋯ ποɩο⋯ may depend' on either ⋯ναντίον or μєταβολή or both; but in the next sentence το⋯ ποɩο⋯ μєταβολ⋯ς уɩνομένης goes together.

^{page 75 note 1} This opposite may also be an attempted hostile action, as in the Ion, where Creusa's attempt to kill Ion is followed by Ion's attempt to kill Creusa. This is followed by another περɩπέτεɩα when, after the discovery of Ion's identity, these hostile activities give way to mutual reconciliation. As Lock points out (op. cit., p. 252), there may be several περɩέτεɩαɩ in one play.

^{page 75 note 2} Met. 1011^b34.

^{page 75 note 3} Cat. 10. 26, Phys. 2O5^a6.

^{page 75 note 4} Euanthus, , de com. 4–5Google Scholar; Donatus, , de com. 7–5Google Scholar.

^{page 76 note 1} Prof. Comford holds that this is also emotional crisis for the spectators, the point at which the increasing tension of suspense suddenly snapped, and προσδοκία κακοȗ place (e.g. in the Oedipus) to λύπη ⋯πɩϕαɩνομένψ κακψ(E.N. 1115²9, Rhet. 2. 7. 8).

^{page 76 note 2} Heracles 739 (cf. El. 1155). Both quotation and translation are Prof. Cornford's.

^{page 76 note 3} As Aristotle himself appears to do, if we judge by the examples, πραττόμενα is not synonymous with ϒɩνόμενα: cf. 1455^a25, 1449^b37 πράττεταɩ δ⋯ ⋯πò τɩν⋯⋯ πραττόντων κτλ.

^{page 76 note 4} 1455^b28 λύσɩν δ⋯ την ⋯πò τ⋯ς ⋯ρχ⋯ς μεταβάσεως μέχρɩ τέλους. Cf. 1451^a12 ⋯⋯ οψ μεϒέθεɩ κατ⋯ τò εɩς⋯ναϒκαϕεξ⋯ς ϒɩνομένων συμβαίνεɩ εɩαν ⋯κ δυστυχίας ἣ ⋯ξ εὐτυχίας εɩίαν μεταβάλλεɩν, ίκανòς őρος ⋯στìν τοȖ μεϒέθους Here, unless ovpfiaiva suggests a single incident, the change appears to be taking place gradually through the series of events. Cf. 145^a19 ⋯ν δ⋯ ταȋς περɩπετείαɩς καì ⋯⋯ τοȋς άπλοȋς πράϒμασɩ στοχάζονταɩ ὦν βούλνταɩ θαυμαστ⋯ς, where περɩπέτεɩα, if comparable with άπλ⋯ πράϒματα, should mean a set of incidents rather than a single crisis.

^{page 77 note 1} E.N. 1115^a9; cf. Rhet. 2. 5. I. In plays with a happy ending, the tragic emotion on the contrary depends on the outcome not being a foregone conclusion, as e.g. in the Ion, where the intention of Apollo is announced i n the prologue, but events do not proceed quite according to plan.

^{page 77 note 2} For the connexion of δόξα with τò εἰκός cf. An. Pr. 2. 27. I rò μ⋯⋯ εɩκός ⋯στɩ πρότασɩς εδοξος. ȏ ϒ⋯ρ ὡς ⋯πì τ⋯ πολù ισν οὓτω ϒɩνόμενον ἣ μ⋯ ϒɩνόμενον ἣ ὃ⋯ ἣ μ⋯ ⋯⋯, τοȗτ᾿ ⋯στἱν εἰκóς, οίον τό μισεȋν τοὐς ϕθονοȗντας ἣ τò ϕɩλεȋν τοùς ⋯ρωμένους. Cf. Poet. I450^b30, 1451^b8. Thus in one way the tragic event is κατ⋯ τò εἰκóς, as a consequence of previous events and of character, etc., but in another way πρα⋯ τò εἰκóς, since it involves a connexion of opposites which cannot be ώς ⋯πì τò πολύ.

^{page 77 note 1} In Rhet. I. II. 24 περɩπέτειαɩ are said to be θαυμαοστά.

^{page 78 note 2} He instances the pursuit of Hector (Il. 22. 205), and in 1460^b25 this is said to be ⋯κπλκτɩκόν. In Top. 4. 5. 12 ἔκπληξς is defined as ὑπερβολ⋯ θαυμασɩότητος.

^{page 78 note 3} A situation inherently improbable may be admitted if rò αλοϒον is outside the action of the play (1456^b6–8, 1460^a29), as in the Oedipus, where, given the initial improbability, the events in the play are the probable or necessary consequences. There is also Agathon's argument εἰκòς ϒίνεσθαɩ πολλ⋯ κα⋯ εκός 1456^a25, 1461^b15.

^{page 78 note 4} i.e.not-A, Cf. Rhet. 3. 9. 8, where Aristotle compares the juxtaposition of opposites in the antithetical style to refutation by syllogism: ⋯δεȋα δστίν ή λέξις, ὅτɩ τ⋯ναντία sense it would suggest a chance event Phys. 197^a18, E.E. 1247^a33, cf. Thuc. 1. 78 τοȖ πολέμου ό παράλοϒος, 1. 140. 1, 2. 61. 2, etc.

^{page 78 note 5} Met. 982^a17–19 ό δ⋯πορ⋯⋯ καί θαυμάζων οɩταɩ (διό καί ό ϕιλόμνθος ϕιλσοϕός πώς ⋯στɩν ό ϒ⋯ρ μȗθος σύϒκεɩταɩ ⋯κ θαυμασίων).

^{page 78 note 6} Ibid. 983^a18–21.

^{page 78 note 7} Poet. 1452^a33, cf. 1455^a17.