Aristotle Poetics 17.10

Theodore Alois Buckley (Translator)

View: By Chapter
For the fable of the Odyssey is short, viz. a certain man wandering for many years, and persecuted by Neptune, and left alone. And besides this, his domestic affairs being so circumstanced, that his 1 2 wealth is consumed by suitors, and stratagems are plotted against his son. But driven by a tempest, he returns, and making himself known to certain persons, he attacks the suitors, and is himself saved, but destroys his enemies. This, therefore, is the peculiarity of the fable,

Poetics. Aristotle. Theodore Alois Buckley (Translator). London. 1857.

Current edition Experimental

The Poetic of Aristotle (Theodore Alois Buckley) (OCR draft) (English) (Theodore Alois Buckley's English translation, first published in 1850 and represented from the Henry G. Bohn 1857 printing; corrected against a second OCR and aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.)

Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.

Editions (4)
Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) (Aristotle, Poetics. Immanuel Bekker, editor, Aristotelis Opera, volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1837.) — 17 focus
Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) Perseus (Aristotle, De arte poetica liber. Rudolf Kassel, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Reference edition for passage alignment.) — 17 focus
Poetics, Greek text (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's Greek text of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 17 focus
Poetics, Greek text (Franz Ritter, 1839) (OCR draft) Experimental (Franz Ritter's 1839 Greek edition, corrected against OCR of the represented copy and aligned to the conventional Perseus chapter-and-subchapter sequence.) — 17 focus
Translations (13)
Poetics (W. H. Fyfe) (OCR draft) Perseus (William Hamilton Fyfe's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, Loeb Classical Library, 1939 printing.) — 17 focus
Arabic Poetics (Badawī edition, 1953) (OCR draft) (The ancient Arabic translation of Aristotle's Poetics in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī's 1953 edition.) — 17 focus
Poetics (S. H. Butcher, 1911) (OCR draft) Experimental (S. H. Butcher's English translation from Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, fourth edition, 1911.) — 17 focus
Aristotle on the Art of Poetry (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 17 focus
Poetics (Thomas Twining, 1789) (OCR draft) Experimental (Thomas Twining's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1789 and aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 17.10 focus
The general story of the ODYSSEY, for example, lies in a small compass: "A certain man is supposed to be absent from his own country for many years-he is persecuted by Neptune, deprived of all his companions, and left alone. At home, his affairs are in disorder-the suitors of his wife dissipating his wealth, and plotting the destruction of his son. Tossed by many tempests, he at length arrives, and, making himself known to some of his family, attacks his ene-mies, destroys them, and remains himself in safety.".
The Poetic of Aristotle (Henry James Pye, revised 1792) (OCR draft) Experimental (Henry James Pye's revised 1792 English translation, corrected against the 1788 first edition, aligned to the Kassel reference edition, and supplied with a selective apparatus of substantive 1788 readings.) — 17.10 focus
but the epopee derives its length from them. The simple argument of the Odyssey is short [G]. • A man, absent from home for many years, is detained by Neptune, • and loses his companions. In the mean time, his domestic affairs are • wasted by suitors to his wife and there is a conspiracy against his son. At length, being driven on his own coast by a tempest and disco- ، vering himself to a few friends, he attacks the suitors, is preserved • himself
Poetica Latine conversa (Franciscus Ritter, 1839) (OCR draft) Experimental (Franz Ritter's Latin translation, corrected against OCR of the represented copy and aligned to the conventional Perseus chapter-and-subchapter sequence.) — 17 focus
La poëtique d'Aristote (André Dacier, 1692) (OCR draft) Experimental (André Dacier's French translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1692.) — 17.10 focus
En effet le ſujet de l'Odyſſée, par exemple, eſt fort long: Un homme eſt abſent de ſon Pays depuis pluſieurs années; Neptune le perſecute, & fait périr de ſorte qu'il reſte ſeul. D'un autre côté tout eſt en deſordre dans ſa famille; les amans de ſa femme diſſipent tout ſon bien, & dreſſent des embuches à ſon fils. Enfin aprés avoir eſſuyé pluſieurs tempêtes, il arrive chez luy, reconnoît quelques-uns des ſiens, trompe les autres, rétablit ſes affaires & tuë ſes ennemis.
Poetica d'Aristotile (Bernardo Segni, 1549) (OCR draft) Experimental (Bernardo Segni's 1549 Florentine Italian translation, aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 17 focus
De poetica (Antonio Riccobono, 1587) (OCR draft) Experimental (Antonio Riccobono's Latin translation, first published in 1587; text represented from Immanuel Bekker's 1831 edition.) — 17 focus
De arte poetica liber (William of Moerbeke, ca. 1277) (OCR draft) Experimental (William of Moerbeke's medieval Latin translation, represented by the 1953 Aristoteles Latinus edition.) — 17 focus
Arabic Poetics (Abū Bishr Mattā; Tkatsch edition) (OCR draft) Experimental (The Arabic translation attributed to Abū Bishr Mattā, edited by Jaroslaus Tkatsch in 1928 and aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 17 focus
Arabic Poetics (Abū Bishr Mattā; Tkatsch edition, unaligned) (OCR draft) Experimental (Tkatsch's edition of the medieval Arabic translation in its original, unaligned segmentation.) — 17 focus

Notes on the current edition

Poetics

1. Eur. Iph. Taur.
2. The passage is interpolated. See Ritter.

Commentary

Commentary on the Poetics (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) (Ingram Bywater's English commentary on Aristotle's Poetics.) focus

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-622

τούς τε λόγους: comp. 24, 1460 a 27 . A new point is introduced in the same way in 24, 1460 a 26 ( προαιρεῖσθαί τε δεῖ), and in several places in the later Books of the Nicomachean Ethics (e. g. 8. 1, 1155 a 11, 16 ; 9. 1, 1164 b 1 , etc.). This is the third of Aristotle's supplementary rules (see on a 22 ). It will be observed that he now changes his construction, infinitives taking the place of the preceding participles, just as though he had begun by saying δεῖ δὲ τοὺς μύθους συνιστάντα καὶ τῇ λέξει συναπεργαζόμενον ὅτι μάλιστα πρὸ ὀμμάτων τίθεσθαι ... καὶ τοῖς σχήμασιν συναπεργάζεσθαι. For λόγος in the sense of the argument in a play or poem comp. 17, 1455 b 17 and 24, 1460 a 27 (also Aristoph. Pax 148, and Hesychius λόγος· ἡ τοῦ δράματος ὑπόθεσις).

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-623

ἐκτίθεσθαι καθόλου: i. e. to set out in a general form, to reduce it to its simplest terms by ignoring its accidents, its personal and other accessories. On the logical or philosophic use of ἐκτίθεσθαι in Aristotle see Vahlen, Beitr. 2 p. 83 and Poste's Sophistici Elenchi p. 153 (comp. Maier, Syllogistik des Aristoteles 2. 2 p. 142).

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-624

ἐπεισοδιοῦν, scil. τοὺς λόγους, as in Rhet. 3. 17, 1418 b 33
δεῖ τὸν λόγον ἐπεισοδιοῦν ἐπαίνοις
. It means to work in the accessory incidents ( ἐπεισόδια; see on 9, 1451 b 33 ) into the story as outlined in the preliminary sketch.
1455b5

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-625

1455b τῇ θεῷ. The goddess meant is Artemis, to whom Iphigenia had been offered in sacrifice ( τυθείσης τινὸς κόρης b 3 ) at Aulis.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-626

ἀνεῖλεν ὁ θεὸς ... ἐλθεῖν ἐκεῖ. The reading here was practically settled long ago by Düntzer ( Rettung d. Aristot. Poetik p. 180). Aristotle is merely reproducing in his own form the statement in Iph. Taur. 82, where Orestes, in an address to Apollo, is made to say: ἐλθὼν δὲ σ᾿ ἠρώτησα πῶς τροχηλάτου μανίας ἂν ἔλθοιμ᾿ ἐς τέλος πόνων τ᾿ ἐμῶν· σὺ δ᾿ εἶπας [= ἀνεῖλεν ὁ θεὸς] ἐλθεῖν Ταυρικῆς μ᾿ ὅρους χθονός [= ἐλθεῖν ἐκεῖ], ἔνθ᾿ "Αρτεμις σὴ ξύγγονος βωμοὺς ἔχει, λαβεῖν τ᾿ ἄγαλμα θεᾶς... λαβόντα δ᾿ ... Ἀθηναίων χθονὶ δοῦναι. This incident in the previous history of Orestes is outside the actual story or plot of the Iphigenia ( ἔξω τοῦ μύθου); all that is really essential for the dramatic situation is that τῷ ἀδελφῷ συνέβη ἐλθεῖν τῆς ἱερείας.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-627

ἔξω τοῦ μύθου, which seems to have been explained by the adscript ἔξω τοῦ καθόλου, is equivalent to ἔξω τοῦ δράματος (see on 14, 1453 b 32 ), outside the action of the piece.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-628

ληφθείς = συλληφθείς (comp. Bremi on Lysias in Eratosth. § 16).

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-629

ἀνεγνώρισεν, scil. ὅτι Ὀρέστης (see on 11, 1452 b 5 ).

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-630

Πολύιδος: see on 16, 1455 a 6 .

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-631

ὑποθέντα τὰ ὀνόματα: 9, 1451 b 13
τὰ τυχόντα ὀνόματα ὑποτιθέασιν
. The proper names are required to serve as a basis for the story, and impart to it an appearance of reality. Aristotle seems to speak for the moment as though the whole story, names and all, were of the poet's creation, as it was in the New Comedy and in certain tragedies ( 9, 1451 b 11, 19 ). If the stories, however, were traditional, the chief names were generally part of the tradition, and taken over from it by the dramatist. A reason for the retention of historic names in Tragedy has been given in 9, 1451 b 15 .

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-632

ἐπεισοδιοῦν: comp. b 1 ἐπεισοδιοῦν καὶ παρατείνειν .

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-633

ὅπως δὲ ἔσται. Another, perhaps the only other Aristotelian instance of this quasi-imperative, is in Rhet. 3. 18, 1419 b 6
ὅπως οὖν τὸ ἁρμόττον αὑτῷ λήψεται
. Aristotle addresses his audience (see on 15, 1454 b 9 ), as he does in the concluding paragraph of the Sophistici Elenchi (33, 184 b 3), and exhorts them to bear in mind the rule he is pointing out.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-634

οἰκεῖα: appropriate to the person. The madness of Orestes in the Iphigenia is a return of that which seized him just after the murder of his mother ( Iph. Taur. 83); his purification also is naturally suggested by his guilt as a matricide ( Iph. Taur. 1031 sqq.).

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-635

ἡ μανία: Iph. Taur. 281 sqq.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-636

τῆς καθάρσεως: Iph. Taur. 1163 sqq.

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-637

παραφυλαττομένου: comp. the use of φυλάττειν in Hom. Od. 4 670
ὄφρα μιν αὐτὸν ἰόντα λοχήσομαι ἠδὲ φυλάξω ἐν πορθμῷ
.

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-638

αὐτὸς δὲ. In Aristotle, just as in other writers, a δέ is occasionally used after a participial clause to mark a contrast between the two parts of the sentence (see my Textual Criticism of the Nic. Ethics p. 34).

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-639

χειμασθείς: comp. 17, 1455 a 31 .

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-640

ἀναγνωρίσας †τινὰς† αὐτὸς. On behalf of the amended reading ( ὅτι instead of τινάς) it may be noted that in 25, 1461 b 1 A c has τί instead of τινάς. The language here is a reminiscence of that in Od. 21. 207 , where Ulysses reveals himself to the herdsmen: ἔνδον μὲν δὴ ὅδ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ κακὰ πολλά μογήσας ἤλυθον—the Homeric κακὰ πολλά μογήσας being represented by Aristotle's χειμασθείς, ἤλυθον by ἀφικνεῖται, and ὅδ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐγώ by ἀναγνωρίσας ὅτι αὐτός. Twining (followed by Vahlen, Beitr. 2 p. 86; comp. Berlin Academy, Sitzungsberichte 1898, p. 266 1 ) adopts a suggestion of Castelvetro's, that ἀναγνωρίσας τινάς (the traditional reading) may be taken to mean 'making himself known to some of his people'. The interpretation, besides being against Aristotelian usage (see on 16, 1454 b 32 ), requires us to take αὐτός with ἐπιθέμενος, and gives it an undue degree of emphasis. There is no point in saying that Ulysses attacked the suitors 'himself'; and it was not true that he attacked them 'by himself' or 'alone' (comp. Aristot. fr. 176 Teubn.). This difficulty was not felt by either Castelvetro or Twining, as the reading in the texts of their time was not αὐτός but αὐτοῖς. 2

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-641

ἐσώθη: comp. the use of σωτηρία in b 12, 14 . The double plot of the Odyssey has been formally recognized already, in 13, 1453 a 32 .
τὸ ... ἴδιον: the peculiar or characteristic part of the Odyssey, as distinct from the 'episodes', or accessories.

Remarques sur la poëtique d'Aristote (André Dacier, 1692) (OCR draft) (André Dacier's French commentary on Aristotle's Poetics.) focus

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-418

17.6 Mais la reconnoiſſance ſe fait en ce moment, ou de la ma-nière qu'Euripide l'a imaginée, ou ſelon la vray-ſemblance que Polyides a tres bien gardée.] 1

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-419

17.7 Cette fable étant faite, on donne les noms aux perſonna-ges, & on épiſodie l'action.] 2

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-420

17.7 Mais il faut bien prendre garde que les Epiſodes ſoient pro-pres.] 3

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-421

17.8 Comme dans Oreste, la fureur qui le fait prendre, & la délivrance par les expiations.] 4

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-422

17.9 Dans le Poëme Dramatique les Epiſodes ſont courts ; mais l'epopée est étendüe & amplifiée par les ſiens.] 5

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-423

17.10 En effet le ſujet de l'Odyſſée, par exemple, est fort long.] 6

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-424

17.10 Un homme eſt abſent de ſon païs pluſieurs années, Neptu-ne le perſecute, &c.] 7

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-425

17.11 Voilà ce qui est propre, le reſte ſont les Epiſodes.] 8

Commentary on the Poetics (Thomas Twining, 1789) (OCR draft) (Thomas Twining's notes on Aristotle's Poetics, aligned to the Kassel reference edition.) focus

141. mvp-aristotle-comment-141

NOTE 141. p. 98.

17.5 WHEN THE POET INVENTS A SUBJECT
Here is a confusion of various readings, none of them, I think, free from suspicion. How the sense given to the passage by Victorius, and almost all the commentators, is fairly to be obtained from any of them, I confess, I never could see. I follow the common, and, in my opinion, the least suspicious, reading—
τούς τε λόγους τοὺς πεποιημένους
—. And I understand Aristotle to speak of subjects, either wholly invented by the Poet, like the Anthos of Agatho, or, having only some very slight and general foundation in history or tradition.—
Λόγος
—the general story, or argument. (
Λόγος — Η ΤΟΥ ΔΡΑΜΑΤΟΣ ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ.
Hefychius .)—
ΚΑΙ αὐτὸν ποιεῖν
, because, I suppose, such arguments were commonly drawn up by others, probably in the
Διδασκαλίαι
, and, perhaps, prefixed to the copies of the play. But here, Aristotle—
"poetam etiam ipsum hoc facere jubet, quod novum erat, et inusitatum:"
—as the force of
ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΝ
seems rightly explained by Victorius 1 .

142. mvp-aristotle-comment-142

NOTE 142. p. 99.

17.7 WHEN HE HAS GIVEN NAMES TO HIS CHARACTERS
This seems to shew plainly, that by
λόγους πεποιημένους
the critic means only such subjects as were of the Poet's own invention 2 . For he says—first, form a general sketch of your fable; then, give names to your characters. This manifestly implies, that the names were not already fixed by history or tradition, but were at the Poet's choice. To avoid this difficulty, the Abbé Batteux translates,
"on remet les noms."
But this, certainly, is not what Aristotle says; and it is too trifling, surely, to be what he means 3 . If the names are given by the particular history which the Poet follows, what purpose will it answer to omit them in his plan?—They will certainly be in his mind; they may as well be upon his paper. In short, the method here recommended by Aristotle seems perfectly absurd and nugatory, upon any other supposition than that of a story, either wholly invented by the Poet, or, of which, at least, he owes only some slight hint to fact, and real life. In this case, and in this only, it is, that the subject first presents itself to the Poet's mind in a general and abstracted view, which he afterwards circumstantiates by time, place, and names, and fills up by the detail of particular episodes and scenes.
That this is the meaning, will appear, I think, still more clearly from the 9th chapter, with which this passage should be compared. What is here said of the method to be pursued by Tragic Poets, answers exactly to what is there said of the Comic:
συστήσαντες γὰρ τὸν μῦθον διὰ τῶν εἰκότων, ΟΥΤΩ ΤΑ ΤΥΧΟΝΤΑ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΑ ΕΠΙΤΙΘΕΑΣΙ
4 ;—with this difference, indeed, that the Comic writer may give whatever names he pleases; while the Tragic generally adopts historical names, even when his subject is feigned. Yet Aristotle, there, not only allows that Tragedy, as well as Comedy, may be all invention, both plot and names, but even says, that it would be "ridiculous" to think otherwise:
γελοῖον τοῦτο ζητεῖν
. And he immediately adds, that it is the invention or making of his fable, (not of his verse only,) that truly constitutes the Poet.

143. mvp-aristotle-comment-143

NOTE 143. p. 99.

17.8 THAT THE EPISODES BELONG PROPERLY TO THE SUBJECT
. See NOTE 37. Here are two instances given by Aristotle of what he means by
ἐπεισόδια
in dramatic Poetry. They confirm, I think, what was said in that note. That Orestes should be taken, by some means or other, and should, by some means or other, be saved, were essential parts of the Poet's fable. These were not episodes, in Aristotle's view; for he expressly includes them both in that general sketch of the story, which is previous to the intertexture of the episodes:
ἐλθὼν δὲ καὶ ΛΗΦΘΕΙΣ
—and,
ἐντεῦθεν δὲ ἡ ΣΩΤΗΡΙΑ
.
The episodes are the circumstances by which the Poet chose to effect this capture, and this escape; i.e. the madness of Orestes, and the ablution of the statue; or rather, these facts drawn out into some particularity of descriptive narration, so as to form distinct, though subordinate, parts of the action; for this, perhaps, made a part of Aristotle's idea of
ἐπεισόδιον
.—And the examples here given seem to confirm this. See the Iphig. in Tauris, v. 260, to 340. v. 1153, &c. And, particularly, the narration of the
ἀγγέλου
, v. 1327, &c. From the very observation, that these episodes should be properly related to the subject, and from what he adds of the difference of dramatic and epic episodes in point of length, it clearly appears, that, as I observed in the note referred to, the word is not applied to Tragedy in a different sense from that in which it is applied to the Epic Poem 5 .

144. mvp-aristotle-comment-144

NOTE 144. p. 99.

17.9 BUT IN THE EPIC THEY ARE THE MEANS OF DRAWING OUT THE POEM TO ITS PROPER LENGTH
Ἡ δ' ἐποποιΐα τούτοις μηκύνεται.
—Compare cap. xxiv.
Ἔχει δὲ πρὸς τὸ ἐπεκτείνεσθαι, κ. τ. ἀλ.
—to,
ἐπεισοδίοις.

145. mvp-aristotle-comment-145

NOTE 145. p. 99.

17.10 THE GENERAL STORY OF THE ODYSSEY—LIES IN A SMALL COMPASS
Μικρός
, (instead of
μακρός
,) has now the support of a manuscript. See, ed. Ox. 1780 , with the learned editor of which I perfectly agree.
Λόγος
is plainly used here in the same sense as before, for the general argument, or summary, of the Poem: whereas, if we read
μακρός
, it can mean only the entire story at full length, with all its episodes. Farther; the epitome of the Odyssey which follows, is evidently the exemplification of the preceding assertion, that the story of the Odyssey, stripped of its episodes, is very short.
Homer himself has given us a still more general outline of the Poem in two lines and a half;
—σύνοψιν πάσης τῆς Ὀδυσσείας
, as the scholiast has observed upon it:
Φῆν, κακὰ πολλὰ παθόντ', ὀλέσαντ' ἀπὸ πάντας ἑταίρους, Ἄγνωστον πάντεσσιν, ἐεικοστῷ ἐνιαυτῷ, Οἴκαδ' ἐλεύσεσθαι.
Od. B. 174. —where,
ὀλέσαντ' ἀπὸ πάντας ἑταίρους
, is equivalent to Aristotle's
μόνου ὄντος
.

146. mvp-aristotle-comment-146

NOTE 146. p. 99.

17.10 PERSECUTED BY NEPTUNE
ΠΑΡΑΦΥΛΑΤΤΟΜΕΝΟΥ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος
—The same idea is thus expressed by Virgil:
nec Teucris addita Juno Usquam aberit.
Æn. VI. 90. —upon which passage the reader will find an excellent and useful note in the best of all editions of this Poet, that of Heyne. Horace comes still nearer to the word
παραφυλάττεσθαι
:
Incontinentis nec Tityi jecur Relinquit ales, nequitiæ ADDITUS CUSTOS.
Lib. III. Ode iv.

147. mvp-aristotle-comment-147

NOTE 147. p. 99.

17.10 AND MAKING HIMSELF KNOWN TO SOME OF HIS FAMILY
Ἀναγνωρίσας τινάς, αὐτοῖς ἐπιθεμενΘ-.
This is all very strange, and, probably, very corrupt; as may appear, merely from the awkward and cacophonous repetition of the pronoun—
ΑΥΤΟΣ ἀφικνεῖται ---- ΑΥΤΟΙΣ ἐπιθέμενος, ΑΥΤΟΣ μὲν ἐσώθη.
And what is,
ἀναγνωρίσας τινάς
?—Certainly, not what one expects. Ulysses, we know, was discovered by the nurse, and discovered himself to Eumæus, and the herdsman, and to Telemachus; but I do not recollect that he discovers any one. Castelvetro saw this; and he says, that
οἰκείων
is to be understood; and that the signification of the word
ἀναγνωρίσας
here must be observed, which is, not that Ulysses discovered any of his friends, but that he made himself known to them. But we have no authority, that I know of, for this use of
ἀναγνωρίζειν
with an accusative case. Piccolomini, too, understands this passage as Castelvetro did—
"datofi à conoscere ad alcuni."
And the Abbé Batteux—
"se fait reconnoitre,"
&c.
But what, again, is,
αὐτοῖς ἐπιθέμενος
?—Does
αὐτοῖς
refer to the friends, or to the enemies, of Ulysses?—Is
ἐπιθέμενος
, deceiving, imposing on, as it is rendered by Victorius, and others after him, or, as others understand it, attacking? for it will bear either of these senses. I have preferred the latter as most obvious, and, on the whole, most to the purpose.
Ἐπιτιθέμενοι
is used by Aristotle in this sense, Rhet. II. 5 . It generally, I believe, implies an attack more or less insidious, such as that of Ulysses upon the suitors. The scholiast upon Homer, Od. Υ. 156 , observes, that a day of festivity was made choice of, as furnishing a favourable opportunity of attacking the suitors:
ἵνα τῶν ἀνδρῶν περὶ τὴν ἑορτὴν καταγινομένων, εὔκαιρον ἔχῃ τὸ ΕΠΙΤΙΘΕΣΘΑΙ ΤΟΙΣ ΜΝΗΣΤΗΡΣΙ.

Commentarius in Aristotelis Poeticam (Franciscus Ritter, 1839) (OCR draft) (Ritter's Latin commentary, extracted from the 1839 volume, divided by Ritter's chapters and sections, and linked to the corresponding Perseus reference subsections.) focus

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-120

Ritter, cap. 17 § 3

τούτους τε λόγους καὶ τοὺς πεποιημένους - ἐκτίθεσθαι καθόλου: per τούτους λόγους tragoediarum argumenta eiusmodi denotantur, quae paulo ante μύθοι appellati erant, argumenta ex fabulosa historia petita. illa cum statim ab initio capitis voce μύθους designasset et, cum Amphiarai exemplum afferret, unice respexisset, ea per τούτους λόγους indicare apte potuit. alius generis sunt οἱ πεποιημένοι, argumenta quae a tragicis excogitata 1) εὔπλαστος est qui facile in quemcumque animi motum flectitur et formatur, talis qualem Horatio magistro (Art. poet. v. 163) cereum flecti vocaveris.iam tragoedias scripturis in promptu exstant. καὶ αὐτὸν ποιοῦντα: poeta in argumentis sive mythicis sive ab aliis excogitatis rite conformandis ipse inveniendi solertiam ostendere debet. conf. c. 14, 5. αὐτὸν δὲ ( τὸν ποιητὴν) εὑρίσκειν δεῖ, καὶ τοῖς παραδεδομένοις χρῆσθαι καλῶς. ἐκτίθε σθαι καθόλου: sibi explicare universe, h.e. das Allgemeine der Fabel vor seinem Geiste entfalten sive auseinander legen. respicit poetam tragoediam componere adgressurum. - sed de loci scriptura nonnulla monenda restant. lectionem a nobis exhibitam, τούτους τε λόγους καὶ τοὺς π. praebent AcBcNa et LQ et plures Victorii codices; plebis vestigia eodem ducunt: nonnulli enim καὶ ante τοὺς omittunt, nonnulli τοὺς ante λόγους addunt (GP). quod paulo post sequitur, παρατείνειν, acute a Victorio et vere excogitatum est. conf. c. 9, 10. παρὰ τὴν δύναμιν παρατείναντες τὸν μῦθον, κτλ. codicum discrepantias in notis criticis indicavimus. χρόνῳ δ᾽ ὕστερον - ἐλθὼν δὲ καὶ ληφθεὶς: plura h. 1. turbata sunt sive insertis ab illo antiquo interpolatore admonitionibus plane inutilibus, sive (quod ego statuere malim) receptis in operis contextum adnotationibus marginalibus. primum igitur post συνέβη additum est ἐλθεῖν, cum verbum auxiliare infinitivo suo carere videretur: nam qui paulo post ἐλθεῖν ἐκεῖ huc pertinere non vidit, is prius ἐλθεῖν interposuit. ac sane interposita ista admonitione infinitivus ἐλθεῖν ἐκεῖ ita divulsus est a verbo συνέβη, ut alius requiri videretur; admonitionem dico τὸ δὲ, ὅτι ἀνεῖλεν ὁ θεός, διὰ τίν αἰτίαν, quae ipsa ex duabus conflata est. una haec est τὸ δὲ, διὰ τίν' αἰτίαν (illud autem, ob quam causam frater sacerdotis itinere suscepto in illam terram venerit), altera haec τὸ δὲ, ὅτι ἀνεῖλεν ὁ θεός (Apollo Delphicus), quae causam ipsam exponit. utrumque colon non a diversis auctoribus profectum esse dico, sed ab uno imperite propositum et sinistre iunctum, τὸ δὲ, ὅτι ἀνεῖλεν ὁ θεός, διὰ τίν' αἰτίαν, existimo. illud igitur, cur frater iter suscipiat et illuc veniat, h. e. Apollinis responsum Oresti datum, non pertinere adgeneralem argumenti conceptionem ( ἔξω τοῦ καθόλου esse) admonemur, quae admonitio utique supervacanea est. sed quae succedit altera observatio, καὶ ἐφ᾽ ὅτι δὲ, ἔξω τοῦ μύθου, ea magis etiam imperitum hominem arguit: scilicet itineris a fratre suscepti consilium non est extra fabulam ( έξω τοῦ μύθου), immo intra fabulam est, sed est extra id quod generale ( ἔξω τοῦ καθόλου). itaque τὸν μῦθον et τὸ καθόλου imperite commiscuit. nihil eiusmodi ineptiarum subsequenti summario Odysseae admixtum est. ἀνεγνώρισεν - ἔδει τυθῆναι: ἀνεγνώρισεν, cum dedit, unam Euripidis Iphigeniam respexit: in ea enim Orestes prior sororem agnoscit. contra res accidit in fabula Polyidi. is enim quo magis spectantium animos arrigeret, Orestem captum usque ad aram adduci ibique illum hoc exclamare fecit, sibi iam eandem sortem obtingere quae prius sorori; qua voce Iphigenia excitata fratrem agnovit. illa κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς εἰπὼν - ἔδει τυθῆναι ad unum Polyidum pertinent. εἰπὼν breviter dictum est pro εἰπεῖν ( τὸν Ὀρέστην) ποιήσας. – Polyidum sophistam aliunde non cognovimus, nisi idem est ille quem nobilem dithyrambicum Olymp. 95, 3. floruisse tradit Diodorus XIV. c. 46 extr. ἤκμασαν δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον ἐνιαυτὸν οἱ ἐπισημότατοι διθυραμβοποιοί, Φιλόξενος Κυθήριος, Τιμόθεος Μιλήσιος, Τελέστης Σελινούντιος, Πολύειδος ὃς καὶ ζωγραφικῆς καὶ μουσικῆς εἶχεν ἐμπειρίαν.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-121

Ritter, cap. 17 § 4

ἤδη ὑποθέντα τὰ ὀνόματα ἐπεισοδιοῦν: dum nomina poeta subiicit, quod in genere est ad singularia transfert; haec nomina, sive actionem primariis personis assignatam, episodiis dilatare debet iis quae per commune aliquod vinculum cum generali argumento connectuntur. huius praecepti exempla petuntur ex fabula Euripidis modo commemorata. ἡ μανία δι' ἧς ἐλήφθη ( ὁ Ὀρέστης) describitur in Iphigen. Tauricens. v. 260-339., eiusdem σωτηρία διὰ τῆς καθάρσεως ν. 1158 sqq.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-122

Ritter, cap. 17 § 5

τῆς γὰρ Ὀδυσσείας μακρὸς ὁ λόγος ἐστίν: succinctum loquendi genus hunc locum subobscurum fecit. nam ubi dixit, epopoeiam episodiis extendi, moneresimul debuit, ipsum argumentum ( τὸν λόγον) epopoeiae late patere, ideoque et multis et maioribus episodiis locum concedere, sed ille hanc sententiam continuo per Odysseae exemplum illustrare maluit, qua in re manum excerpentis technici (is exemplis plurimum tribuit) deprehendere mihi videor. Odysseae argumentum quamvis paucis verbis a philosopho comprehensum, si Iphigeniae comparatur, magnum vocari potest. codex Na et M 14 μικρὸς pro μακρὸς offerunt, quod plurimis editoribus placuit. - καὶ παραφυλαττο μένου ὑπὸ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος: Neptunus Ulixem maligne observabat ut eius reditum averteret. vid. Odyss. A. 74 sqq. pro ὑπὸ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος rectius dedisset ὑπὸ θεοῦ τινος : nomina enim τῷ καθόλου repugnant. τοὺς δ᾽ ἐχθροὺς διέφθειρεν: G. Guil. Nitzschius in libro de Aristotele contra Wolfianos p. 69. (iam de Historia Homeri Meletem. II. p. 57) scribit: "incolumitas illa victoris non ipsâ modo victoria continetur, sed oportuit eum etiam ab ultione omni tutum esse. quapropter dubium non est, quin ultima quoque, quibus pax cum Itacensibus composita narratur, isto αὐτὸς ἐσώθη comprehenderit Aristoteles." cave credas viro sagacissimo. nam nonnisi generale argumentum Odysseae h. 1. propositum est: sed pax illa cum procorum affinibus composita (2. 412-547) ἐπεισόδιον est, et quidem οἰκεῖον ἐπεισόδιον. Praecepta sua tragoedias scripturis destinata nondum proposuit omnia, sed restat unum gravissimum illud, ne fabularum complexus ( ἐποποιικὸν sive πολύμυθον σύστημα) in tragoedia pertractetur, cui opportune adiungitur altera admonitio, ne quis chorum aliena intercinentem inducere velit. verum enim vero rerum alienarum explicatione huc illata (c. 18, 1-3), duo illa praecepta demum c. 18, 4-7 posita legimus, sed de his statim videbimus.