Aristotle Poetics 3.2

Theodore Alois Buckley (Translator)

View: By Chapter
or speaking as the same person without any change; or as all imitate [who do so] by deed and action.

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 (5)
Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) (Aristotle, Poetics. Immanuel Bekker, editor, Aristotelis Opera, volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1837.) — 3 focus
Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) Perseus (Aristotle, De arte poetica liber. Rudolf Kassel, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Reference edition for passage alignment.) — 3 focus
Poetics, Greek text (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's Greek text of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 3 focus
Poetics, Greek text (S. H. Butcher, 1911) (OCR draft) Experimental (S. H. Butcher's Greek text from Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, fourth edition, 1911.) — 4 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.) — 3 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.) — 3 focus
Arabic Poetics (Badawī edition, 1953) (OCR draft) (The ancient Arabic translation of Aristotle's Poetics in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī's 1953 edition.) — 3 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.) — 3 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.) — 3 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.) — 3.2 focus
For the Poet, imitating the same object, and by the same means, may do it either in NARRATION—and that, again, either personating other characters, as HOMER does, or, in his own person throughout, without change:—or, he may imitate by representing all his characters as real, and employed in the very ACTION itself.
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.) — 3.2 focus
for instance, either like Homer, sometimes by simple narration and sometimes by assuming a different character ; or entirely by narration without assuming any character; or by introducing all the persons imitated as agents and performers.
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.) — 3 focus
La poëtique d'Aristote (André Dacier, 1692) (OCR draft) Experimental (André Dacier's French translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1692.) — 3.2 focus
car avec les mêmes choſes, on peut imiter les mêmes ſujets, & les rendre pourtant trés-differens par la maniére, ſoit en faiſant un recit, ou en joüant ſoy-meſme quelqu'autre perſonnage, comme Homere l'a pratiqué heureuſement; ſoit ſans changer de perſonnage, en demeurant toûjours le même, ſoit enfin en faiſant toûjours agir ceux qu'on imite.
Poetica d'Aristotile (Bernardo Segni, 1549) (OCR draft) Experimental (Bernardo Segni's 1549 Florentine Italian translation, aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 3 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.) — 3 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.) — 3 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.) — 3 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.) — 3 focus

Commentary

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

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-74

τὰ αὐτὰ μιμεῖσθαι The subject understood with μιμεῖσθαι is τὸν μιμούμενον; and the participles which follow in 21-22 are in apposition to that. In a 23 , however, where Aristotle is dealing with the Drama, he has to put the participles in the plural ( ὡς πράττοντας), and the subject is definitely mentioned as τοὺς μιμουμένους.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-75

1448a21 ὁτὲ μὲν ἀπαγγέλλοντα κτέ. The amended reading (ἢ) ὁτὲ μὲν ἀπαγγέλλοντα ὁτὲ δὲ ἕτερόν τι γιγνόμενον is anticipated in Goulston's paraphrase. As Aristotle began by speaking of the objects imitated in the neuter, he describes the imitator as identifying himself with 'something else' ( ἕτερόν τι). The statement is on the same lines as that in Plato Rep. 392 D—394 D , which distinguishes between three forms of διήγησις: (1) simple narration, (2) imitative or dramatic narration, and (3) the mixed manner, which we see in Homer. Aristotle's ἀπαγγέλλοντα recalls Plato's δι᾿ ἀπαγγελίας αὐτοῦ τοῦ ποιητοῦ. Plato uses μιμεῖσθαι only for the dramatic mode, whereas Aristotle uses it in a much wider sense. Aristotle's general view of the Epic is that it comes under the head of narrative, as distinct from dramatic, imitation ( 5, 1449 b 11 ). Homer is said to reduce the element of narrative to a minimum, taking every opportunity of making his personages come forward and speak for themselves, just as though they were characters in a play.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-76

1448a22 ὡς τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ μὴ μεταβάλλοντα : another instance of parallelismus antitheticus (see on 1, 1447 a 18 ) ; it is the converse in sense of De caelo 2. 6, 288 a 31
εἴτε... ἀλλοιοῖτο καὶ μὴ διαμένοι τὸ αὐτό
. The antithesis is between what the poet says in propria persona and what he says in an assumed character.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-77

1448a23 ἢ πάντα ὡς πράττοντας καὶ ἐνεργοῦντας τοὺς μιμουμένους πάντα, the correction of Casaubon, is in apposition to the τὰ αὐτά in 20, and serves to distinguish the Drama from the Epic, which is at best only partially dramatic. If πάντας be retained, it has to be taken with τοὺς μιμουμένους as the object. However, τὰ αὐτά is too important logically to be ignored. In this third participial clause the participles are in the plural, and the grammatical subject ( τοὺς μιμουμένους) is expressed. The explanation is probably that Aristotle is thinking for the moment of the actors rather than of the poet himself. A play is conceived to be something which 'they act', i.e., with a plurality of imitators concerned in it: comp. 6, 1449 b 26
δρώντων
; b 31
πράττοντες ποιοῦνται τὴν μίμησιν
; 1450 a 21
πράττουσιν
. The use of the present of μιμεῖσθαι as a passive is not impossible, but there is no clear instance of it. In 15, 1454 b 26 , where Aristotle wants a present passive, he uses a periphrasis, ὁ τὴν μίμησιν παρέχων.
1448a24

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

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-57

3.2 Soit en faiſant un récit, ou en joüant ſoy-même quelqu'autre perſonnage.] 1

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

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-18

NOTE 18.

3.2 P. 68. EITHER IN NARRATION, AND THAT, AGAIN, EITHER, &C.
It may safely be pronounced, that the original here, either is not as Aristotle left it, or, was carelessly and ambiguously written. As the ambiguity, however, does not affect the general sense of the passage, it is scarcely worth while to engage in a minute discussion of the comparative merits of the two different constructions, which have been adopted by different commentators and translators. The learned reader knows, or may see, what has been said on both sides. I have preferred that construction, which has always appeared to me to result most obviously and naturally from the words of the original.—
ἐν τοις αυτοις, και τα αυτα μιμεισθαι ἐσιν, ότε μεν ΑΠΑΓΓΕΛΛΟΝΤΑ ( ἑτερον τι γιγνομενον, ώσπερ Ομηρου ποιει, ὡς τον αυτον, και μη μεταβαλλοντα,) η παντας ὡς ΠΡΑΤΤΟΝΤΑΣ και ἐνεργεντας τις μιμεμένες
.
In the other, and most usual way of taking this passage, the mixture of mere narration, and dramatic imitation, in the Epic species, is expressed by the words,
ότε μεν ἀπαγγελλοντα, ἕτερον τε γιγνομενον
. But it seems not likely, that Aristotle would thus oppose the word
ἀπαγγελλοντα
, to
ἕτερον τε γιγνομενον
; because the term,
ἀπαγγελια
, is constantly applied by him, throughout the treatise, to the narrative species in general: it is opposed, not to the dramatic part of the Epic, but to the drama itself.
Απαγγελια
and
διηγησις
, are used by him as synonymous terms, and are both applied to the whole of the Homeric, or dramatic, Epic Poem. 1 On the other hand, the words—
ΕΤΕΡΟΝ τι γιγνομενου
—seem evidently opposed to
ὡς ΤΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΝ και μη μεταβαλλοντα
, and should, therefore, be joined with them, not with
ἀπαγγελλοντα
.—Lastly, in this way of understanding the passage, Aristotle divides the different manners of imitation, as he might naturally be expected to divide them, into those which characterize the two great and principal species, of which he means to treat—the NARRATIVE and the DRAMATIC. The two different modes of the former, i, e. the pure narrative, and the dramatic narrative, are, with more propriety than in the other construction, (in bis view of the subject, at least,) flung into a subdivision.
In either construction, however, Aristotle agrees with Plato in enumerating three kinds of Poetry, the purely dramatic, the purely narrative, and the mixed. 2 But the generality of the commentators seem, too hastily, to have taken it for granted, that Aristotle must therefore necessarily enumerate them in the same manner; and they have, accordingly, moulded the flexible and ambiguous construction of this passage, exactly upon the division of Plato . 3
I was glad to find myself supported here by the judgment of the accurate Piccolomini , whose version coincides with mine.—
In UN MODO, per via di narratione, e questo, ò ponendo se steslo alle volte il Poeta in persona d'altri, come få Homero, over conservando sempre la propria persona non mutata mai. Nel ALTRO MODO poi, introducendo persone à trattare et negotiare, come se le stesse persone che sono imitate, fuffero.
With respect to the imitation here expressly allowed by Aristotle to subsist even in mere narration, without the intermixture of any thing dramatic, see Diff. I. p. 26 . I agree perfectly with Mr. Winstanley , that his emendations are not necessary.

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

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-15

Ritter, cap. 3 § 1

9. Tertia artium poeticarum differentia ex vario imitandi modo et ratione nascitur. ὑτὲ μὲν ἀπαγγέλλοντα - ἢ πάντας ὡς πράττοντας καὶ ἐνεργοῦντας τοὺς μιμουμένους: omnis poeticae imitationis modus in duo genera dividitur, unum narrandi, agendi alterum. prius, h. e. genus narrativum, duas habet species, sive narrantem inducit poeta alterum sive ipse narrandi partes in se suscipit. secundi generis ea natura est, ut qui imitantur ipsi agant ipsique personas eorum quos imitantur sustineant. huius alterius generis explicatio incipit a verbis ἢ πάντας ὡς πράττοντας, ubi ἢ particula licenter admissa est, cum ὁτὲ δὲ post ὑτὸ μὲν lectores exspectarent. structurae facilitas insuper impeditur illatis illis ὥσπερ Ὅμηρος ποιεῖ post ἕτερόν τι γιγνόμενον. Homerus imitationem ita instituit, ut dum plurima per alios enarrantur, multa tamen etiam ab ipso referantur, ut c. 24, 7. agnoscit laudatque Aristoteles. falso igitur Homerum omnia per alios enuntiare h. 1. monetur. porro vide mihi neque alterius ex priore genere speciei neque ipsius secundi generis exemplum afferri, sed exempla reservari donec tota res in universum satis exposita videretur; considera paucis interiectis versibus iterum provocari ad Homerum, ut idem poeta brevissimo intervallo bis in auxilium adhibeatur, quod saneabhorret a more veri Aristotelis. dicendum restat unde importunum additamentum venerit. interpolator cuius tot per hunc librum vestigia deprehenduntur, cum ex c. 24. didicisset Homerum per alios plurima referre, ille temperare sibi non potuit, quo minus iam hic quamvis loco non apto illam Homeri prae ceteris poetis epicis praestantiam significaret. - ceterum monendum puto, ne quis hoc loco abuti velit ad poesis in tria genera (epicum et lyricum et dramaticum) divisionem ab Aristotele profectam hinc eruendam et commonstrandam. non enim hoc nunc agit ut poesin universam in genera sua dividat, sed in duobus poesis generibus (epico et dramatico) diversam imitandi rationem explicare voluit, sane triplex illa poesis divisio in nonnullis huius libri locis Aristoteli obversata est ante animum (conf. Commentar. ad c. 1, 2), sed nullo loco eam aperte proposuit.