Aristotle Poetics 18.8

Theodore Alois Buckley (Translator)

View: By Chapter
but this [may be the case with those] of which there is the same plot and solution. But many poets complicate well, and develope badly4. But both these should always be applauded 5. But it is necessary to recollect,

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.) — 18 focus
Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) Perseus (Aristotle, De arte poetica liber. Rudolf Kassel, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Reference edition for passage alignment.) — 18 focus
Poetics, Greek text (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's Greek text of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 18 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.) — 18 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.) — 18 focus
Arabic Poetics (Badawī edition, 1953) (OCR draft) (The ancient Arabic translation of Aristotle's Poetics in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī's 1953 edition.) — 18 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.) — 18 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.) — 18 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.) — 18.8 focus
and, fourthly, the SIMPLE, such as the Phorcides 1 , the Prometheus, and all those Tragedies, the scene of which is laid in the infernal regions.
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.) — 18.8 focus
And fourthly, the simple, [D] like the Phorcides, the Prometheus and those tragedies which represent what passes in the infernal regions. The poet should endeavour to excel in all these forms or at least in as many as possible and in those that are most esteemed; especially at present
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.) — 18 focus
La poëtique d'Aristote (André Dacier, 1692) (OCR draft) Experimental (André Dacier's French translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1692.) — 18.8 focus
Et la quatrième enfin, comme les Phorcydes, le Promethee, & tout ce qui ſe paſſe dans les enfers.
Poetica d'Aristotile (Bernardo Segni, 1549) (OCR draft) Experimental (Bernardo Segni's 1549 Florentine Italian translation, aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 18 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.) — 18 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.) — 18 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.) — 18 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.) — 18 focus

Commentary

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

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-656

τὸ δὲ τέταρτον ὄψις is closer to the MS. reading than Schrader's τὸ δὲ τερατῶδες, which has been so generally approved by recent editors. The unmeaning σησ of the MS. here, and again in 21, 1458 a15 , is but one remove from ὄψις as it might be written in an uncial MS. (OHC=OΨIC) 1 The illustrations no doubt refer to the 'kind' instead of the 'part' brought into prominence in the kind. A certain formal incongruence, however, is not uncommon with instances introduced by οἷον (comp. 16, 1454 b25 ; 25, 1461 a24 ; Eth. N. 4. 4, 1122 a27 ; Rhet. 3. 3, 1405 a35 ); Aristotle is often content to note the fact, and leave us to see its logical relation to what precedes.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-657

Φορκίδες, a satyric drama by Aeschylus ( Nauck p. 83 ).

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-658

Προμηθεύς, probably another satyric drama by Aeschylus ( Nauck p. 62 ). There is a good deal to be said, however, in favour of Bergk's suggestion ( Kl. Schr. 2 p. 753 ) that the plural Προμηθεῖς should be restored in the text.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-659

ὅσα ἐν ᾅδου. The reference may perhaps be to plays like the Ψυχαγωγοί of Aeschylus ( Nauck p. 87 ). In these last instances, owing to the nature of the subject and situation, the ὄψις, the make-up (see on 6, 1449 b33 ) of the strange personages introduced, may well be supposed to have been a great feature in the play. Aeschylus, who was an innovator in matters of stage-apparatus ( Sommerbrodt, Scaenica p. 183 ), is said to have made large use of this device: Vita Aeschyli (p. 2 Dind.)
ταῖς τε γὰρ ὄψεσι καὶ τοῖς μύθοις πρὸς ἔκπληξιν τερατώδη μᾶλλον ἢ πρὸς ἀπάτην κέχρηται
.

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

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-433

18.8 Et la quatrième enfin, comme les Phorcydes, le Prome-thée.] 1

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-434

18.8 Comme les Phorcydes.] 2

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-435

18.8 Et tout ce qui ſe paſſe dans les Enfers.] 3

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

152. mvp-aristotle-comment-152

NOTE 152. P. 100.

18.8 AND, FOURTHLY, THE SIMPLE, SUCH AS------ AND ALL THOSE TRAGEDIES, THE SCENE OF WHICH IS LAID IN THE INFERNAL REGIONS.
Το δε τεταρτον, οιον, αι τε Φορκιδες, και Προμηθευς, και οσα εν αδου
. The enumeration of these species in cap. xxiv. leaves no room to doubt the omission of the word
ΑΠΛΟΥΝ
here.
Το δε τεταρτον, απλουν, οιον
, &c.
The commentators have been much puzzled to discover, why all those Tragedies, that have for their subject
τα εν αδου
, should be of the simple construction, and I have, indeed, been sometimes strongly inclined to believe, that the words,
και οσα εν αδου
, were out of their place, and belonged to the second species; thus:
η δε Παθητικη, οιον, οι τε Αιαντες, και οι Ιξιονες, και οσα εν αδου
. Why such subjects should belong to the disastrous class, no one can want a reason; and the words follow naturally, and pertinently, in this view, after the instance of Ixion. I have been surprised not to find so obvious a conjecture in any of the comments. Piccolomini, indeed, glances at it:—
"Non sò vedere, perchè più tosto in essempio delle Tragedie pathetiche, che delle semplici, non le habbia poste; havendo riguardo in ciò alle punition, e supplicii dell' inferno."
p. 255. And it is very singular, that Dacier's note (N° 10.) is exactly such, as if he had himself made this conjecture; of which, however, he says nothing. But, after all, it is obvious enough, as Beni has observed, that, in these infernal Tragedies, no
περιπετειαι
, no sudden reverse of circumstances, could well have place.
The comment of that acute Italian upon this passage, is the best I have seen, and will, perhaps, satisfy the reader, that no such conjecture is wanted.
"Clausula hæc sit;—ex istiusmodi fabulis exemplum duxisse Aristotelem ad illustrandam simplicem fabulam, quòd cum illi [sc. Tantalus, Sisyphus, &c.] in eas pœnas atque tormenta, non à prosperitate, quemadmodum Oedipus et alii plerique, devolverentur, sed ab initio ad finem usque illis jactarentur, peripetia aberat quàm longissimè. Imò verò, non modò repentè fortunæ commutatio haud fiebat, quod est proprium peripetiæ, verum etiam mutatio in decursu toto fiebat levissima ac propè nulla; ita ut ab initio ad finem usque, mira simplicitate flueret fabula. Ex quo fiebat, ut commodiùs ex aliis, in quibus repentè vulnera, cruciatus, et cædes contingebant, patheticæ duceretur exemplum, quàm ex iis, quibus nullus repentè cruciatus infligebatur, et tamen simplicitas de quâ dicebam mirificè apparebat."
—Benii Comment. P. 372.
As to the reading itself,
εν αδου
, it seems to be sufficiently confirmed even by a collation of blunders; for the MSS. exhibit,
εν αιδοι—εν αιδ—εν αιδες—εν αδου
. Victorius seems to doubt, I know not why, whether there existed any such Tragedies. The
Σισυφος Πετροκυλιστης
of Æschylus must, clearly, have been of this kind; and probably his
Ψυχαγωγοι
. His Prometheus may be conceived to come the nearest of any Greek Tragedy extant to a specimen of this kind of drama.—Dacier has very properly reminded us here of what Aristotle had said, cap. xiii. of the old Poets—that
τους τυχοντας μυθους απηριθμουν
—i. e. they took, as we say, any subject that came uppermost.

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

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-124

Ritter, cap. 18 § 2

τραγῳδίας δὲ εἴδη εἰσὶ τέσσαρα· τοσαῦτα γὰρ καὶ τὰ μέρη ἐλέχθη: tragoediae partes non quattuor a vero Aristotele descriptae sunt, sed sex, in quibus explicandis ille versatur inde a c. 6. usque ad c. 22., si quae ab interpolatore sinistre interposita sunt subtrahamus. personatus Aristoteles sane c. 12. quattuor tragoediae partes descripsit, unius quantitatis habita ratione, easque idem hoc loco respexit. monemus, ut lector utrumque locum diligenter collatum expendat, et observet quomodo interpolator sibimet nihil confisus totus ab exemplis pendeat, atque in iis ipsis digerendis ulna et digitis magis quam prudenti iudicio utatur. ne hoc quidem silentio praetereundum videtur, mire haec inferri, τοσαῦτα γὰρ καὶ τὰ μέρη ἐλέχθη. ἡ μὲν πεπλεγμένη, ἧς τὸ ὅλον ἐστὶ περιπέ - τεια καὶ ἀναγνώρισις: tragoediam implicatam totam contineri peripetia et agnitione falsum est: immo peripetia et agnitio non magnam fabulae particulam efficiunt. ne opus quidem est, ut in quavis fabula implicata peripetia sit et agnitio, sed alterutra sufficit. male igitur interpolator c. 10. intellexit, quamquam inde haec sua sumpsit. ἡ δὲ παθητική, οἷον οἵ τε Αἴαντες καὶ οἱ Ιξίονες: hoc age, lector benivole. nimirum interpolatori haeret aqua, cum nihil ab ipso Aristotele de fabulis patheticis (motoriis) dictum invenisset. desperans igitur se ipsum definire posse quales sint, ad exempla quasi in portum confugit. si vulgarem illam πάθους definitionem a falso auctore c. 11, 6. propositam ( πάθος δ' ἐστὶ πρᾶξις φθαρτικὴ ἤ ὀδυνηρά κτλ.) comparaverimus, facile intelligemus παθητικὴν fabulam non dici eam quam nos vulgo intelligimus, h. e. perturbationum descriptione conspicuam, sed eam in qua quiscoram spectatoribus sese occidit aut occiditur, sese vulnerat vel vexat aut vulneratur vel vexatur, ein mit Leiden (non mit Leidenschaften) erfülltes Stück. Aiaces igitur huic homini tragoediae sunt παθητικαί, quoniam Aiax Telamonius ipse se interficit, Locrensis a Minerva occiditur; item Ixiones, quoniam Ixion rotae adstrictus graves labores perfert. Ixionis fabulam tres tragoediae Graecae principes scripserunt. fragmenta nonnulla inde conservata sunt. conf. Dindorf. Poet. scen. Gr. in ἀποσπασματίοις p. 8. 42. 95. comoedia Ἰξίων Eubuli laudatur ab Athenaeo VIII. p. 347 D. Sophocles praeter Aiacem μαστιγοφόρον vel Telamonium superstitem etiam Locrum (Oilei f.) composuit, cuius fragmenta vid. ap. Dindorf. p. 29. ἡ δὲ ἠθική, οἷον αἱ Φθιώτιδες καὶ ὁ Πηλεύς: pergit eodem tramite admodum plano ac facili ad incedendum. Phthiotidum Sophoclis fabulae pauca fragmenta lege apud Dindorf. p. 60. Peleum Sophocles et Euripides docuerunt. vid fragmenta apud Dindorf. p. 51. 106. τὸ δὲ τέταρτον, οἷον αἵ τε Φορκίδες καὶ Προ-· μήθεὺς καὶ ὅσα ἐν ῞Αιδου: iam in aliud artum compulsus est nullius iudicii sterilisque ingenii scriptor, nimirum is quartam quandam tragoediarum speciem esse inaudivit, sed eam neque definitione illustrare neque nomine consignare potuit; itaque exempla nonnulla posuisse contentus est. Phorcides Aeschyli tragoedia erat, cuius fragmenta Dindorfius p. 19. dedit. de fabula cf. Apollodorus I, 2.6. p. 13. II, 4, 2. p. 137. et Heynii ad Apollodorum Observationes p. 118 sq. Welckerus in Trilogia Aeschylia p. 381 sqq. grammaticum ἁπλῆν τραγῳδίαν significare voluisse statim videbimus: interim de loci scriptura dispiciamus. nam in voce o ἷov scribenda multi codices aberrant. vid. not. crit. dubitari vix potest quin o ἷov verum sit : nam δης οἷον nihil est nisi librarii aberratio, quam cum alii non concoquerent neque tamen monstrum δης repetere vellent, lacunam indicarunt. quod Victorius in uno codice invenit τὸ δὲ τέταρτον ὁμαλὸν οἷον, interpositum ὁμαλὸν recentiori cuidam correctori debetur, qui c.15, 4. τέταρτον δὲ τὸ ὁμαλὸν huc traxit infelici coniectura ductus : nam τὸ ὁμαλὸν morum ( τῶν ἠθῶν) est proprium, non tragoediae. nec vero ὁμαλὸν pro ἁπλοῦν dici Graece potest, ut Buhlius Victorium de ὁμαλὸν non sine causa dubitantem reprehendens existimavit. qui locum capitis 24, 1. consideraverit, ἁπλοῦν, οἷον in ordinem redigere volet, sed exemplorum desiderium hunc hominem abripuit, ut nomen quarti generis ponere oblivisceretur.