a similar omission of οὐ in Ac cf. vi. 12. 1450 a 29, οὐ ποιήσει ὃ ῆν τῆς τραγῳδίας ἕργον, the indispensable negative being added in 'apographa' and found in the Arabic. The emendation not only gives a natural instead of a strained sense to the words τὰ τυχόντα ὁνόματα, but also fits in better with the general context, as I have argued in Aristotle's Theory of Poetry, etc. (ed. 3 pp. 375-8).
Another conjecture of my own I have ventured to admit into the text. In the much disputed passage, vi. 8. 1450a 12, I read <πάντες> ὡς εἰπεῖν for οὐκ ὀλίγοι αὐτῶν ὡς εἰπεῖν of the MSS., following the guidance of Diels and of the Arabic. I regard οὐκ ὀλίγοι αὐτῶν as a gloss which displaced part of the original phrase (see Critical Notes). As a parallel case I have adduced Rhet. i. 1. 1354a 12, οδὲβ ὡς εἰπεῖν, the reading in the margin of Ac, ought, I think, to be substituted in the text for the accepted reading ὀλίγον. The word ὀλίγον is a natural gloss on οὐδὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν, but not so οὐδὲν ὡς εἱπεῖν on ὀλίγον.
In two other difficult passages the Rhetoric may again be summoned to our aid. In xvii. 1. 1455a 27 I have (as in the first edition) bracketed τὸν θεατήν, the object to be supplied with ἐλάνθανεν being, as I take it, the poet, not the audience. This I have now illustrated by another gloss of a precisely similar kind in Rhet. i. 2. 1358a 8, where λανθάνουσίν τε [τοὺς ἀκροατὰς] has long been
