Poetics. Aristotle. Theodore Alois Buckley (Translator). London. 1857.
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.
19.
mvp-aristotle-comment-1020
τὰ δὲ διαιρέσει,
scil.
λυτέον. Διαίρεσις—a wider term than our 'punctuation '—is the opposite of
σύνθεσις (
comp.
Soph. el. 4, 166
a23
), and includes every sort of break in reading, even one only just enough to keep words from being taken together in construction.
The kind of difficulty to which this solution is applicable, may be seen from the instances in the
Sophistici elenchi,
ἐγώ σ᾽ ἔθηκα δοῦλον ὄντ᾽ ἐλεύθερον (
4, 166
a36
), and
ἔστιν ἀγαθὸν ὄντα σκυτέα μοχθηρὸν εἶναι; 339 (20, 177
b14) —where the words are ambiguous and admit of being construed in two different ways. With this may be compared what
Aristotle says in the
Rhetoric (
3. 5, 1407 b 14
) on the ambiguities in
Heraclitus :
τὰ γὰρ Ἡρακλείτου διαστίξαι ἔργον διὰ τὸ ἄδηλον εἶναι ποτέρῳ πρόσκειται, τῷ ὕστερον ἢ τῷ πρότερον, οἷον ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ αὐτοῦ τοῦ συγγράμματος· φησὶ γὰρ “τοῦ λόγου τοῦδ᾽ ἐόντος ἀεὶ ἀξύνετοι ἄνθρωποι γίγνονται”.
ἄδηλον γὰρ τὸ ἀεί πρὸς ὁποτέρῳ (δεῖ) διαστίξαι. On the beginnings of formal punctuation in Greece see
Schmidt,
Beiträge zur Gesch. der Grammatik p. 506
, and
Meisterhans,
Grammatik³ p. 11
.
19.
mvp-aristotle-comment-1021
Ἐμπεδοκλῆς.
The passage here quoted appears in the editions of
Empedocles in a somewhat different form,
αἶψα δὲ θνήτ᾽ ἐφύοντο, τὰ πρὶν μάθον ἀθάνατ᾿ εἶναι, ζωρά τε τὰ πρὶν ἄκρητα, διαλλάξαντα κελεύθους (
fr. 35, 14-15 Diels
); and it is known that
Theophrastus read it thus, as he adduced it to show that
ζωρότερον in
Homer meant
τὸ κεκραμένον:
Athenaeus 423 F
.
Θεόφραστος δ᾽ ἐν τῷ περὶ μέθης ζωρότερόν φησιν εἶναι τὸ κεκραμένον. This is not the place to consider either the reading recognized by
Theophrastus or his interpretation of
ζωρότερον and
ζωρά.
Aristotle has a different reading,
ζωρά τε πρὶν κέκρητο; and any difficulty that may have been found in it he meets by simply affirming the possibility of another
διαίρεσις, another way of construing the words. He does not dispute the meaning which was assigned to
ζωρά; his assumption presumably was that
ζωρά=
ἄκρατα (
v.
b15
). The positive
ζωρός no longer existed in Attic; but in Ionic the comparative
ζωρότερον was to be found in
Herodotus and
Hippocrates, in the sense of 'having but a small admixture of water':
Herod. 6, 84
Κλεομένεα δὲ λέγουσι ἡκόντων τῶν Σκυθῶν... μαθεῖν τὴν ἀκρητοποσίην παρ᾿ αὐτῶν... ἔκ τε τόσου, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσι, ἐπεὰν ζωρότερον βούλωνται πιεῖν, “ ἐπισκύθισον” λέγουσι (where
ζωρότερον πίνειν =
ἀκρατοποτεῖν). —
Hippocrates 2, 654 Κ.
οἶνον, ἣν μή τι κωλύῃ, πίνειν ζωρότερον παλαιὸν ἐπὶ τέσσαρας ημέρας. There is one instance of it in Attic prose, in
Theophrastus
Char. 4, 9
δεινὸς φαγεῖν καὶ ζωρότερον πιεῖν ('ungemischten Wein zu trinken', R. Meister).
Aristotle does not say what the question was that had been raised by the critics; it may be supposed, however (
comp.
Hermann
ad loc.), to have turned on the
πρίν before
κέκρητο, which owing to its ambiguous position may be construed with either
ζωρά or
κέκρητο. If one construes it with
κέκρητο, the clause will mean 'things pure had been before that mixed'; but in that case an objector might very well urge the inconsistency between this and the statement in the preceding line, in which
Empedocles speaks of the 'mortal' forms as assumed by the elements only when mixed up together in the actual world (
comp.
Zeller, Ph. d. Gr. 340 COMMENTARY 22 p. 784
). On the other hand, if the
πρίν be taken with
ζωρά, the sense will be 'things before that pure were found mixed up together' (for the tense of
κέκρητο
v.
Kühner, Gr. Gr. 1. 1 p. 152
;
Goodwin, Synt. of Gk. Moods and Tenses § 52
); and the objection of the critic is answered. The integrity of the text of the present passage has been doubted in recent times by several scholars of distinction.
Bergk (
Kl. Schriften 2 p. 86) has suggested
ζωρά τε πρὶν τὰ κέκρητο;
Gomperz (
Hermes 31 p. 469)
ζωρά τε ἃ (i. e. θ' ἃ) πρὶν κέκρητο; and
Diels (
on Emped. l. c.)
ζωρά τε τὰ πρὶν ἔκρητο (on the analogy of
ἔπλητο).
19.
mvp-aristotle-comment-1022
1461a25
ἀθάνατα.
As
Aristotle is so apt to curtail his quotations, it is hardly necessary to restore
ἀθάνατ᾿ (εἶναι). For the omission of
εἶναι see on
24, 1459
b9
.
1461a26
35.
mvp-aristotle-comment-631
25.19
35. Le même Hippias défend auſſi par le même moyen ce Poëte dans ce paſſage, où aprés avoir parlé d'un bois bien sec, on l'accuſe de dire ensuite, qu'une partie de ce bois eft corrompue par la pluye.]
1
246.
mvp-aristotle-comment-246
NOTE 246.
25.19
P. 128. AND MIX'D BEFORE UNMIX'D.
Ζωρά τε τὰ πρὶν ΑΚΡΗΤΑ, [
διαλλάττοντα κελεύθους: for so the verse is completed, in Simplicius and Athenæus.] This seems the best and most authentic reading, and Dacier's the most reasonable explanation. The meaning of the words,
ζωρόν, ζωρότερον, was matter of great dispute among the antients themselves. See
Plutarch's Sympos. Prob. V. 4.
— M. Batteux, taking it to mean
pure, unmixed, reads, consistently with that idea, for
ἄκρητα, ΚΕΚΡΑΤΟ. But, that this word, whatever it was, meant unmixed, seems plain from the passage of
Athenæus, p. 423, 424
, about
Theophrastus
; who, it seems, in a treatise on drunkenness, adduced these very lines of Empedocles to prove, that the meaning of
ζωρότερον was, not pure wine, but wine mixed with water.
The expression,
διαλλάττοντα κελεύθους, seems to prove, as Dacier has explained it, that the second verse was not intended merely as explanatory repetition, in other terms, of the change described in the first, but as descriptive of a contrary change; an interpretation which is somewhat supported by the two following lines of the same Poet, on the same subject: —
Ἄλλοτε μὲν, φιλότητι συνερχόμεν’ εἰς ἓν ἅπαντα, Ἄλλοτε δ’ αὖ, δίχ’ ἕκαστα φορεύμενα νείκεος ἔχθει.
1
—and, perhaps, still better, by the lines quoted by Aristotle,
Phys. Auscult. VIII. p. 408.
The expression —
ΜΑΘΟΝ ἀθάνατ’ εἶναι — is well explained by
Casaubon, upon Athenæus, p. 718,
μαθον,
pro εἰώθεισαν, aut ἐπεφύκεισαν: —
"didicerant esse, pro erant, vel solebant, esse," &c. See also the verses just referred to, in the
Phys. Auscult. where the same expression occurs —
ΜΕΜΑΘΗΚΕ φύεσθαι.
Of
διαίρεσις and
σύνθεσις, and the ambiguity of punctuation, as a source of sophistical argumentation, more may be seen, if it be thought worth seeing,
Rhet. II. 24, p. 580.
De Soph. Elench. p. 284, 288, 303, ed. Duval.
25.14.
mvp-aristotle-comment-122
25.19
THE IMPOSSIBLE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS CONDUCING ON THE WHOLE EITHER TO THE END, WHICH IT IS THE AIM OF POETRY TO ATTAIN, OR TO EXCELLENCE OF CHARACTER, OR AS BEING AGREEABLE TO RECEIVED OPΙΝΙΟΝ.
I IMAGINE Aristotle alludes here to the pursuit of Hector in the Iliad, which he has twice mentioned as incurring this blame, and that he is now shewing us on what principles it may be vindicated. [C] Note VII. Chap. xv. First,
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. First, It conduces to the main end of poetry, the production of interest, [D] for we must be more interested for the event of a single combat than the destruction of one person by superior numbers; and such a circumstance will afford greater variety and produce greater effect in the detail. Secondly, The character of Achilles, in point of courage at least, if not [E] of conduct, will be raised; and the valor and address of both combatants will be shewn in a more confpicuous light. It is impoffible for contempt of inevitable death to be more strongly expressed than in the two lines uttered by Achilles after the dying prophecy of Hector. • Die thou the first-when Jove and heav'n ordain, • I follow thee.' [F] And thirdly, As to its being agreeable to received opinion, it is very possible it might be fo; and we may safely give it credit on the authority of the Stagirite. Our modern novel writers are sometimes apt to carry the second excuse a little too far, and favor us with perfect monsters. Sir Charles Grandifon is a much more improbable character than Caliban. The. [D] 'Even in comic composition expreffions, though sometimes falling into the improbable, ← become probable from exciting laughter, as this, "he possessed an estate no bigger than a. " Lacedæmonian's letter;" laughter being a paffion though a pleasing one... LONGINUS,, Sect. XXXVIII.. [E] Note v. Chap. xxiv.. [F] Τέθναθι,-Κῆρα δ᾽ ἐγὼ τότε δέξομαι ὑππότε κεν δὴ Ζεὺς ἐθέλη τελέσαι, ἠδ'᾽ ἀθάναλοι θεὸι ἄλλοι. 3 X 2 manners
manners of Caliban, for what we know, may be very natural for a being composed of a witch and a fiend; but we immediately know the manners of Sir Charles Grandison are perfectly unnatural in a mere man. Perfection of character, befides the objection [G] formerly made to it, will always be infipid and uninteresting. I am inclined to think the Helen of Zeuxis, if it were composed, as we are told it was, from a selection of the best features of the most beautiful women of Greece, could not be a very interesting piece. The Abbe Terrasson, who seems to push the idea of perfection as far as it can reasonably go, speaking of the Telemachus, which he praises above all other epopees for drawing so excellent a character of a young hero, adds, 'The epic hero being proposed as a model for imitation, it is not allowable to elevate him above human nature. We may leave him flight failings which may even sometimes draw him into misfortunes, • if we chuse it, in the course of the poem. I have not therefore faid, ' that the hero of the epopee should be perfectly virtuous. I have only • said that he ought to be essentially virtuous.' [G] Note III. Chap. XIII. NOTE
12.
mvp-aristotle-comment-195
Ritter, cap. 25 § 12
αἶψα δὲ - πρὶν κέκριτο: si quaereretur quid ipse Empedocles, cuius hic frustula nonnulla afferuntur, scriptum dederit, plura in his quamvis Poeticae codicibus repugnantibus aliter conformanda existimarem, ut alii editores existimarunt: sed cum id potius restituendum sit quod hic homo apud Empedoclem legerit, immo legere voluerit, sequi codices cum Bekkero tutissimum mihi videtur. nimirum magnus hic difficultatum et conditor et destructor Empedoclis verbis a sese pro suo consilio mutilatis et immutatis inesse difficultatem, si legendo iungamus
τὰ πρὶν μάθον ἀθάνατα ζῷα, sed eam tolli si post
ἀθάνατα incisione facta iungamus
ζῷα τε πρὶν κέκριτο, quaeque prius animalia habita erant. si veram ipsius Empedoclis sententiam cognoscere velis, adeas fontes limpidiores, quos recludunt Athenaeus X. p. 424 A. Plutarchus Quaest. convival. V, 4. Simplicius ad
δόμεν, infinitivum pro imperativo accipiendum, ut transpositus accentus culpam fraudis a love reiiceret in Somnium": immo
λυτικὸς iste neque lovem neque Somnium in culpa esse voluit, sed id dicentem fecit Iovem (concedas vero ut ille gloriam sibi comparet) quod vere factum esse narratur in Il. A 67-283.Aristotel. de Caelo tom. I. 507. ed. Brandis. Eustathius p. 746, 56., unde hi versus prodeunt
αἶψα δ' ἔθνεά 11)
τ᾽ ἐφύοντο,
τὰ πρὶν μάθον ἀθάνατ᾿ εἶναι,
ζωρά τε τὰ πρὶν ἄκρητα διαλλάξαντα κελεύθους.