Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

REMARQUES SUR LE CHAPITRE SECOND.

2.1 Omme tous ceux qui imitent, imitent des actions.]¹

2.1 Car les mœurs ne peuvent être diftinguées que par ces deux qualitez.]²

2.1 Ou meilleurs par rapport à nous, ou plus méchans, ou ſemblables.]³

2.2 Polygnotus peignoit les hommes meilleurs.]⁴

2.2 Pauſon les peignoit plus méchans.]⁵

2.4 Les mèmes differences ſe trouvent auſſi dans la danſe, dans les airs de flute, dans les pieces de lyre, &c.]⁶

2.4 Dans tous les ouvrages en profe, ou en vers.]⁷

2.5 Par exemple, Homere a fait les hommes meilleurs.]⁸

2.5 Cleophon les a fait tels qu'ils font.)⁹

2.5 Hegemon de Thaſos qui a été l'Inventeur des parodies.]¹⁰

2.5 Parodies.]¹¹

2.5 Nicochares Auteur de la Deliade.)¹²

2.6 Il en est de mème des Poëtes qui ont compoſe des Dithyrambes & des Nomes.)¹³

2.6 C'est ainsi que Timothée & que Philoxene ont imité les Perſes & les Cyclopes.]¹⁴

2.6 Philoxene.]¹⁵

2.7 Et c'est cela même qui conſtitue la difference, qui eft entre la Tragedie & la Comedie.]¹⁶

2.7 Car la premiere repreſente les hommes meilleurs.]¹⁷

2.7 Et l'autre plus méchans.]¹⁸

Poetics. Aristote. Paris. 1692.

Current edition Experimental

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

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.) — 2 focus

Ἐπεὶ δὲ μιμοῦνται οἱ μιμούμενοι πράττοντας, ἀνάγκη δὲ τούτους ἢ σπουδαίους ἢ φαύλους εἶναι (τὰ γὰρ ἤθη σχεδὸν ἀεὶ τούτοις ἀκολουθεῖ μόνοις· κακίᾳ γὰρ καὶ ἀρετῇ τὰ ἤθη διαφέρουσι πάντες), ἤτοι βελτίονας ἢ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἢ χείρονας ἢ καὶ τοιούτους, ὥσπερ οἱ γραφεῖς·

Πολύγνωτος μὲν γὰρ κρείττους, Παύσων δὲ χείρους, Διονύσιος δὲ ὁμοίους εἴκαζεν.

Δῆλον δὲ ὅτι καὶ τῶν λεχθεισῶν ἑκάστη μιμήσεων ἕξει ταύτας τὰς διαφοράς, καὶ ἔσται ἑτέρα τῷ ἕτερα μιμεῖσθαι τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον.

Καὶ γὰρ ἐν ὀρχήσει καὶ αὐλήσει καὶ κιθαρίσει ἔστι γενέσθαι ταύτας τὰς ἀνομοιότητας,

καὶ περὶ τοὺς λόγους δὲ καὶ τὴν ψιλομετρίαν, οἷον Ὅμηρος μὲν βελτίους, Κλεοφῶν δὲ ὁμοίους, Ἡγήμων δὲ ὁ Θάσιος ὁ τὰς παρῳδίας ποιήσας πρῶτος καὶ Νικοχάρης ὁ τὴν Δηλιάδα χείρους.

Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τοὺς διθυράμβους καὶ περὶ τοὺς νόμους, ὡς Πέρσας καὶ Κύκλωπας Τιμόθεος καὶ Φιλόξενος, μιμήσαιτο ἄν τις.

Ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ διαφορᾷ καὶ ἡ τραγῳδία πρὸς τὴν κωμῳδίαν διέστηκεν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ χείρους ἡ δὲ βελτίους μιμεῖσθαι βούλεται τῶν νῦν.

Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) Perseus (Aristotle, De arte poetica liber. Rudolf Kassel, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Reference edition for passage alignment.) — 2 focus

1448a 1 ἐπεὶ δὲ μιμοῦνται οἱ μιμούμενοι πράττοντας, ἀνάγκη δὲ τούτους ἢ σπουδαίους ἢ φαύλους εἶναι (τὰ γὰρ ἤθη σχεδὸν ἀεὶ τούτοις ἀκολουθεῖ μόνοις, κακίᾳ γὰρ καὶ ἀρετῇ τὰ ἤθη διαφέρουσι πάντες), ἤτοι βελτίονας ἢ καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἢ χείρονας 5 ἢ καὶ τοιούτους, ὥσπερ οἱ γραφεῖς·

Πολύγνωτος μὲν γὰρ κρείττους, Παύσων δὲ χείρους, Διονύσιος δὲ ὁμοίους εἴκαζεν.

δῆλον δὲ ὅτι καὶ τῶν λεχθεισῶν ἑκάστη μιμήσεων ἕξει ταύτας τὰς διαφορὰς καὶ ἔσται ἑτέρα τῷ ἕτερα μιμεῖσθαι τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον.

καὶ γὰρ ἐν ὀρχήσει καὶ αὐλήσει καὶ 10 κιθαρίσει ἔστι γενέσθαι ταύτας τὰς ἀνομοιότητας,

καὶ τὸ περὶ τοὺς λόγους δὲ καὶ τὴν ψιλομετρίαν, οἷον Ὅμηρος μὲν βελτίους, Κλεοφῶν δὲ ὁμοίους, Ἡγήμων δὲ ὁ Θάσιος ὁ τὰς παρῳδίας ποιήσας πρῶτος καὶ Νικοχάρης ὁ τὴν Δειλιάδα χείρους·

ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τοὺς διθυράμβους καὶ περὶ τοὺς 15 νόμους, ὥσπερ † γᾶς † Κύκλωπας Τιμόθεος καὶ Φιλόξενος μιμήσαιτο ἄν τις.

ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ διαφορᾷ καὶ ἡ τραγῳδία πρὸς τὴν κωμῳδίαν διέστηκεν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ χείρους ἡ δὲ βελτίους μιμεῖσθαι βούλεται τῶν νῦν.

Poetics, Greek text (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's Greek text of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 2 focus

Ἐπεὶ δὲ μιμοῦνται οἱ μιμούμενοι πράττοντας, ἀνάγκη
δὲ τούτους ἢ σπουδαίους ἢ φαύλους εἶναι (τὰ γὰρ ἤθη σχεδὸν
ἀεὶ τούτοις ἀκολουθεῖ μόνοις, κακίᾳ γὰρ καὶ ἀρετῇ τὰ ἤθη
διαφέρουσι πάντες), ἤτοι βελτίονας ἢ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἢ χείρονας
ἢ καὶ τοιούτους, ὥσπερ οἱ γραφεῖς·

Πολύγνωτος μὲν γὰρ
κρείττους, Παύσων δὲ χείρους, Διονύσιος δὲ ὁμοίους εἴκαζεν.

δῆλον δὲ ὅτι καὶ τῶν λεχθεισῶν ἑκάστη μιμήσεων ἔξει
ταύτας τὰς διαφορὰς καὶ ἔσται ἑτέρα τῷ ἕτερα μιμεῖσθαι
τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον.

καὶ γὰρ ἐν ὀρχήσει καὶ αὐλήσει καὶ
κιθαρίσει ἔστι γενέσθαι ταύτας τὰς ἀνομοιότητας,

καὶ τῷ
περὶ τοὺς λόγους δὲ καὶ τὴν ψιλομετρίαν, οἷον Ὅμηρος μὲν
βελτίους, Κλεοφῶν δὲ ὁμοίους, Ἡγήμων δὲ ὁ Θάσιος ὁ τὰς
παρῳδίας ποιήσας πρῶτος καὶ Νικοχάρης ὁ τὴν Δειλιάδα
χείρους·

ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τοὺς διθυράμβους καὶ περὶ τοὺς
νόμους, ὥσπερ Κύκλωπας Τιμόθεος καὶ Φιλόξενος,
μιμήσαιτο ἄν τις.

ἐν ταύτῃ δὲ τῇ διαφορᾷ καὶ ἡ τραγῳδία
πρὸς τὴν κωμῳδίαν διέστηκεν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ χείρους ἡ δὲ
βελτίους μιμεῖσθαι βούλεται τῶν νῦν.

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.) — 1 focus

[1] 1447a 8 Περὶ ποιητικῆς αὐτῆς τε καὶ τῶν εἰδῶν αὐτῆς, ἥν τινα δύναμιν ἕκαστον ἔχει, καὶ πῶς δεῖ συνίστασθαι τοὺς μύθους εἰ μέλλει καλῶς ἕξειν ἡ ποίησις, ἔτι δὲ ἐκ πόσων καὶ ποίων ἐστὶ μορίων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὅσα τῆς αὐτῆς ἐστι μεθόδου, λέγωμεν λέγωμεν λέγομεν¹ ἀρξάμενοι κατὰ φύσιν πρῶτον ἀπὸ τῶν πρώτων.

[2] ἐποποιία δὴ καὶ ἡ τῆς τραγῳδίας ποίησις ἔτι δὲ κωμῳδία καὶ ἡ διθυραμβοποιητικὴ καὶ τῆς 15 αὐλητικῆς ἡ πλείστη καὶ κιθαριστικῆς πᾶαι τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι μιμήσεις τὸ σύνολον,

[3] διαφέρουσι δὲ ἀλλήλων τρισίν, ἢ γὰρ τῷ ἐν ἑτέροις ἐν ἑτέροις γένει² μιμεῖσθαι ἢ τῷ ἕτερα ἢ τῷ ἑτέρως καὶ μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον.

[4] ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ χρώμασι καὶ σχήμασι πολλὰ μιμοῦνταί τινες ἀπεικάζοντες (οἱ μὲν διὰ τέχνης οἱ δὲ διὰ συνηθείας), ἕτεροι δὲ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς τῆς φωνῆς τῆς φύσεως αὐτῆς τῆς φύσεως³, οὕτω κἀν κὰν καὶ ἐν καὶ ταῖς εἰρημέναις τέχναις· ἅπασαι μὲν ποιοῦνται τὴν μίμησιν ἐν ῥυθμῷ καὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἁρμονίᾳ, τούτοις δ᾽ ἢ χωρὶς ἢ μεμιγμένοις· οἷον ἁρμονίᾳ μὲν καὶ ῥυθμῷ χρώμεναι μόνον ἥ τε αὐλητικὴ καὶ ἡ κιθαριστικὴ κἂν εἴ τινες ἕτεραι τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι τοιαῦται τὴν δύναμιν, οἷον ἡ τῶν συρίγγων.

[5] αὐτῷ δὲ τῷ ῥυθμῷ τῷ αὐτῷ δὲ⁴ [μιμοῦνται]⁵ χωρὶς ἁρμονίας ἡ⁶ τῶν ὀρχηστῶν, καὶ γὰρ οὗτοι διὰ τῶν σχηματιζομένων ῥυθμῶν μιμοῦνται καὶ ἤθη καὶ πάθη καὶ πράξεις.

[6] ἡ δὲ [ἐποποιία]⁷ μόνον τοῖς λόγοις ψιλοῖς ἢ τοῖς μέτροις καὶ τούτοις 1447b 8 εἴτε μιγνῦσα μετ’ ἀλλήλων εἴθ’ ἑνί τινι γένει χρωμένη τῶν μέτρων, ἀνώνυμος⁸ τυγχάνει οὖσα τυγχάνουσα μέχρι τοῦ νῦν.

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.) — 2 focus

Ἐπεὶ δὲ μιμοῦνται οἱ μιμούμενοι πράττοντας, ἀνάγκη δὲ τούτους ἢ σπουδαίους ἢ φαύλους εἶναι (τὰ γὰρ ἤθη σχεδὸν ἀεὶ τούτοις ἀκολουθεῖ μόνοις· κακίᾳ γὰρ καὶ ἀρετῇ τὰ ἤθη διαφέρουσι πάντες), ἤτοι βελτίονας ἢ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἢ χείρονας¹ ἢ καὶ τοιούτους, – ὥσπερ οἱ γραφεῖς·

Πολύγνωτος μὲν γὰρ κρείττους, Παύσων δὲ χείρους, Διονύσιος δὲ ὁμοίους εἴκαζεν.

δῆλον δὲ ὅτι καὶ τῶν λεχθεισῶν ἑκάστη μιμήσεων ἕξει ταύτας τὰς διαφοράς, καὶ ἔσται ἑτέρα τῷ ἕτερα μιμεῖσθαι τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον.

καὶ γὰρ ἐν ὀρχήσει καὶ αὐλήσει καὶ κιθαρίσει ἔστι γενέσθαι ταύτας τὰς ἀνομοιότητας,

ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τοὺς διθυράμβους καὶ περὶ τοὺς νόμους [, ὡς Πέρσας καὶ Κύκλωπας Τιμόθεος καὶ Φιλόξενος,] μιμήσαιτο ἄν τις.

Translations (14)

Poetics (W. H. Fyfe) (OCR draft) Perseus (William Hamilton Fyfe's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, Loeb Classical Library, 1939 printing.) — 2 focus

1448a 1 Since living persons¹ are the objects of representation, these must necessarily be either good men or inferior—thus only are characters normally distinguished, since ethical differences depend upon vice and virtue—that is to say either better than ourselves or worse or much what we are. It is the same with painters.

Polygnotus depicted men as better than they are and Pauson worse, while Dionysius made likenesses.²

Clearly each of the above mentioned arts will admit of these distinctions, and they will differ in representing objects which differ from each other in the way here described.

In painting too, and flute-playing and harp-playing, these diversities may certainly be found, and it is the same in prose and in unaccompanied verse.

For instance Homer’s people are better, Cleophon’s are like, while in Hegemon of Thasos , the first writer of parodies, and in Nicochares, the author of the Poltrooniad, they are worse.³

It is the same in dithyrambic and nomic poetry, for instance . . . a writer might draw characters like the Cyclops as drawn by Timotheus and Philoxenus.⁴

It is just in this respect that tragedy differs from comedy. The latter sets out to represent people as worse than they are to-day, the former as better.

Arabic Poetics (Badawī edition, 1953) (OCR draft) (The ancient Arabic translation of Aristotle's Poetics in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī's 1953 edition.) — 2 focus

〈اختلاف ضروب الشعر باختلاف موضوعاته〉

ولما كان الذين يحاكون ويشبهون قد يأتون بذلك بأن يعملوا العمل الارادى، فقد يجب ضرورةً أن يكون هؤلاء إما أفاضل، وإما أراذل (وذلك أن العادات والأخلاق مثلا هى تابعة لهذين فقط) وذلك أن عاداتهم وأخلاقهم بأجمعهم إنما الخلاف بينها بالرذيلة والفضيلة ونأتى بالحكاية والتشبيه إما الأفاضل وإ[لا] ما [و] الأر〈ا〉ذل، وإما من كانت 〈له〉 حال فى ذلك 〈كحالنا〉 كما يشبه المصورون فى صنائعهم: أما الأخيار منهم للأخيار، والأشرار، كما 〈أنه〉 أما 〈فولوغنوطس فقد حاكى الأفاضل، وأما〉 [أن] فاوسن 〈فقد〉 حاكى الأشرار وشبه، وأما ديونوسيوس 〈فقد〉 كان يشبه ويحاكى 〈حسب〉 الشبيه. فظاهر بين أن يكون كل تشبيه وحكاية من التى وصفت. وكل واحد واحد من الأفعال الإرادية لها هذه الأصناف والفصول، وأن تكون الواحدة تشبه بالأخرى وتحاكيها بهذا الضرب.

وذلك أنه فى الرقص والزمر وصناعة العيدان قد يوجد لهذه أن تكون غير متشابهة، ونحو الكلام والوزن المرسل — مثال ذلك أما أوميروس فالفاضل، وأما قالاوفون فالأشياء الشبيهة، وإما ايجيمن المنسوب إلى ثاسيا، وهو الذى كان أولاً يعمل المديح، ونيقوخارس المنسوب إلى 〈د〉 الادى الذى كان يحاكى الأرذل، وكذلك ونحو هذه الداثورامبوس و〈الـ〉ـنواميس كما يشبه الانسان ويحاكى هكذا لقوقلوفاس طيموثاوس وفيلوكسانس.

وبهذا الفصل بعينه الخلاف الذى للمديح عند الهجاء: وهو أنه أما تلك فبالأراذل، وأما هذه فكانت تشبه بالأخيار وإياهم كانت تحاكى.

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.) — 2 focus

Since the objects of imitation are men in action, and
these men must be either of a higher or a lower type (for
moral character mainly answers to these divisions,
goodness and badness being the distinguishing marks of
moral differences), it follows that we must represent men
either as better than in real life, or as worse, or as they
are.

It is the same in painting. Polygnotus depicted men as
nobler than they are, Pauson as less noble, Dionysius
drew them true to life.

Now it is evident that each of the modes of imitation
above mentioned will exhibit these differences, and
become a distinct kind in imitating objects that are thus
distinct.

Such diversities may be found even in dancing, flute-playing,
and lyre-playing.

So again in language, whether prose or verse
unaccompanied by music. Homer, for example, makes
men better than they are; Cleophon as they are;
Hegemon the Thasian, the inventor of parodies, and
Nicochares, the author of the Deiliad, worse than they
are.

The same thing holds good of Dithyrambs and Nomes;
here too one may portray different types, as Timotheus
and Philoxenus differed in representing their Cyclopes.

The same distinction marks off Tragedy from Comedy;
for Comedy aims at representing men as worse, Tragedy
as better than in actual life.

Aristotle on the Art of Poetry (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 2 focus

The objects the imitator represents are actions, with
agents who are necessarily either good men or bad—the
diversities of human character being nearly always derivative
from this primary distinction, since the line between virtue
and vice is one dividing the whole of mankind. It follows
therefore, that the agents represented must be either above
our own level of goodness, or beneath it, or just such as we
are;

in the same way as, with the painters, the personages of
Polygnotus are better than we are, those of Pauson worse,
and those of Dionysius just like ourselves.

It is clear
that each of the above-mentioned arts will admit of these
differences, and that it will become a separate art by
representing objects with this point of difference.

Even in
dancing, flute-playing, and lyre-playing such diversities are
possible;

and they are also possible in the nameless art that
uses language, prose or verse without harmony, as its means;
Homer's personages, for instance, are better than we are;
Cleophon's are on our own level; and those of Hegemon of
Thasos, the first writer of parodies, and Nicochares, the
author of the Diliad, are beneath it.

The same is true of
the Dithyramb and the Nome: the personages may be
presented in them with the difference exemplified in the ...
of ... and Argas, and in the Cyclopses of Timotheus and
Philoxenus.

This difference it is that distinguishes Tragedy
and Comedy also; the one would make its personages worse,
and the other better, than the men of the present day.

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.) — 2 focus

PART II. OF TRAGEDY.

I.

6.1 OF the species of Poetry which imitates in hexameters, and of Comedy, we shall speak hereafter. Let us now consider TRAGEDY; collecting, first, from what has been already said, its true and essential definition.

6.2 Tragedy, then, is an imitation of some action that is important, entire, and of a proper magnitude—by language, embellished and rendered pleasurable, but by different means in different parts—in the way, not of narration, but of action—effecting through pity and terror, the correction and refinement of such passions.

6.3 By pleasurable language, I mean a language that has the embellishments of rhythm, melody, and metre. 6.4 And I add, by different means in different parts, because in some parts metre alone is employed, in others, melody.

II.

6.5 Now as Tragedy imitates by acting, the DECORATION¹, in the first place, must necessarily be one of its parts: then the MELOPOEIA, (MUSIC²,) and the DICTION; for these last include the means of tragic imitation. 6.6 By diction³, I mean the metrical composition. The meaning of Melopœia is obvious to every one.

6.7 Again—Tragedy being an imitation of an action, and the persons employed in that action being necessarily characterized by their manners and their sentiments, since it is from these that actions themselves derive their character, it follows, that there must also be, MANNERS, and SENTIMENTS, as the two causes of actions, and, consequently, of the happiness, or unhappiness, of all men. 6.8 The imitation of the action is the FABLE: for by fable I now mean the contexture of incidents, or the plot. By manners, I mean, whatever marks the characters of the persons. By sentiments⁴, whatever they say, whether proving anything, or delivering a general sentiment, &c.

6.9 Hence, all Tragedy must necessarily contain six parts, which, together, constitute its peculiar character, or quality: FABLE, MANNERS, DICTION, SENTIMENTS, DECORATION, and MUSIC.

6.10 Of these parts, two relate to the means, one to the manner, and three to the object, of imitation⁵. 6.11 And these are all. These specific parts⁶, if we may so call them, have been employed by most Poets, and are all to be found in [almost] every Tragedy.

III.

6.12 But of all these parts the most important is the combination of incidents, or, the FABLE. Because Tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of actions—of life, of happiness and unhappiness: for happiness consists in action, and the supreme good itself, the very end of life, is action of a certain kind⁷—not quality. Now the manners of men constitute only their quality or characters⁸; but it is by their actions that they are happy, or the contrary. 6.13 Tragedy, therefore, does not imitate action, for the sake of imitating manners, but in the imitation of action, that of manners is of course involved. So that the action and the fable are the end of Tragedy; and in every thing the end is of principal importance.

6.14 Again—Tragedy cannot subsist without action; without manners it may: 6.15 the Tragedies of most modern Poets have this defect; a defect common, indeed, among Poets in general. As among Painters also, this is the case with ZEUXIS, compared with POLYGNOTUS: the latter excels in the expression of the manners; there is no such expression in the pictures of ZEUXIS.

6.16 Farther—suppose any one to string together a number of speeches in which the manners are strongly marked, the language and the sentiments well turned; this will not be sufficient to produce the proper effect of Tragedy: that end will much rather be answered by a piece, defective in each of those particulars, but furnished with a proper fable and contexture of incidents. Just as in Painting, the most brilliant colours, spread at random and without design, will give far less pleasure than the simplest outline of a figure.

6.17 Add to this, that those parts of Tragedy, by means of which it becomes most interesting and affecting, are parts of the fable; I mean, revolutions, and discoveries⁹.

6.18 As a farther proof, adventurers in Tragic writing are sooner able to arrive at excellence in the language, and the manners, than in the construction of a plot; as appears from almost all our earlier Poets.

6.19 The fable, then, is the principal part, the soul, as it were, of Tragedy; and the MANNERS are next in rank: 6.20 Tragedy being an imitation of an action, and through that, principally, of the agents.

6.22 In the third place stand the SENTIMENTS. To this part it belongs, to say such things as are true and proper; which, in the dialogue, depends on the Political and Rhetorical arts: for, 6.23 the antients made their characters speak in the style of political and popular eloquence¹⁰; but now, the rhetorical manner prevails.

6.24 The manners are, whatever manifests the disposition of the speaker. There are speeches, therefore, which are without manners, or character; as not containing any thing by which the propensities or aversions of the person who delivers them can be known.

6.25 The sentiments comprehend whatever is said; whether proving any thing, affirmatively, or negatively, or expressing some general reflection, &c.¹¹

6.26 Fourth, in order, is the DICTION; that is, as I have already said, the expression of the sentiments by words; the power and effect of which is the same, whether in verse or prose.

6.27 Of the remaining two parts, the MUSIC stands next; of all the pleasurable accompaniments and embellishments of Tragedy, the most delightful.

6.28 The DECORATION has, also, a great effect, but, of all the parts, is most foreign to the art. For the power of Tragedy is felt without representation, and actors; and the beauty of the decorations depends more on the art of the mechanic, than on that of the Poet.

IV.

7.1 These things being thus adjusted, let us go on to examine in what manner the FABLE should be constructed; since this is the first, and most important part of Tragedy.

7.2 Now we have defined Tragedy to be an imitation of an action that is complete and entire; and that has also a certain magnitude; for a thing may be entire, and a whole, and yet not be of any magnitude¹².

7.3 1. By entire, I mean that which has a beginning, a middle, and an end. 7.4 A beginning, is that which does not, necessarily, suppose any thing before it, but which requires something to follow it. 7.5 An end, on the contrary, is that which supposes something to precede it, either necessarily, or probably; but which nothing is required to follow. 7.6 A middle, is that which both supposes something to precede, and requires something to follow. 7.7 The Poet, therefore, who would construct his fable properly, is not at liberty to begin, or end, where he pleases, but must conform to these definitions.

7.8 2. Again: whatever is beautiful, whether it be an animal, or any other thing composed of different parts, must not only have those parts arranged in a certain manner, but must also be of a certain magnitude; for beauty consists in magnitude and order¹³. 7.9 Hence it is that no very minute animal can be beautiful; the eye comprehends the whole too instantaneously to distinguish and compare the parts:—neither, on the contrary, can one of a prodigious size be beautiful; because, as all its parts cannot be seen at once, the whole, the unity of object, is lost to the spectator; for example, if he were surveying an animal of many miles in length. As, therefore, in animals, and other objects, a certain magnitude is requisite, but that magnitude must be such as to present a whole easily comprehended by the eye; 7.10 so, in the fable, a certain length is requisite, but that length must be such as to present a whole easily comprehended by the memory.

7.11 With respect to the measure of this length—if referred to actual representation in the dramatic contests, it is a matter foreign to the art itself: for if a hundred Tragedies were to be exhibited in concurrence, the length of each performance must be regulated by the hour glass; a practice of which, it is said, there have formerly been instances. 7.12 But, if we determine this measure by the nature of the thing itself, the more extensive the fable, consistently with the clear and easy comprehension of the whole, the more beautiful will it be, with respect to magnitude. In general, we may say, that an action is sufficiently extended, when it is long enough to admit of a change of fortune, from happy to unhappy, or the reverse, brought about by a succession, necessary or probable, of well-connected incidents.

V.

8.1 A fable is not one, as some conceive it to be, merely because the hero of it is one. For numberless events happen to one man, many of which are such as cannot be connected into one event: and so, likewise, there are many actions of one man which cannot be connected into any one action. 8.2 Hence appears the mistake of all those Poets who have composed HERCULEIDS, THESEIDS, and other Poems of that kind. They conclude that because Hercules was one, so also must be the fable of which he is the subject.

8.3 But HOMER, among his many other excellences, seems also to have been perfectly aware of this mistake, either from art or genius. For when he composed his ODYSSEY, he did not introduce all the events of his hero's life,—such, for instance, as the wound he received upon Parnassus¹⁴—his feigned madness when the Grecian army was assembling, &c.¹⁵—events, not connected, either by necessary or probable consequence, with each other; but he comprehended those only which have relation to one action; for such we call that of the Odyssey. And in the same manner he composed his Iliad¹⁶.

8.4 As, therefore, in other mimetic arts, one imitation is an imitation of one thing¹⁷, so here, the fable, being an imitation of an action, should be an imitation of an action that is one, and entire; the parts of it being so connected, that if any one of them be either transposed or taken away, the whole will be destroyed, or changed: for whatever may be either retained, or omitted, without making any sensible difference, is not, properly, a part¹⁸.

VI.

9.1 It appears, farther, from what has been said, that it is not the Poet's province to relate such things as have actually happened, but such as might have happened-such as are possible, according either to probable, or necessary, consequence.

9.2 For it is not by writing in verse, or prose, that the Historian and the Poet are distinguished: the work of Herodotus might be versified; but it would still be a species of history, no less with metre, than without. They are distinguished by this, that the one relates what has been, the other what might be. 9.3 On this account, Poetry is a more philosophical, and a more excellent thing, than History: for Poetry is chiefly conversant about general truth; History, about particular. 9.4 In what manner, for example, any person of a certain character would speak, or act, probably, or necessarily-this is general; and this is the object of Poetry, even while it makes use of particular names. But, what Alcibiades did, or what happened to him-this is particular truth.

9.5 With respect to Comedy, this is now become obvious; for here, the Poet, when he has formed his plot of probable incidents, gives to his characters whatever names he pleases; and is not, like the Iambic Poets, particular, and personal.

9.6 Tragedy, indeed, retains the use of real names; and the reason is, that, what we are disposed to believe, we must think possible: now what has never actually happened, we are not apt to regard as possible; but what has been is unquestionably so, or it could not have been at all¹⁹. 9.7 There are, however, some Tragedies in which one or two of the names are historical, and the rest feigned: there are even some, in which none of the names are historical; such is AGATHO's Tragedy called The Flower; for in that, all is invention, both incidents, and names; and yet it pleases. 9.8 It is by no means, therefore, essential, that a Poet should confine himself to the known and established subjects of Tragedy. Such a restraint would, indeed, be ridiculous; since even those subjects that are known, are known, comparatively, but to few, and yet are interesting to all.

9.9 From all this it is manifest, that a Poet should be a Poet, or maker, of fables, rather than of verses; since it is imitation that constitutes the Poet, and of this imitation actions are the object: 9.10 nor is he the less a Poet, though the incidents of his fable should chance to be such as have actually happened; for nothing hinders, but that some true events may possess that probability²⁰, the invention of which entitles him to the name of Poet.

VII.

9.11 Of simple fables or actions, the episodic are the worst. I call that an episodic fable, the episodes²¹ of which follow each other without any probable or necessary connection; 9.11b a fault into which bad Poets are betrayed by their want of skill, and good Poets by the players: for in order to accommodate their pieces to the purposes of rival performers in the dramatic contests, they spin out the action beyond their powers, and are thus, frequently, forced to break the connection and continuity of its parts.

9.11c But Tragedy is an imitation, not only of a complete action, but also of an action exciting terror and pity. Now that purpose is best answered by such events as are not only unexpected, but unexpected consequences of each other: 9.12 for, by this means, they will have more of the wonderful, than if they appeared to be the effects of chance; since we find, that, among events merely casual, those are the most wonderful and striking, which seem to imply design: as when, for instance, the statue of Mitys at Argos killed the very man who had murdered Mitys, by falling down upon him as he was surveying it; events of this kind, not having the appearance of accident. 9.13 It follows then, that such fables as are formed on these principles must be the best.

VIII.

10.1 Fables are of two sorts, simple and complicated; for so also are the actions themselves of which they are imitations. 10.2 An action, (having the continuity and unity prescribed,) I call simple, when its catastrophe is produced without either revolution, or discovery: 10.3 complicated, when with one, or both. 10.4 And these should arise from the structure of the fable itself, so as to be the natural consequences, necessary or probable, of what has preceded in the action. For there is a wide difference between incidents that follow from, and incidents that follow only after, each other.

IX.

11.1 A REVOLUTION, is a change, (such as has already been mentioned²²,) into the reverse of what is expected from the circumstances of the action; and that, produced, as we have said, by probable, or necessary consequence.

11.2 Thus, in the Oedipus²³, the messenger, meaning to make Oedipus happy, and to relieve him from the dread he was under with respect to his mother, by making known to him his real birth, produces an effect directly contrary to his intention. 11.3 Thus, also, in the Tragedy of Lynceus: Lynceus is led to suffer death, Danaus follows to inflict it; but the event, resulting from the course of the incidents, is, that Danaus is killed, and Lynceus saved.

11.4 A DISCOVERY, as, indeed, the word implies, is a change from unknown to known, happening between those characters whose happiness, or unhappiness, forms the catastrophe of the drama, and terminating in friendship or enmity²⁴.

11.5 The best sort of Discovery is that which is accompanied by a Revolution, as in the Oedipus.

11.6 There are, also, other Discoveries; for inanimate things, of any kind, may be recognized in the same manner²⁵; and we may discover whether such a particular thing was, or was not, done by such a person:- 11.7 but the Discovery most appropriated to the fable, and the action, is that above defined; because such Discoveries, and Revolutions, must excite either pity or terror; and Tragedy we have defined to be an imitation of pitiable and terrible actions: and because, also, by them the event, happy, or unhappy, is produced.

11.8 Now Discoveries, being relative things, are sometimes of one of the persons only, the other being already known; and sometimes they are reciprocal: thus, Iphigenia is discovered to Orestes by the letter which she charges him to deliver, and Orestes is obliged, by other means, to make himself known to her²⁶.

11.9 These then are two parts of the fable-Revolution and Discovery. There is a third, which we denominate, DISASTERS. The two former have been explained. 11.10 Disasters comprehend all painful or destructive actions; the exhibition of death, bodily anguish, wounds, and every thing of that kind.

X.

12.1 The parts of Tragedy which are necessary to constitute its quality, have been already enumerated. Its parts of quantity-the distinct parts into which it is divided-are these: PROLOGUE, EPISODE, EXODE, and CHORUS; 12.2 which last is also divided into the PARODE, and the STASIMON. These are common to all Tragedies. 12.3 The COMMOI are found in some only.

12.4 The Prologue²⁷ is all that part of a Tragedy which precedes the Parode of the Chorus.- 12.5 The Episode²⁸, all that part which is included between entire Choral Odes. 12.6 The Exode²⁹, that part which has no Choral Ode after it.

12.7 Of the Choral part, the Parode³⁰ is the first speech of the whole Chorus: 12.8 the Stasimon³¹, includes all those Choral Odes that are without Anapests and Trochees.

12.9 The Commos³², is a general lamentation of the Chorus and the Actors together.

12.10 Such are the separate parts into which Tragedy is divided. Its parts of quality were before explained.

XI.

13.1 The order of the subject leads us to consider, in the next place, what the Poet should aim at, and what avoid, in the construction of his fable; and by what means the purpose of Tragedy may be best effected.

13.2 Now since it is requisite to the perfection of a Tragedy that its plot should be of the complicated, not of the simple kind, and that it should imitate such actions as excite terror and pity, (this being the peculiar property of the Tragic imitation,) it follows evidently, in the first place, that the change from prosperity to adversity should not be represented as happening to a virtuous character³³; for this raises disgust, rather than terror, or compassion. 13.3 Neither should the contrary change, from adversity to prosperity, be exhibited in a vitious character: this, of all plans, is the most opposite to the genius of Tragedy, having no one property that it ought to have; for it is neither gratifying in a moral view, nor affecting, nor terrible. 13.4 Nor, again, should the fall of a very bad man from prosperous to adverse fortune be represented: because, though such a subject may be pleasing from its moral tendency, it will produce neither pity nor terror. For our pity is excited by misfortunes undeservedly suffered, and our terror, by some resemblance between the sufferer and ourselves. Neither of these effects will, therefore, be produced by such an event.

13.5 There remains, then, for our choice, the character between these extremes; that of a person neither eminently virtuous or just, nor yet, involved in misfortune by deliberate vice, or villainy; but by some error of human frailty: and this person should, also, be some one of high fame and flourishing prosperity. For example, OEDIPUS, THYESTES, or other illustrious men of such families.

XII.

13.6 Hence it appears, that, to be well constructed, a fable, contrary to the opinion of some, should be single rather than double³⁴; that the change of fortune should not be from adverse to prosperous, but the reverse; and that it should be the consequence, not of vice, but of some great frailty, in a character such as has been described, or better rather than worse.

13.7 These principles are confirmed by experience; for Poets, formerly, admitted almost any story into the number of Tragic subjects; but now, the subjects of the best Tragedies are confined to a few families-to Alcmaeon, Oedipus, Orestes, Meleager, Thyestes, Telephus, and others, the sufferers, or the authors, of some terrible calamity.

13.8 The most perfect Tragedy, then, according to the principles of the art, is of this construction. 13.9 Whence appears the mistake of those critics who censure EURIPIDES for this practice in his Tragedies, many of which terminate unhappily; for this, as we have shewn, is right. 13.10 And, as the strongest proof of it, we find that upon the stage, and in the dramatic contests, such Tragedies, if they succeed, have always the most Tragic effect: and EURIPIDES, though, in other respects, faulty in the conduct of his subjects, seems clearly to be the most Tragic of all Poets.

13.11 I place in the second rank, that kind of fable to which some assign the first³⁵; that which is of a double construction, like the Odyssey, and also ends in two opposite events, to the good, and to the bad, characters. 13.12 That this passes for the best, is owing to the weakness of the spectators, to whose wishes the Poets accommodate their productions. 13.13 This kind of pleasure, however, is not the proper pleasure of Tragedy, but belongs rather to Comedy; for there, if even the bitterest enemies, like Orestes and Aegisthus, are introduced, they quit the scene at last in perfect friendship, and no blood is shed on either side.

XIII.

14.1 Terror and pity may be raised by the decoration-the mere spectacle³⁶; but they may also arise from the circumstances of the action itself; which is far preferable, and shews a superior Poet. 14.2 For the fable should be so constructed, that, without the assistance of the sight, its incidents may excite horror and commiseration in those, who hear them only: an effect, which every one, who hears the fable of the Oedipus, must experience. 14.3 But, to produce this effect by means of the decoration, discovers want of art in the Poet; who must also be supplied, by the public, with an expensive apparatus³⁷.

14.4 As to those Poets, who make use of the decoration in order to produce, not the terrible, but the marvellous only, their purpose has nothing in common with that of Tragedy. For we are not to seek for every sort of pleasure from Tragedy, but for that only which is proper to the species.

14.5 Since, therefore, it is the business of the Tragic Poet to give that pleasure, which arises from pity and terror, through imitation, it is evident, that he ought to produce that effect by the circumstances of the action itself.

XIV.

14.6 Let us, then, see, of what kind those incidents are, which appear most terrible, or piteous.

Now, such actions must, of necessity, happen between persons who are either friends, or enemies, or indifferent to each other. 14.7 If an enemy kills, or purposes to kill, an enemy, in neither case is any commiseration raised in us³⁸, beyond what necessarily arises from the nature of the action itself. 14.8 The case is the same, when the persons are neither friends nor enemies. 14.9 But when such disasters happen between friends-when, for instance, the brother kills³⁹, or is going to kill, his brother, the son his father, the mother her son, or the reverse-these, and others of a similar kind, are the proper incidents for the Poet's choice.

14.10 The received Tragic subjects, therefore, he is not at liberty essentially to alter; Clytemnestra must die by the hand of Orestes, and Eriphyle by that of Alcmaeon: 14.11 but it is his province to invent other subjects, and to make a skilful use of those which he finds already established. What I mean by a skilful use, I proceed to explain.

14.12 The atrocious action may be perpetrated knowingly and intentionally⁴⁰, as was usual with the earlier Poets; and as EURIPIDES, also, has represented Medea destroying her children⁴¹.

14.13 It may, likewise, be perpetrated by those, who are ignorant, at the time, of the connection between them and the injured person, which they afterwards discover; like Oedipus, in SOPHOCLES⁴². There, indeed, the action itself does not make a part of the drama: the Alcmaeon of Astydamas, and Telegonus in the Ulysses Wounded, furnish instances within the Tragedy⁴³.

14.14 There is yet a third way, where a person upon the point of perpetrating, through ignorance, some dreadful deed, is prevented by a sudden discovery⁴⁴.

14.15 Beside these, there is no other proper way. For the action must of necessity be either done, or not done, and that, either with knowledge, or without: 14.16 but of all these ways⁴⁵, that of being ready to execute, knowingly, and yet not executing, is the worst; for this is, at the same time, shocking, and yet not Tragic, because it exhibits no disastrous event. It is, therefore, never, or very rarely, made use of. The attempt of Haemon to kill Creon, in the Antigone⁴⁶, is an example.

14.17 Next to this, is the actual execution of the purpose⁴⁷.

14.18 To execute, through ignorance, and afterwards to discover, is better: for thus, the shocking atrociousness is avoided, and, at the same time, the discovery is striking.

14.19 But the best of all these ways, is the last. Thus, in the Tragedy of Cresphontes, Merope, in the very act of putting her son to death, discovers him, and is prevented. In the Iphigenia⁴⁸, the sister, in the same manner, discovers her brother; and in the Helle⁴⁹, the son discovers his mother, at the instant when he was going to betray her.

14.20 On this account it is, that the subjects of Tragedy, as before remarked, are confined to a small number of families. For it was not to art, but to fortune, that Poets applied themselves, to find incidents of this nature. Hence the necessity of having recourse to those families, in which such calamities have happened.

14.21 Of the PLOT, or FABLE, and its requisites, enough has now been said.

XV.

15.1 With respect to the MANNERS, four things are to be attended to by the Poet.

15.2 First, and principally, they should be good. Now manners, or character, belong, as we have said before, to any speech or action that manifests a certain disposition; and they are bad, or good, as the disposition manifested is bad, or good. 15.3 This goodness of manners may be found in persons of every description: the manners of a woman, or of a slave, may be good; though, in general, women are, perhaps, rather bad, than good, and slaves, altogether bad⁵⁰.

15.4 The second requisite of the manners, is propriety. There is a manly character of bravery and fierceness, which cannot, with propriety, be given to a woman.

15.5 The third requisite is resemblance; for this is a different thing from their being good, and proper, as above described⁵¹.

15.6 The fourth, is uniformity; for even though the model of the Poet's imitation be some person of ununiform manners, still that person must be represented as uniformly ununiform.

15.7 We have an example of manners unnecessarily bad, in the character of Menelaus in the Tragedy of Orestes⁵²: 15.8 of improper and unbecoming manners, in the lamentation of Ulysses in Scylla, and in the speech of Menalippe⁵³: 15.9 of ununiform manners, in the Iphigenia at Aulis; for there, the Iphigenia, who supplicates for life, has no resemblance to the Iphigenia of the conclusion.

15.10 In the manners, as in the fable, the Poet should always aim, either at what is necessary, or what is probable; so that such a character shall appear to speak or act, necessarily, or probably, in such a manner, and this event, to be the necessary or probable consequence of that. 15.10b Hence it is evident, that the development also of a fable should arise out of the fable itself, and not depend upon machinery, as in the Medea⁵⁴, or in the incidents relative to the return of the Greeks, in the Iliad⁵⁵. 15.10c The proper application of machinery is to such circumstances, as are extraneous to the drama; such, as either happened before the time of the action, and could not, by human means, be known; or, are to happen after, and require to be foretold: for to the Gods we attribute the knowledge of all things. 15.10d But nothing improbable should be admitted in the incidents of the fable⁵⁶; or, if it cannot be avoided, it should, at least, be confined to such as are without the Tragedy itself; as in the Oedipus of SOPHOCLES.

15.11 Since Tragedy is an imitation of what is best, we should follow the example of skilful portrait-painters; who, while they express the peculiar lineaments, and produce a likeness, at the same time improve upon the original⁵⁷. And thus, too, the Poet, when he imitates the manners of passionate men, (or of indolent, or any other of a similar kind,) should draw an example approaching rather to a good, than to a hard and ferocious character: as Achilles is drawn, by AGATHO, and by HOMER.

15.12 These things the Poet should keep in view; and, besides these, whatever relates to those senses which have a necessary connection with Poetry: for here, also, he may often err⁵⁸. But of this enough has been said in the treatises already published.

XVI.

16.1 What is meant by a DISCOVERY, has already been explained. Its kinds are the following⁵⁹.

16.2 First, the most inartificial of all, and to which, from poverty of invention, the generality of Poets have recourse-the discovery by visible signs. Of these signs, some are natural; as, the lance with which the family of the earth-born Thebans were marked⁶⁰, or the stars which Carcinus has made use of in his Thyestes: 16.3 others are adventitious; and of these, some are corporal, as scars-some external, as necklaces, bracelets, &c. or the little boat by which the discovery is made in the Tragedy of Tyro⁶¹. 16.4 Even these, however, may be employed with more, or less skill. The discovery of Ulysses, for example, to his nurse, by means of his scar, is very different from his discovery, by the same means, to the herdsmen. 16.5 For all those discoveries, in which the sign is produced by way of proof, are inartificial. Those, which, like that in the Washing of Ulysses⁶², happen suddenly and casually, are better.

16.6 Secondly-Discoveries invented, at pleasure, by the Poet, and, on that account, still inartificial. For example; in the Iphigenia, Orestes, after having discovered his sister, discovers himself to her. She, indeed, is discovered by the letter; but Orestes, by [verbal proofs:] and these are such, as the Poet chuses to make him produce, not such, as arise from the circumstances of the fable⁶³. This kind of discovery, therefore, borders upon the fault of that first mentioned: for, some of the things from which those proofs are drawn, are even such, as might have been actually produced as visible signs. 16.7 Another instance, is the discovery by the sound of the shuttle in the Tereus of SOPHOCLES.

16.8 Thirdly-The Discovery occasioned by memory; as, when some recollection is excited by the view of a particular object. Thus, in the Cyprians of Dicaeogenes, a discovery is produced by tears shed at the sight of a picture: and thus, in the Tale of Alcinous, Ulysses, listening to the bard, recollects, weeps, and is discovered⁶⁴.

16.9 Fourthly-The Discovery occasioned by reasoning or inference⁶⁵; such as that in the Choephorae: "The person, who is arrived, resembles me-no one resembles me but Orestes-it must be he !". And that of Polyides the Sophist, in his Iphigenia⁶⁶; for the conclusion of Orestes was natural. "It had been his sister's lot to be sacrificed, and it was now his own!". That, also, in the Tydeus of Theodectes:-"He came to find his son, and he himself must perish!". And thus, the daughters of Phineus, in the Tragedy denominated from them⁶⁷, viewing the place to which they were led, infer their fate: "there they were to die, for there they were exposed!".

16.10 There is also a compound sort of discovery, arising from false inference in the audience⁶⁸; as in Ulysses the False Messenger: he asserts, that he shall know the bow, which he had not seen; the audience falsely infer, that a discovery, by that means, will follow.

16.11 But, of all Discoveries, the best is that, which arises from the action itself, and in which a striking effect is produced by probable incidents. Such is that in the Oedipus of SOPHOCLES: and that in the Iphigenia; for nothing more natural than her desire of con-veying the letter. Such discoveries are the best, because they alone are effected without the help of invented proofs, or bracelets, &c.⁶⁹. 16.12 Next to these, are the discoveries by inference.

XVII.

17.1 The Poet, both when he plans, and when he writes, his Tragedy, should put himself, as much as possible, in the place of a spectator; for, by this means, seeing everything distinctly, as if present at the action, he will discern what is proper, and no inconsistencies will escape him. 17.2 The fault objected to Carcinus is a proof of this. Amphiaraus had left the temple: this, the Poet, for want of conceiving the action to pass before his eyes, overlooked⁷⁰; but in the representation, the audience were disgusted, and the piece condemned.

17.3 In composing, the Poet should even, as much as possible, be an actor: for, by natural sympathy, they are most persuasive and affecting, who are under the influence of actual passion. We share the agitation of those, who appear to be truly agitated-the anger of those, who appear to be truly angry. 17.4 Hence it is, that Poetry demands, either great natural quickness of parts, or an enthusiasm allied to madness. By the first of these, we mould ourselves with facility to the imitation of every form; by the other, transported out of ourselves, we become what we imagine.

17.5 When the Poet invents a subject, he should, first, draw a general sketch of it, and afterwards give it the detail of its Episodes, and extend it. 17.6 The general argument, for instance, of the Iphi-genia, should be considered in this way: "A virgin, on the point of being sacrificed, is imperceptibly conveyed away from the altar, and transported to another country, where it was the custom to sacrifice all strangers to Diana. Of these rites she is appointed priestess. It happens, some time after, that her brother arrives there."⁷¹. But why?-because an oracle had commanded him, for some reason exterior to the general plan. For what purpose? This, also, is exterior to the plan⁷². "He arrives, is seized, and, at the instant that he is going to be sacrificed, the discovery is made.". And this may be, either in the way of Euripides, or like that of Polyides⁷³, by the natural reflection of Orestes, that-"it was his fate also, as it had been his sister's, to be sacrificed;" by which exclamation he is saved.

17.7 After this, the Poet, when he has given names to his characters, should proceed to the Episodes of his action; 17.8 and he must take care, that these belong properly to the subject; like that of the madness of Orestes, which occasions his being taken, and his escape by means of the ablution. 17.9 In dramatic Poetry the Episodes are short; but, in the Epic, they are the means of drawing out the poem to its proper length.

17.10 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.". 17.11 This is the essential; the rest is Episode.

XVIII.

18.1 Every Tragedy consists of two parts-the complication, and the development⁷⁴. The complication is often formed by incidents supposed prior to the action, and by a part, also, of those that are within the action; the rest, form the development. 18.2 I call complication, all that is between the beginning of the piece, and the last part, where the change of fortune commences:-development, all between the beginning of that change, and the conclusion.

18.3 Thus, in the Lynceus of Theodectes, the events antecedent to the action, and the seizure of the child, constitute the complication; the development is from the accusation of murder to the end⁷⁵.

XIX.

18.4 There are four kinds of Tragedy, deducible from so many parts, which have been mentioned. 18.5 One kind is the COMPLICATED; where all depends on revolution and discovery: 18.6 another is the DISASTROUS⁷⁶, such as those on the subject of Ajax or Ixion: 18.7 another, the MORAL⁷⁷, as the Phthiotides, and the Peleus⁷⁸: 18.8 and, fourthly, the SIMPLE, such as the Phorcides⁷⁹, the Prometheus, and all those Tragedies, the scene of which is laid in the infernal regions.

18.9 It should be the Poet's aim to make himself master of all these manners⁸⁰; of as many of them, at least, as possible, and those the best: especially, considering the captious criticism, to which, in these days, he is exposed. For, the public, having now seen different Poets excel in each of these different kinds, expect every single Poet to unite in himself, and to surpass, the peculiar excellences of them all.

18.10 One Tragedy may justly be considered as the same with another, or different, not according as the subjects, but, rather, according as the complication and development, are the same or different. 18.11 Many Poets, when they have complicated well, develop badly⁸¹. 18.12 They should endeavour to deserve equal applause in both.

XX.

18.13 We must also be attentive to what has been often mentioned⁸², and not construct a Tragedy upon an Epic plan. By an Epic plan, I mean, a fable composed of many fables⁸³; as if any one, for instance, should take the entire fable of the ILIAD for the subject of a Tragedy. 18.14 In the Epic Poem, the length of the whole admits of a proper magnitude in the parts; but in the drama, the effect of such a plan is far different from what is expected. 18.15 As a proof of this, those Poets, who have formed the whole of the destruction of Troy into a Tragedy, instead of confining themselves (as Euripides, but not Aeschylus, has done, in the story of Niobe,) to a part, have either been condemned in the representation, or have contended without success.

18.16 Even Agatho has failed on this account, and on this only: for, in revolutions, and in actions also of the simple kind, these Poets succeed wonderfully in what they aim at; and that is, the union of Tragic effect with moral tendency: 18.17 as when, for example, a character of great wisdom, but without integrity, is deceived, like Sisyphus; or, a brave, but unjust man, conquered. 18.18 Such events, as Agatho says, are probable, "as it is probable, in general, that many things should happen contrary to probability.".

XXI.

18.19 The CHORUS should be considered as one of the persons in the drama⁸⁴; should be a part of the whole, and a sharer in the action: not as in Euripides⁸⁵, but, as in Sophocles. 18.20 As for other Poets-their choral songs have no more connection with their subject, than with that of any other Tragedy: and hence, they are now become detached pieces, inserted at pleasure: a practice first introduced by Agatho⁸⁶. Yet where is the difference, between this arbitrary insertion of an Ode, and the transposition of a speech, or even of a whole Episode, from one Tragedy to another?.

XXII.

19.1 Of the other parts of Tragedy enough has now been said. We are next to consider the DICTION, and the SENTIMENTS.

19.2 For what concerns the sentiments, we refer to the principles laid down in the books on Rhetoric⁸⁷; for to that subject they more properly belong. 19.3 The sentiments include whatever is the object of speech; 19.4 as, for instance, to prove, to confute, to move the passions-pity, terror, anger, and the like; to amplify, or to diminish. 19.5 But it is evident, that, with respect to the things themselves also⁸⁸, when the Poet would make them appear pitiable, or terrible, or great, or probable, he must draw from the same sources; 19.6 with this difference only, that, in the drama, these things must appear to be such, without being shewn to be such⁸⁹; whereas, in oratory, they must be made to appear so by the speaker, and in consequence of what he says: otherwise, what need of an orator, if they already appear so, in themselves, and not through his eloquence?.

XXIII.

19.7 With respect to DICTION, one part of its theory is that, which treats of the figures of speech⁹⁰; such as, commanding, entreating, relating, menacing, interrogating, answering, and the like. But this belongs, properly, to the art of acting, and to the professed masters of that kind.

19.8 The Poet's knowledge, or ignorance, of these things, cannot any way materially affect the credit of his art. For who will suppose there is any justice in the cavil of Protagoras-that, in the words, "The wrath, O goddess, sing⁹¹," the Poet, where he intended a prayer, had expressed a command: for he insists, that to say, Do this, or do it not, is to command.- 19.9 This subject, therefore, we pass over, as belonging to an art distinct from that of Poetry.

XXIV.

20.1 TO ALL DICTION, belong the following parts:-the letter, the syllable, the conjunction, the noun, the verb, the article, the case, the discourse or speech.

1. 20.2 A letter is an indivisible sound; yet not all such sounds are letters, but those only that are capable of forming an intelligible sound. For there are indivisible sounds of brute creatures; but no such sounds are called letters. 20.3 Letters are of three kinds; vowels, semivowels, and mutes. The vowel, is that, which has a distinct sound without articulation⁹²; as A, or O.-The semivowel, that which has a distinct sound with articulation, as S, and R. The mute, that which, with articulation, has yet no sound by itself; but joined with one of those letters that have some sound, becomes audible; as, G, and D.⁹³. 20.4 These all differ from each other, as they are produced by different configurations, and in different parts, of the mouth; as they are aspirated or smooth, long or short; as their tone is acute, grave, or intermediate: the detail of all which, is the business of the metrical treatises.

2. 20.5 A syllable, is a sound without signification, composed of a mute and a vowel: for GR, without A, is not a syllable; with A, as GRA, it is. But these differences, also, are the subject of the metrical art.

3. 20.6 A conjunction, is a sound without signification, * * * * * * * of such a nature, as, out of several sounds, each of them significant, to form one significant sound⁹⁴.

4. 20.7 An article, is a sound without signification, which marks the beginning, or the end of a sentence; or distinguishes, as when we say, THE word φημι, THE word περι, &c.⁹⁵ * * * * *.

5. 20.8 A noun, is a sound, composed of other sounds; significant, without expression of time; and of which no part is by itself significant: for even in double words, the parts are not taken in the sense that separately belongs to them. Thus, in the word Theodorus, dorus is not significant⁹⁶.

6. 20.9 A verb, is a sound composed of other sounds;-significant-with expression of time: and of which, as of the noun, no part is by itself significant. Thus, in the words, man, white, indication of time is not included: in the words, he walks, he walked, &c. it is included; the one expressing the present time, the other the past.

7. 20.10 Cases belong to nouns and verbs⁹⁷. Some cases express relation, as of, to, and the like: others, number; as man, or men, &c. Others relate to action or pronunciation⁹⁸: as those of interrogation, of command, &c. for, εβαδισε; [did he go?] and, βαδιζε [go,] are verbal cases of that kind.

8. 20.11 Discourse, or speech, is a sound significant, composed of other sounds, some of which are significant by themselves: 20.12 for all discourse is not composed of verbs and nouns;-the definition of Man⁹⁹, for instance. Discourse, or speech, may subsist without a verb: some significant part, however, it must contain significant, as the word Cleon is, in, "Cleon walks.".

20.13 A discourse or speech is one, in two senses; either as it signifies one thing, or, several things made one by conjunction. Thus, the Iliad is one by conjunction: the definition of Man, by signifying one thing.

XXV.

21.1 Of WORDS, some are single-by which I mean, composed of parts not significant; and some double: 21.2 of which last, some have one part significant, and the other not significant; and some, both parts significant. 21.3 A word may also be triple, quadruple, &c. like many of those used by the Megaliotae; as, Hermocaicoxanthus¹⁰⁰. 21.4 Every word is either common, or foreign, or metaphorical, or ornamental, or invented, or extended, or contracted, or altered¹⁰¹.

21.5 By COMMON words, I mean, such as are in general and established, use. 21.6 By FOREIGN, such as belong to a different language: so that the same word may, evidently, be both common, and foreign, though not to the same people. The word Σιγυνον, to the Cyprians is common, to us, foreign.

21.7 A METAPHORICAL¹⁰² word is a word transferred from its proper sense; either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from one species to another, or in the way of analogy.

21.8 1. From genus to species: as, Secure in yonder port my vessel STANDS¹⁰³. For, to be at anchor, is one species of standing or being fixed¹⁰⁴.

21.9 2. From species to genus: as, - to Ulysses, A THOUSAND generous deeds we owe-¹⁰⁵. For a thousand is a certain definite many, which is here used for many, in general.

21.10 3. From one species to another¹⁰⁶: as, Χαλκῳ απο ψυχην ΑΡΥΣΑΣ. And, ΤΑΜ' ατειρει χαλκῳ. For here, the Poet uses ταμειν, to cut off, instead of αρυσαι, to draw forth, and αρυσαι instead of ταμειν: each being a species of taking away.

21.11 4. In the way of analogy-when, of four terms, the second bears the same relation to the first, as the fourth to the third; in which case, the fourth may be substituted for the second, and the second for the fourth. 21.12 And, sometimes, the proper term is also introduced, besides its relative term. Thus, a cup bears the same relation to Bacchus, as a shield to Mars. A shield, therefore, may be called the cup of Mars, and a cup, the shield of Bacchus. 21.13 Again-evening being to day, what old age is to life, the evening may be called the old age of the day, and old age, the evening of life; or, as Empedocles has expressed it, "Life's setting sun¹⁰⁷.". 21.14 It sometimes happens, that there is no proper analogous term, answering to the term borrowed; which yet may be used in the same manner, as if there were. For instance: to sow, is the term appropriated to the action of dispersing seed upon the earth; but the dispersion of rays from the sun is expressed by no appropriated term; it is, however, with respect to the sun's light, what sowing is with respect to seed. Hence the Poet's expression, of the sun- - SOWING abroad "His heaven-created flame.".

21.15 There is, also, another way of using this kind of metaphor, by adding to the borrowed word a negation of some of those qualities, which belong to it in its proper sense: 21.16 as if, instead of calling a shield the cup of Mars, we should call it the wineless cup¹⁰⁸.

21.17 An INVENTED word, is a word never before used by any one, but coined by the Poet himself; for such, it appears, there are; as EPNYTAI¹⁰⁹ for KEPATA, horns, or APHTHP¹¹⁰ for IEPEYΣ, a priest.

21.18 A word is EXTENDED, when for the proper vowel a longer is substituted, or a syllable is inserted. A word is CONTRACTED, when some part of it is retrenched. Thus, ποληος, for πολεος, and Πηληιαδεω for Πηλειδεω, are extended words: 21.19 contracted, such as KPI, and ΔΩ¹¹¹, and OΨ: e. g. μια γινεται αμφοτερων ΟΨ¹¹².

21.20 An ALTERED word, is a word, of which part remains in its usual state, and part is of the Poet's making: as in ΔΕΞΙΤΕΡΟΝ κατα μαζον, δεξιΤΕΡΟΣ is for δεξιΟΣ.

21.21 Farther;- NOUNS are divided into masculine, feminine, and neuter. 21.22 The masculine are those which end in ν, ρ, σ, or in some letter compounded of σ and a mute; these are two, ψ and ξ. - 21.23 The feminine, are those which end in the vowels always long, as η, or ω; or, in α, of the doubtful vowels: 21.24 so that the masculine and the feminine terminations are equal in number; for as to ψ and ξ, they are the same with terminations in σ. 21.25 No noun ends in a mute, or a short vowel. 21.26 There are but three ending in ι; μελι, κομμι, πεπερι: five ending in υ; πωυ, ναπυ, γονυ, δορυ, αστυ. The neuter terminate in these two last-mentioned vowels, and in ν and σ.

XXVI.

22.1 The excellence of diction consists in being perspicuous without being mean. 22.2 The most perspicuous is that which is composed of common words; but, at the same time, it is mean. Such is the Poetry of Cleophon, and that of Sthenelus. 22.3 That language, on the contrary, is elevated, and remote from the vulgar idiom, which employs unusual words: by unusual, I mean, foreign, metaphorical, extended-all, in short, that are not common words. 22.4 Yet, should a Poet compose his diction entirely of such words, the result would be, either an aenigma, or a barbarous jargon: an aenigma, if composed of metaphors; a barbarous jargon, if composed of foreign words. 22.5 For the essence of an aenigma consists in putting together things apparently inconsistent and impossible, and, at the same time, saying nothing but what is true. Now this cannot be effected by the mere arrangement of the words¹¹³; by the metaphorical use of them, it may; as in this aenigma:

A man I once beheld, [and wondering view'd,] Who, on another, brass with fire had GLEW'D.¹¹⁴

With

22.6 With respect to barbarism, it arises from the use of foreign words. 22.7 A judicious intermixture is, therefore, requisite.

Thus, the foreign word, the metaphorical, the ornamental, and the other species before mentioned, will raise the language above the vulgar idiom, and common words will give it perspicuity. 22.8 But nothing contributes more considerably to produce clearness, without vulgarity, of diction, than extensions, contractions, and alterations, of words: for here, the variation from the proper form, being unusual, will give elevation to the expression; and, at the same time, what is retained of usual speech will give it clearness. 22.9 It is without reason, therefore, that some critics have censured these modes of speech, and ridiculed the Poet¹¹⁵ for the use of them; as old Euclid¹¹⁶ did, objecting, that "versification would be an easy business, if it were permitted to lengthen words at pleasure:" and then giving a burlesque example of that sort of diction: as, * * *¹¹⁷

22.10 Undoubtedly, when these licences appear to be thus purposely used, the thing becomes ridiculous. 22.11 In the employment of all the species of unusual words, moderation is necessary: for metaphors, foreign words, or any of the others, improperly used, and with a design to be ridiculous, would produce the same effect. 22.12 But how great a difference is made by a proper and temperate use of such words, may be seen in heroic verse. 22.13 Let any one only substitute common words in the place of the metaphorical, the foreign, and others of the same kind, and he will be convinced of the truth of what I say. For example: the same Iambic verse occurs in Aeschylus and in Euripides; but, by means of a single alteration -the substitution of a foreign, for a common and usual word, one of these verses appears beautiful, the other ordinary. For Aeschylus, in his Philoctetes¹¹⁸, says

Φαγεδαινα, ἡ με σαρκας ΕΣΘΙΕΙ ποδος

The cankerous wound that eats my flesh.--

But Euripides, instead of εσθιει [eats] uses ΘΟΙΝΑΤΑΙ.

The same difference will appear, if, in this verse,

Νυν δε μ' εων ΟΛΙΓΟΣ τε και ΟΥΤΙΔΑΝΟΣ και ΑΚΙΚΥΣ¹¹⁹,

we substitute common words, and say,

Νυν δε μ' εων ΜΙΚΡΟΣ τε και ΑΣΘΕ

So, again, should we for the following, -

Διφρον ΑΕΙΚΕΛΙΟΝ καταθεις, ΟΛΙΓΗΝ τε τραπεζαν¹²⁰

substitute this:-

Διφρον ΜΟΧΘΗΡΟΝ καταθης, ΜΙΚΡΑΝ τε τραπεζαν.

Or, change-Ηιονες ΒΟΟΩΣΙΝ¹²¹ - The cliffs rebellow - Ηιονες ΚΡΑΖΟΥΣΙΝ-The cliffs resound.

22.14 Ariphrades, also, endeavoured to throw ridicule upon the Tragic Poets, for making use of such expressions as no one would think of using in common speech; as, δωματων απο, instead of απο δωματων: and ΣΕΘΕΝ-and, εγω δε ΝΙΝ-and, Αχιλλεως περι, instead of περι Αχιλλεως, &c. 22.15 Now it is precisely owing to their being not in common use, that such expressions have the effect of giving elevation to the diction. But this he did not know¹²².

22.16 To employ with propriety any of these modes of speech-the double words, the foreign, &c. is a great excellence: 22.17 but the greatest of all, is to be happy in the use of metaphor¹²³; for it is this alone which cannot be acquired, and which, consisting in a quick discernment of resemblances, is a certain mark of genius.

22.18 Of the different kinds of words, the double are best suited to Dithyrambic Poetry; the foreign to Heroic; the metaphorical to Iambic¹²⁴. 22.19 In Heroic Poetry, indeed, they have all their place; but to Iambic verse, which is, as much as may be, an imitation of common speech¹²⁵, those words which are used in common speech are best adapted; and such are, the common, the metaphorical, and the ornamental.

22.20 Concerning TRAGEDY, and the imitation by ACTION, enough has now been said.

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.) — 2 focus

Chapter 2

OF THE SECOND DIFFERENCE. THE THINGS IMITATED. 2.1 SINCE persons acting are the objects of imitation and those persons must necessarily be either good or bad; (for the manners almost always arise from these circumstances alone, it being by virtue or vice that all mankind differ from each other as to their manners ;) the persons imitated must either be represented as better than those of the present time or worse or as they actually [A] are. 2.2 So among the painters, Polygnotus draws his figures better, Pauso worse and Dionysius as they are. 2.3 It is also evident that the same distinctions will be found in each of the imitations that have been mentioned and they will become different from imitating different things; 2.4 for in the dance and in the compositions that are set to the flute and the lyre, these distinctions will be found as also in the Epopee which only uses language or plain verse; for example, Homer forms his characters better and Cleophon as they are 2.5 but Hegemon the Thasian, who first invented Parodies and Nicocharis who wrote the Deliad, make them worse. The same distinctions will be found in the Dithyrambics and Nomi (B); as for instance, in¹²

2.6 the Persians and Cyclops, of Timotheus and Philoxenes. 2.7 And in this lies the difference between Tragedy and Comedy; the one making its characters better and the other worse, than those of the present time.³

The Poetic of Aristotle (Theodore Alois Buckley) (OCR draft) Experimental (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.) — 2 focus

On Imitation, and its usual Objects.

[1] ¹ BUT since imitators imitate those who do something, and it is necessary that these should either be worthy or depraved persons; 2.1 (for manners nearly always depend on these alone, since all men differ in their manners by vice and virtue;) it is necessary either [to imitate] those who are better than we are, ²³ or those who are worse, or such as are like ourselves 1, in the same manner as painters do. 2.2 For Polygnotus, indeed, painted men more beautiful than they are, but Pauson less so, and Dionysius painted them as they are. ⁴ 2.3 But it is evident that each of the before-mentioned imitations will have these differences; and imitation is different, by imitating different things after this manner. ⁵ 2.4 For there may be differences of this kind in dancing, in playing on the flute, on the lyre, and also in orations and mere measure. Thus Homer imitates better men8 [than exist], 2.5 but Cleophon men as they are; and Hegemon the Thasian, who first made parodies, 2.6 and Nicochares, who wrote the Deliad, imitate worse characters. ⁶ In like manner in dithyrambics and the Nomi, [as Timotheus and Philoxenus have imitated the Persians and the Cyclops,] one may imitate. 2.7 By this very same difference, also, tragedy differs from comedy. For the one seeks to imitate worse, but the other better men than are.

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.) — 2 focus

Quoniam autem qui imitantur agentes imitantur, eos autem necesse est aut graves esse aut viles (mores enim ferme haec sequuntur sola: nequitia enim et virtute in moribus differunt omnes), aut meliores quam ipsi sumus aut peiores aut eiusdem moduli, ut pictores:

Polygnotus enim meliores, Pauso peiores, Dionysius similes pingebat.

manifestum vero est etiam illarum quas dixi imitationum unamquamque habituram esse has differentias, diversamque futuram, prout diversa in hoc genere imitabitur.

etenim in saltatione et in tibiarum citharaeque cantu licet

inesse hasce diversitates, etiam in sermonibus et nudis metris, veluti Homerus meliores, Cleophon similes, Hegemo autem Thasius, qui parodias primus fecit et Nicochares Deliadis auctor, peiores.

pariterque circa dithyrambos et circa nomos [, ut Persas et Cyclopes Timotheus et Philoxenus,] possit aliquis imitari.

ipsa hac differentia tragoedia discessit a comoedia: haec enim peiores illa autem meliores imitari vult quam qui nunc sunt.

La poëtique d'Aristote (André Dacier, 1692) (OCR draft) Experimental (André Dacier's French translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1692.) — 2 focus

CHAPITRE SECOND.

Des ſujets de l'imitation: de leur difference & de celle qu'elle produit dans ceux qui imitent, & dans leur imitation. Du different caractere d'Homere, de Cleophon, d'Egemon, de Nicochares, de Timothée & de Philoxene.

2.1 COMME tous ceux qui imitent, imitent des actions, & qu'il eſt impoſſible que ces actions ne ſoient ou bonnes ou mauvaiſes, car les mœurs ne peuvent être diſtinguées que par ces deux qualitez, & les hommes ne different entre eux que par la vertu ou par le vice, il s'enfuit neceſſairement de là que les Poëtes dans leur imitation font les hommes ou meilleurs par rapport à nous, ou plus méchans, ou ſemblables, tout de même que les Peintres. En effet 2.2 Polygnotus peignoit les hommes meilleurs; Pauſon les peignoit plus méchans, & Denys les faiſoit ſemblables. 2.3 Et il eſt évident que ces differences ne peuvent pas manquer de ſe trouver dans chacune des imitations dont on vient de parler qui font toutes differentes par les differens ſujets qu'elles repreſentent.

2. 2.4 Les mêmes differences ſe trouvent auſſi dans la danſe, dans les airs de flute, dans les pieces de lyre & de tous les autres inſtrumens, & dans tous les ouvrages en proſe ou en vers. 2.5 Par exemple, Homere a fait les hommes meilleurs, Cleophon les a fait tels qu'ils font, & Egemon de Thaſos qui a été l'inventeur des parodies, & Nicochares Auteur de la Deliade les ont fait plus méchans. 2.6 Il en eſt de même des Poëtes qui ont compoſé des Dithyrambes & des Nomes. C'eſt ainſi que Timothée & que Philoxene ont imité les Perſes & les Cyclopes dans les pieces qui portent ce nom. 2.7 Et c'eſt cela même qui conſtitue la difference qui eſt entre la Tragedie & la Comedie, car la premiere repreſente les hommes meilleurs & l'autre les repreſente plus méchans.

Poetica d'Aristotile (Bernardo Segni, 1549) (OCR draft) Experimental (Bernardo Segni's 1549 Florentine Italian translation, aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 2 focus

Ma cóciofia che chiûche imita, imiti coloro, che operano. Et queſti è di neceſsità, che ſieno ò buoni, ò maluagi; perchè i coſtumi quaſi ſempre confeguitano à queſti ſoli : per eſſer ciaſcheduno differente ne' coſtumi mediante la virtù, òl vitio. Conſeguita pe rò neceffariamente, che e'ſi vada imitando ò gli migliori degli altri ; ò gli ſimili, ò gli peggiori: ſicome an chora interuenne fra' dipintori, che Polignoto andò ri trahendo i migliori.

Pauſone i peggiori. Et Dionifio li ſimili. Onde è manifeſto, che ciascuna delle imitationi ſopradette haurà queſte differenze;

& fia diuerfa l'u na dall'altra, s'ella imitera coſe diuerſe nel modo detto. Perchè queſte medeſime differenze anchora ſi poſſono ſcorgere nell'arte faltatoria, & in quella de ſuoni detti diſopra.

Nè queſto medefimo ancora ci è nafcoſto nelle profe, & nei verfi, oue ſi faccia l'imitatione he roica; ficome ſi può vedere in Homero, che imita li mi gliori.

In Cleofone, che imita i fimili. In Egemone da Tafio, che fu il primo, che compoſe le Parodie. Et in Nicocle, che compoſe la Deliade. Che amendue imita rono i piu vili.

Queſto ſimigliante ſi vede anchora nel la poeſia de'Ditirambi, & delle leggi. Doue fi potrebbe far l'imitatione di ſimil fatta; ſicome la fe Timoteo, & Filoſſeno nella fauola, chiamata I Perfi.

Et in quella, che fu chiamata I Ciclopi. Queſta medefima differenza ha la Tragedia con la Commedia, perchè infino al di d'hoggi l'una vuole imitare i piu rei; & l'altra vuole imitare i piu buoni.

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.) — 2 focus

Quoniam autem ii qui imitantur agentes imitantur, necesse vero est eos aut bonos ant aut malos esse (mores enim ferme hos consequuntur solos: nam vitiositate et virtute in moribus differunt omnes), aut meliores quam secundum nos aut peiores necesse est imitari, ut ex pictoribus Polygnotus quidem meliores,

Pauson vero deteriores, at Dionysius similes pingebat. manifestum autem est quod et ex iis quae dictae sunt imitationibus unaquaeque habebit has differentias,

et erit diversa eo quod diversa imitabitur. nam in saltatione et auletica et citharistica possunt esse huiusmodi dissimi- litudines dissimilitudines.

et circa sermones et nuda metra, ut Homerus quidem meliores,

Cleophon vero similes: at Hegemon Thasius, qui parodias, et Nicocharis, qui Deiliada, peiores.

similiter vero etiam circa dithyrambos et circa nomos, ut qui fecit Cyclopes Timotheus et Philoxenus, posset aliquis imitari.

in eadem vero differentia et tragoedia et comoedia separata est: haec enim peiores, illa meliores imitari vult quam ii qui nunc sint.

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.) — 2 focus

Quoniam autem imitantes imitantur agentes, necesse autem hos aut studiosos aut pravos esse (mores enim fere semper hiis assecuntur solis, malitia enim et virtute secundum mores differunt omnes) aut meliores quam secundum nos aut peiores aut et tales, sicut pictores :

Polygnostus quidem enim meliores, Pauson autem peiores, Dionisius autem similes assimilavit. —

Palam autem quod et dictarum imitationum unaqueque habebit has differentias et erit altera per altera imitari hoc modo.

Et enim in saltatione et fystulatione et cytharizatione est fieri has dissimilitudines.

Et circa sermones autem et nudam metrizationem, puta Homerus quidem meliores, Cleofon autem similes, Igimon autem Thasius parodias poetizans primus, et Nicokhares qui Diliadem peiores.

Similiter autem et circa dithyrambos et circa leges, sicut Kyclopas Thimotheus et Filoxenus, imitabitur utique aliquis.

In ipsa autem differentia et tragodia ad komodiam distat: hec quidem enim peiores, hec autem meliores imitari vult nunc. —

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.) — 2 focus

‏ولما كان الذين يحاكون ويشبهون قد ياتون بذلك بان يعملوا العمل الارادى فقد يجب ضرورة ان يكون هولا اما افاضل واما اراذل وذلك ان العادات والاخلاق مثلا هى تابعة لهذين فقط وذلك ان عادتهم واخلاقهم باجمعهم انما الخلاف بينها بالرذيلة والفضيلة وياتى بالحكاية والتشبيه اما الافاضل منا والاما [و]الاراذل واما من كانت حال فى ذلك كما يشبه المصورون فى صنايعهم اما الاخيار منهم للاخيار والاشرار للاشرار كما

‏اما ان فاوسن حاكا الاشرار وشبه واما ديونوسيوس كان يشبه ويحاكى الشبيه

‏فظاهر بين ان يكون كل تشبيه وحكاية من التى وصفت وكل واحد واحد من الافعال الاراديه لها هذه الاصناف والفصول وان تكون الواحدة تشبه بالاخرى وتحاكيها بهذا الضرب

‏وذلك انه فى الرقص والزمر وصناعة العيدان قد يوجد لهذه ان تكون غير متشابهة

‏ونحو الكلام والوزن المرسل مثال ذلك اما اوميروس فالقاٮل واما قالاوفون فالاشيا الشبيهة واما ايجيمن المنسوب الى ثاسيا وهو الذى كان اولا يعمل المديح ونيقوخارس المنسوب الى الارى الذى كان يحاكى الارذل

‏وكذلك ونحو هذه الى لثورامى ونوامس كما يشبه الانسان ويحاكى هكذى لقوقلوفاس طيموثاوس وفيلوكسانس

‏وبهذا الفصل بعينه الخلاف الذى للمديح عند الهجا وهو انه اما تلك فبالاراذل اما هذه فكانت تشبه بالاخيار واياهم كانت تحاكى

Arabic Poetics (Abū Bishr Mattā; Tkatsch edition, unaligned) (OCR draft) Experimental (Tkatsch's edition of the medieval Arabic translation in its original, unaligned segmentation.) — 2 focus

‏وذلك انه فى الرقص والزمر وصناعة العيدان قد يوجد لهذه ان تكون غير متشابهة ونحو الكلام والوزن المرسل مثال ذلك اما اوميروس فالقاٮل واما قالاوفون فالاشيا الشبيهة واما ايجيمن المنسوب الى ثاسيا وهو الذى كان اولا يعمل المديح ونيقوخارس المنسوب الى الارى الذى كان يحاكى الارذل

‏وكذلك ونحو هذه الى لثورامى ونوامس كما يشبه الانسان ويحاكى هكذى لقوقلوفاس طيموثاوس وفيلوكسانس

Notes on the current edition

Poetics

1. Α. ristote Ariſtote poſe cela comme un principe incontestable, il l'eſt en effet, car il n'y a que les actions qui puiſſent être imitées.

2. Ce Philoſophe s'exprime d'une maniere encore plus forte dans l'original, car les mœurs, dit-il, ne ſe trouvent que dans ceux qui font tels. C'est-à-dire, qu'à proprement parler, il n'y a des mœurs, que dans ceux qui font bons ou mechans. S'il y avoit des hommes qui tinſſent le milieu, on ne pourroit pas dire qu'ils euſſent des mœurs, au moins leurs mœurs ne ſeroient pas ſenſibles, & par conſequent elles ne pourroient pas faire le ſujet d'une imitation; mais ce milieu ne ſe trouve pas dans la nature, & la veritable Philoſophie prouve que tout eſt ou vice ou vertu.

3. Il eſt impoſſible d'imaginer une qualité au-de-là de ces trois. Si les Poëtes ſe tiennent dans l'exacte imitation des ſiecles dont ils parlent, ils font les hommes ſemblables, c'eſt-à-dire tels qu'ils font en effet; s'ils ajoûtent quelque choſe à leur vertu, ils les font meilleurs, c'est-à-dire, plus grands, plus vertueux, plus heroïques; & s'ils en retranchent quelque choſe, ou qu'ils aggravent leurs défauts, ils les font plus méchans. Comme la ſeconde imitation eſt capable de donner une noble émulation aux hommes, & de les porter à la vertu, les Thebains avoient fait une loy qui ordnoit aux Peintre Peintres & aux Poëtes, de faire toûjours les hommes meilleurs, & qui condamnoit à une groſſe amende ceux qui les feroient plus méchans.

4. Elien confirme ce jugement d' Ariftote Ariſtote: car il dit, que Polygnotus peignoit toûjours de grands ſujets, & qu'il viſoit à la perfection; & que Denys l'imitoit en tout hors dans la grandeur

πλήν τοῦ μεγέθους

. Polygnotus étoit de l'Iſle de Thaſos, & Denys étoit de Colophone, ils vivoient l'un & l'autre avant la XC. Olympiade, du temps de Xerxes, de Sophocle & de Socrate. Polygnotus avoit peint dans le portique appellé poicile, la bataille de Marathon, gagnée par Miltiade, ſur les Medes & ſur les Perſes.

5. C'eſt peut-être le même que Pline appelle Pauſias, il étoit de Sicyone, & il fut le premier qui peignit les lambris lacunaria. Elien l'appelle Pauſon, comme Ariftote Ariſtote, & il raconte qu'un homme luy ayant demandé un tableau ou un cheval ſe roulâr roulâtſur le ſable, il luy fit un cheval qui couroit à bride abatuë, & comme celuy pour qui étoit le tableau, refuſoit de le prendre ſur ce qu'il avoit demandé un cheval qui ſe roulât, & non pas un cheval qui courût, Pauſon luy dit: Renverſez la toile, & ce cheval qui court, ſe roulera. Les Anciens comparoient les diſcours de Socrate à ce tableau de Pauſon, parce que pour y trouver ce que l'on cherche, il ne faut pas les prendre, comme il les donne, il faut les tourner, les renverſer. El. Liv. xiv. Chap. xv.

6. Car les Danſeurs & les Joüeurs d'inſtrumens peuvent repreſenter les hommes ou meilleurs, ou plus méchans, ou ſemblables, n'y ayant rien au de-là de ces trois qualitez, qui puiſſe faire le ſujet de leur imitation.

7. Le Grec dit, dans les diſcours,

περί τούς λόγους λόγους

, & il fait alluſion aux dialogues de Socrate, dont il a été déja parlé. Et dans la Pſilometrie, c'est-à-dire, dans les ouvrages qui ſont ſimplement en vers, & où il n'y a ny danſe ny chant, comme dans le Poëme Epique. Les interpretes continuent icy la faute qu'ils avoient faite auparavant.

8. Car il n'y a point d'homme ſi brave qu'Achille, ſi prudent qu'Ulyſſe, &c. Quelqu'un a fort bien dit, qu' Homere a fait des hommes des Dieux, & des Dieux des hommes.

9. Cleophon Poëte Athenien. Il avoit fait pluſieurs tragedies, dont Suidas nous a conſervé les noms, comme l'Acteon, l'Achille, le Telephus, les Bacchantes, &c. Mais ce paſſage d' Ariftote Ariſtote ſemble prouver, qu'il avoit fait auſſi quelque Poëme Epique.

10. Athenée parle de cet Hegemon, & il cite même quelques endroits de ſes parodies; mais il nie qu'il ayt été le premier Inventeur de cette ſorte de Poëme, dont il attribuë l'invention à Hipponax, plus ancien qu'Hegemon.Peut-être que le terme d' Ariftote Ariſtote,

ποιήσας πρῶτος

, qui a fait le premier des parodies, ne ſignifie pas qu'il les ayt inventées; mais qu'il y a mieux réuſſi. En effet on trouve qu'Hegemon fut le premier qui entra en lice pour les parodies dans les jeux publics à Athenes, & qui remporta le prix. Epicharmus, Cratinus, & Hermippus Poëtes de la vieille Comedie, firent auſſi des parodies avec ſuccés, mais rien n'approchoit des parodies d'Hegemon, car outre qu'il rencontroit heureuſement, il étoit excellent Acteur, & il divertiſſoit ſi fort les Atheniens, qu'un jour qu'il leur recitoit ſa Gigantomachie, ils en étoient ſi charmez, & ils rioient de ſi bon cœur, qu'ayant receu la nouvelle de la défaite de leur Armée en Sicile, ils ne pouvoient encore ſe réſoudre à quitter; & ſi Hegemon n'avoit ceſſé, ils ſe ſeroient tenus là juſqu'à la fin, autant par le plaiſir qu'ils prenoient à l'entendre, que par la honte de témoigner leur douleur devant les Etrangers, qui de toutes les Villes voiſines, étoient accourus à ce ſpectacle. Aprés Hegemon parurent Eubœus de Paros, & Bœotus, qui ſurpaſſerent tout ce qui avoit été avant eux. Le premier, qui vivoit du temps de Philippe, fit des parodies contre les Atheniens, & il y en avoit encore quatre livres d'entiers dans le ſecond ſiecle.

11. Sorte de Poëme, où l'on détourne en un ſens ridicule les vers d'un autre Poëte, en y faiſant quelque petit changement. Voilà ce que c'étoit que la parodie dans ſon origine. Les Auteurs de ces Poëmes, faiſoient les hommes plus méchans, comme Ariſtote Ariſtote le dit icy d'Hegemon. Car c'étoit l'unique but de la parodie. On a fait enſuite des parodies ſerieuſes; mais je ne croy pas qu'elles ayent été connües des Anciens. Au moins n'en ai-je point vû d'exemple.

12. Nicochares Poëte comique Athenien. Il vivoit du temps d' Ariſtophane, qui ſe moqua de luy dans quelqu'une de ſes pieces. Il avoit fait pluſieurs Comedies, car les Anciens citent de luy, l'Amymone, le Pelops, la Galatée, le mariage d'Hercule,l'Hercule Chorague. Les Cretois, les Lacedemoniens, les Lemnienes, les Centaures. La Deliade qu' Ariftote Ariſtote cite icy, paroît avoir été un Poëme burleſque, où ce Poëte tournoit en ridicule les mœurs des Deliens.

13. Puiſque les Dithyrambes, étoient des hymnes à l'honneur de Bacchus, & les Nomes à l'honneur d'Apollon, comment étoit-il poſſible qu'un Poëte y repreſentat les hommes meilleurs, ou plus méchans? Cette difficulté, qui paroît d'abord conſiderable, s'évanouit, dés qu'on ſçait que dans ces hymnes, on chantoit les actions de ceux qu'on vouloit ou loüer, ou blâmer.

14. Timothée de Milet, grand Poëte. Il avoit fait dix-huit livres de Nomes, beaucoup de Dithyrambes, & pluſieurs autres ouvrages. Il ajoûta deux cordes à la lyre, la dixiéme & l'onziéme, & adoucit l'ancienne Muſique. Il vivoit du temps d' Euripide. Dans quelqu'un de ſes Nomes, il avoit chanté la victoire des Atheniens ſur les Perſes, & pour relever d'avantage cette victoire, il avoit repreſenté les Perſes beaucoup plus vaillans qu'ils n'étoient, voila pourquoy Ariftote Ariſtote, dit que dans les Nomes, on peut faire les hommes meilleurs. Les Anciens citent auſſi le Cyclope de Timothée.

15. C'eſt le celebre Poëte Dithyrambique qui vivoit du temps de Platon & de Denys le Tyran, contre lequel il fit ſon Cyclope, où ſous les noms de Polypheme & de Galatée, il décrivoit les amours de ce Prince. Athenée cite un endroit de ce Cyclope, & il trouve mauvais que Polypheme loüe la beauté de Galatée ſans jamais parler de ſes yeux, qui eſt pourtant la partie que les amans loüent le plus volontiers, & qu'ils ne peuvent ſe laſſer de loüer. Il dit que c'eſt une loüange aveugle. Je croy que Polypheme ne dit rien des yeux de Galatée, parce qu'il trouvoit ſans doute que c'étoit un défaut d'avoir deux yeux, & qu'ilétoit mieux de n'en avoir qu'un, comme on n'a qu'une bouche. Au reſte ce paſſage d' Ariftote Ariſtote prouve que ce Poëme de Philoxene étoit une piece Dithyrambique & non pas une Comedie.

16. Puiſque il vient preſentement à la Comedie & à la Tragedie, il me ſemble que cela prouve aſſez clairement qu'on s'eſt trompé, quand on a pris pour des pieces de Theatre, les Perſes & les Cyclopes, dont il vient de parler.

17. Car la Tragedie eſt une imitation des actions des plus grands perſonnages, qu'elle repreſente encore plus grands qu'ils n'étoient, en les faiſant pourtant ſemblables, comme cela ſera expliqué ailleurs.

18. Cela ne convient qu'à la vieille & à la moyenne Comedie, qui repreſentoient les hommes plus méchans, car la nouvelle tâchoit de les rendre ſemblables. Menandre & Terence ont peint les hommes au naturel. Nôtre Comedie a pris en beaucoup de choſes l'air des deux premieres.

Commentary

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

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-50

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-51

1448a1 μιμοῦνται οἱ μιμούμενοι πράττοντας : comp. 1, 1447 a 28 ; 3, 1448 a 27 ; 6, 1449 b 36 ; 1450 b 3 , 9; 1451 b 29 . This is to all appearance another reminiscence of Plato: Rep. 396 C

μιμούμενος τὸν ἀγαθὸν ἀσφαλῶς τε καὶ ἐμφρόνως πράττοντα

. — 603 C

πράττοντας, φαμέν, ἀνθρώπους μιμεῖται ἡ μιμητικὴ βιαίους ἢ ἑκουσίας πράξεις

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-52

1448a2 ἢ σπουδαίους ἢ φαύλους is explained by what follows,

κακίᾳ γὰρ καὶ ἀρετῇ τὰ ἤθη διαφέρουσι πάντες

(comp. 5, 1449 a 32 ). This, Aristotle adds, is the primary and most universal distinction between man and man; nearly all other distinctions of character may be classed under this one common head. Pol. 5. 2, 1303 b 15

μεγίστη μὲν οὖν ἴσως διάστασις ἀρετὴ καὶ μοχθηρία

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-53

1448a3 ἀκολουθεῖ : De part. an. 2. 1, 646 a 17

αἱ δ᾿ ἄλλαι διαφοραὶ ταύταις ἀκολουθοῦσιν

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-54

1448a4 ἤτοι βελτίονας ... τοιούτους , scil. μιμοῦνται οἱ μιμούμενοι. We have been prepared for this distinction by the preceding

ἐπεὶ μιμοῦνται οἱ μιμούμενοι πράττοντας, ἀνάγκη δὲ τούτους ἢ σπουδαίους ἢ φαύλους εἶναι

; but the third possibility, that the personages represented may be on the same level as ourselves ( ἢ καὶ τοιούτους), is a new point, which is felt to require a word of proof. Aristotle accordingly reminds us of a similar fact in painting (a5): the personages in the works of Dionysius are just like ourselves ( ὁμοίους).

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-55

1448a5 ὥσπερ οἱ γραφεῖς Plutarch, who defines poetry as a μιμητική τέχνη καὶ δύναμις ἀντίστροφος τῇ ζωγραφίᾳ, quotes a saying, commonly attributed to Simonides,

ζωγραφίαν μὲν εἶναι φθεγγομένην τὴν ποίησιν, ποίησιν δὲ σιγῶσαν τὴν ζωγραφίαν

( De aud. poet. 17 F ). The comparison is of very frequent occurrence in Plato (v. Rep. 377 E , 597 E , 603 B , 605 A etc.).

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-56

γραφεῖς The Attic form γραφῆς has survived in the text of Meteor. 3. 2, 372 a 7 , and De sensu 3, 440 a 8 .

1448a6

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-57

Πολύγνωτος : comp. 6, 1450 a 27 .

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-58

Παύσων : Pol. 8. 5, 1340 a 36

δεῖ μὴ τὰ Παύσωνος θεωρεῖν τοὺς νέους, ἀλλὰ τὰ Πολυγνώτου κἂν εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν γραφέων ἢ τῶν ἀγαλματοποιῶν ἐστιν ἠθικός

. If he was the same as the Pauson of Aristoph. Ach. 854 , he must have had a certain sort of affinity to our modern caricaturists; it will be seen also that Aristotle regards his work as the analogue of that of the parodists and comic poets in literature.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-59

Διονύσιος δὲ ὁμοίους εἴκαζεν ὁμοίους, as the context shows (comp. τοιούτους in a5), means 'like ourselves', neither better nor worse than the average man. εἰκάζειν (= to produce an εἰκών or portrait) is practically synonymous with μιμεῖσθαι, the word ordinarily used by Aristotle even of a painter. In 1, 1447 a 19 he has the more precise expression, μιμοῦνται ἀπεικάζοντες. The Dionysius meant is Dionysius of Colophon. The epithet ἀνθρωπογράφος ( Pliny N. H. 35. 113 ) would certainly seem peculiarly applicable to Aristotle's Dionysius, as a realistic painter, whose gods and heroes were too like ordinary men.

1448a8

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-60

ἕτερα is qualified and explained by the τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον that follows. The personages represented differ in the way just described, i. e. as being either better or worse than, or on the same level as, the ordinary man.

1448a9

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-61

ὀρχήσει : Plato Laws 814 E

δύο μὲν αὐτῆς (scil. ὀρχήσεως) εἴδη χρὴ νομίζειν εἶναι, τὴν μὲν τῶν καλλιόνων σωμάτων ἐπὶ τὸ σεμνὸν μιμουμένην, τὴν δὲ τῶν αἰσχιόνων ἐπὶ τὸ φαῦλον

(comp. also 655 C ; 798 D ). For the kind of dancing Aristotle has in mind here see on 1, 1447 a 27 .

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-62

αὐλήσει καὶ κιθαρίσει : see on 1, 1447 a 15 .

1448a10

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-63

τῷ περὶ τοὺς λόγους δὲ καὶ τὴν ψιλομετρίαν is a general expression for the group of purely literary imitative arts, which were described in 1, 1447 b 29 as using τοῖς λόγοις ψιλοῖς ἢ τοῖς μέτροις. Ψιλομετρία—a term misunderstood by later writers (v. Bernays, Heraklit. Briefe p. 116 )—means verse without music ( χωρὶς ἁρμονίας; see on 1447 a 29 ). The qualifying addition 'without music' might no doubt have been appended to τοὺς λόγους also ; but it is more wanted where it is, so as to distinguish the verse that was simply recited from the verse that was sung. From this point onward Aristotle ignores the prose imitations (the Mime and the Dialogue), and deals only with 'poetry', the versified forms of imitative literature ( μίμησις ἐν μέτροις; see on 1, 1447 b 23 ). τῷ περὶ τοὺς λόγους = ἐν τῷ περὶ τοὺς λόγους, the preposition being understood from the preceding context (comp. Bon. Ind. 63 b 40 ). The restoration of τῷ for τὸ in 25, 1461 a 33 admits of the same explanation. For τὸ περί τι in the sense of 'the class comprising' see Plato Soph. 221 B , Symp. 205 , Rep. 394 B .

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-64

1448a12 Κλεοφῶν In 22, 1458 a 20 his diction is said to be ταπεινή. Aristotle notes elsewhere the ludicrous effect his occasional attempts at fine language produced owing to the incongruity between the expression and the matter he dealt with: Rhet. 3. 7, 1408 a 10

τὸ δὲ πρέπον ἕξει ἡ λέξις, ἐὰν ᾖ ... τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις πράγμασιν ἀνάλογον. τὸ δ᾿ ἀνάλογόν ἐστιν ἐὰν μήτε περὶ εὐόγκων αὐτοκαβδάλως λέγηται μήτε περὶ εὐτελῶν σεμνῶς, μηδ᾿ ἐπὶ τῷ εὐτελεῖ ὀνόματι ἐπῇ κόσμος. εἰ δὲ μή, κωμῳδία φαίνεται, οἷον ποιεῖ Κλεοφῶν· ὁμοίως γὰρ ἔνια ἔλεγε καὶ εἰ εἶπειεν ἂν πότνια συκῆ

. In the present passage we are told that his personages were 'like ourselves' ( ὁμοίους), neither better than the ordinary man, like those in Homer, nor worse, like those in a parody. From the context as well as the company in which he is placed it is plain that he is to be regarded as a sort of epic poet. He is taken as the representative of the prosaic Epic—the Epic of the commonplace, as distinct from the noble Epic of Homer and the debased Epic known as parody. His work being put under the head of ψιλομετρία, 'verse without the accompaniment of song,' he cannot have been in Aristotle's view either a lyric or a dramatic poet. The notion that he was the writer of a dialogue entitled the 'Mandrobulus' is based on an erroneous interpretation of Soph. el. 15, 174 b 19 .

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-65

Ἡγήμων : see Brandt, Parodorum epicorum reliq., p. 37 , and Kock, CAF. 1, p. 700 . Parody was an element in the humour of the Old Comedy, as also of Epicharmus; and there were certainly others before Hegemon who travestied Homer. What Aristotle means, however, is that Hegemon was the first to take up parody as a special form of poetical literature. According to Athenaeus 699 A he was the first to present a parody in the poetical contests in the theatre:

πρῶτος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τοὺς ἀγῶνας τοὺς θυμελικοὺς Ἡγήμων, καὶ παρ᾿ Ἀθηναίοις ἐνίκησεν ἄλλαις τε παρῳδίαις καὶ τῇ Γιγαντομαχία

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-66

1448a13 παρῳδίας A παρῳδία, in Aristotle's sense of the word, is a mock epic, a poem on an ignoble theme in epic language and metre.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-67

Νικοχάρης : he may perhaps be the same as the comic poet of the same name ( Kock, CAF. 1 p. 770 ). We know nothing more of his work, and there is some uncertainty even as to its title. Δειλιάς (which is assonant to Ιλιάς) would mean, as Twining says, the 'Poltroniad'; Δηλιάς, either the 'Tale of Delos', or the 'Tale of Delium'; it is practically impossible to say which.

1448a15

ὥσπερ γᾶς κτἑ. It is important to bear in mind that in A the ὥσπερ here ends a line, and that the γᾶς stands at the beginning of another. The better apographs have either ὡς περγᾶς or ὡς πέργας. The reading ὡς Πέρσας καὶ Κύκλωπας was probably due to a corrector who knew of the Πέρσαι as a nome of Timotheus. Vahlen suggests that ὥσπερ γὰρ Κύκλωπας should be restored on the supposition (1) that Timotheus and Philoxenus may represent the ignoble Nome and Dithyramb, and (2) that instances of the opposite were not wanted, as the Nome and Dithyramb were so generally associated with noble subjects. Castelvetro was probably right in recognizing in γᾶς the second half of Ἀργᾶς, the name of one notorious in antiquity as the writer of a debased kind of nome. The text, when entire, may have given the name of another writer of nomes, who was put in contrast with Argas, and also the name of a common subject differently treated by the two poets ( ὥσπερ (-- καὶ Ἀργᾶς).

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-68

Κύκλωπας Polyphemus must have been a stock-subject in literature, as there were dramas with the title Κύκλωψ by Epicharmus, Aristias, and Antiphanes, as well as the existing play of Euripides. The plural here denotes not several Cyclopses, but Polyphemus as treated in different poems. For the Κύκλωψ ἢ Γαλάτεια of Philoxenus see Bergk, LG. 3 p. 609 . It seems to have been a covert satire on the elder Dionysius; we may suppose, then, that Philoxenus made his Cyclops an ignoble personage, χείρων ἢ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-69

ἐν ταύτῃ δὲ τῇ διαφορᾷ Vahlen retains the traditional ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ διαφορᾷ, taking it to mean 'in ipsa quam dico differentia'.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-70

1448a18 βούλεται : this is their general tendency and intention, though there may be exceptions to the rule. τῶν νῦν replaces the ἢ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς in * 4 . Aristotle is thinking more especially of the chief personages in Tragedy, who belong in most instances to the heroic age.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-71

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-72

1448a19 τούτων τρίτη διαφορά : τούτων τῶν λεχθεισῶν μιμήσεων in a7 .

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-73

ἕκαστα τούτων : the objects with the possibilities of difference described in chap. 2. Though the objects of the poetic imitations are properly persons, the neuter is used as a more general way of designating them. It reappears in the formula (repeated from 1, 1447 a 17 ) ἐν οἷς τε καὶ ἃ καὶ ὥς in a 25 .

1448a20

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

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-78

ἐν τρισὶ δὴ ταύταις κτέ. Comp. 1, 1447 a 16

διαφέρουσι δὲ ἀλλήλων τρισίν κτέ.

. The preposition here denotes the sphere within which the poetic imitation works. ταύταις is the real subject and preparative to the enumeration ἐν οἷς τε καὶ ἃ καὶ ὡς.

1448a25

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-79

ὥστε τῇ μὲν κτἑ. is a sort of corollary to what was said in chap. 2 and the opening section of chap. 3. Aristotle is now viewing plays in their relation to the authors, and the actors are ignored. In chap. 6 there are several instances of his passing unconsciously from the one point of view to the other.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-80

1448a27 πράττοντας γὰρ μιμοῦνται The dramatic poet makes his personages appear on the stage and go through a semblance of action. The difference between Aristotle's language here and in 23 is to be noted: the dramatic poet μιμεῖται πράττοντας; the actor μιμεῖται ὡς πράττων.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-81

1448a28 δρῶντας This reminds Aristotle of a current explanation of the word drama, ὅτι μιμοῦνται δρώντας, and leads to a digression on the Dorian claim to the discovery of the Drama. They support this by an appeal to language, maintaining that κωμῳδία and the general term δράμα are of Dorian origin. This passage is the source of corresponding statements in the grammarians, such as Anon. De Comoedia

τὴν κωμῳδίαν ηὑρῆσθαί φασιν ὑπὸ Σουσαρίωνος

. — Diomedes 486 P.

Comoedia dicta ἀπὸ τῶν κωμῶν

1448a31

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-82

οἱ Μεγαρεῖς On the Megarian Comedy see Meineke, FCG. I p. 18 . The Megarian claim is noted by the anonymous commentator on Eth. N. 4. 6, 1123 a 24 . Aristotle says nothing about Susarion here or in chap. 5.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-83

1448a32 τῆς παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς δημοκρατίας Megara is said to have expelled the tyrant Theagenes about B.C. 600.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-84

1448a32 οἱ ἐκ Σικελίας , the Megarians of Megara Hyblaea—literally, the Megarians 'on the Sicilian side'. For this use of the preposition comp. Pol. 8. 7, 1341 a 28

οἱ ἐκ φιλοσοφίας

, 'those on the philosophic side'.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-85

1448a33 Ἐπίχαρμος In 5, 1449 b 6 he and Phormis are said to have been the first to discard the Comedy of personalities ; so that from this point of view he was the forerunner of the New Comedy, i. e. of what Aristotle regards as Comedy proper. Plato had already given him the premier place in Comedy: Theaet. 152 E

τῶν ποιητῶν οἱ ἄκροι τῆς ποιήσεως ἑκατέρας, κωμῳδίας μὲν Ἐπίχαρμος, τραγῳδίας δὲ Ὅμηρος

. The Sicilian origin of Comedy is often asserted by post-Aristotelian writers: Theocritus Ep. 17. 1

ὁ τὰν κωμῳδίαν εὑρὼν Ἐπίχαρμος

; Solinus 5. 13

Hic [scil. in Sicilia] primum inventa comoedia

; Themistius Or. 27, 406 Dind.

καὶ κωμῳδία τὸ παλαιὸν ἤρξατο μὲν ἀπὸ Σικελίας· ἐκεῖθεν γὰρ ἤστην Ἐπίχαρμός τε καὶ Φόρμις ... κάλλιον δὲ Ἀθήναζε συνηυξήθη

; Prol. de Comoedia 3 = Kaibel CGF. p. 7

Ἐπίχαρμος· οὗτος πρῶτος τὴν κωμῳδίαν διερριμμένην ἀνεκτήσατο πολλὰ προσφιλοτεχνήσας

; Suidas s.v. Ἐπίχαρμος

εὗρε τὴν κωμῳδίαν ἐν Συρακούσαις ἅμα Φόρμῳ

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-86

1448a34 Χιωνίδου καὶ Μάγνητος From this mention of them here, as also from the allusion to them further on, in 5, 1449 b 3 , it is clear that Aristotle knows of no Attic writers of Comedy earlier than Chionides and Magnes ; and even these apparently are mere names to him. Magnes is expressly described by Suidas as a much younger man than Epicharmus:

ἐπιβάλλει δ᾿ Ἐπιχάρμῳ νέος πρεσβύτῃ

. Suidas' statement that Epicharmus was producing comedies at Syracuse six years before the Persian war (i. e. in B.C. 485) is of some importance, as showing that Epicharmus was conceived to be coeval with a generation at Athens anterior to Chionides and the regular drama which began with him. There is no very serious difference, therefore, between Suidas and Aristotle as to the priority of Epicharmus.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-87

καὶ τῆς τραγῳδίας = τῆς δὲ τραγῳδίας. Vahlen illustrates the change of construction by Soph. el. 11, 171 b 8

συλλογισμὸς ἐριστικὸς καὶ σοφιστικός ἐστιν εἷς μὲν ὁ φαινόμενος συλλογισμός ... καὶ ὅσοι μὴ ὄντες κτέ.

, where καὶ ὅσοι seems to stand for ἕτεροι δὲ ὅσοι.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-88

ἔνιοι , i. e. the Sicyonians: Herod. 5. 67

τά τε δὴ ἄλλα οἱ Σικυώνιοι ἐτίμων τὸν Ἀδρηστον καὶ δὴ πρὸς τὰ πάθεα αὐτοῦ τραγικοῖσι χοροῖσι ἐγέραιρον

. Themistius Or. 27, 406 Dind.

καὶ τραγῳδίας εὑρεταὶ μὲν Σικυώνιοι, τελεσιουργοὶ δὲ Ἀττικοὶ ποιηταί

. — Suidas s.v. Θέσπις

τραγικὸς ἑκκαιδέκατος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου γενομένου τραγῳδιοποιοῦ ᾿Επιγένους τοῦ Σικυωνίου τιθέμενος

1448a36

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-89

περιοικίδας : Pol. 6. 5, 1320 b 6

ἀεὶ γάρ τινας ἐκπέμποντες τοῦ δήμου πρὸς τὰς περιοικίδας ποιοῦσιν εὐπόρους

. As understood at Athens the term κώμη meant a quarter of the city, as distinct from the outlying townships ( δῆμοι): Plato Laws 746 D

φρατρίας καὶ δήμους καὶ κώμας

. — Isocrates 149 A

διελόμενοι τὴν μὲν πόλιν κατὰ κώμας τὴν δὲ χώραν κατὰ δήμους

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-90

1448a37 κωμῳδούς ἀπὸ τοῦ κωμάζειν. The connexion is indirectly implied in the juxtaposition of the two words in the law cited in Demosthenes 21. 10

ἡ πομπὴ καὶ οἱ παῖδες καὶ ὁ κῶμος καὶ οἱ κωμῳδοὶ καὶ οἱ τραγῳδοί

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-91

1448b1 καὶ τὸ ποιεῖν κτέ. The argument comes practically to this: Plays confessessly represent actions: now if they had been originally an Athenian invention, one would expect them to have been called πράγματα rather than δράματα; πράττειν being the ordinary Athenian word for to act. That Aristotle does not accept this view of δρᾶν and πράττειν is indirectly shown by his own use of the words. He has just said (a27) πράττοντας καὶ δρῶντας, and in his definition of Tragedy ( 6, 1449 b 26 ) his word is δρώντων, though he might easily have said πραττόντων.

1448b3

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-92

τῆς μιμήσεως is the genitive after τῶν διαφορῶν. Vahlen illustrates the order by Plato, Phil. 17 C

ἐπειδὰν λάβῃς τὰ διαστήματα ὁπόσα ἐστὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῆς φωνῆς

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-93

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-94

1448b4 ἐοίκασι Setting aside the antiquarian questions raised in chap. 3, Aristotle asserts that the birth of poetry was due to large natural causes. The origin of poetry generally ( γεννῆσαι μὲν ὅλως) is attributable to the imitative instinct in all men. The origin of the two great kinds of poetry ( διεσπάσθη δὲ b24), of which Tragedy and Comedy were the ultimate developments, is attributable to the personal tendencies and differences of character in the individual poets ( τὰ οἰκεῖα ἤθη b24).

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-95

1448b5 αἰτίαι δύο The two causes are those mentioned in the immediate context, τὸ μιμεῖσθαι (b5) and τὸ χαίρειν τοῖς μιμήμασι (b8). These Aristotle regards as two distinguishable facts in human nature. τὸ χαίρειν τοῖς μιμήμασι, instead of coming in as a mere afterthought after τὸ μιμεῖσθαι, involves a different idea, and relates to a different class of persons—the public interested in works of art, as distinct from the artists who produce them.

1448b7

μιμητικώτατον : Probl. 30. 6, 956 a 14

Διὰ τί ἀνθρώπῳ πειστέον δὴ μᾶλλον ἢ ἄλλῳ ζῴῳ; ... ἢ ὅτι μιμητικώτατον;

. μανθάνειν γὰρ δύναται διὰ τοῦτο. Vahlen illustrates this use of the neuter singular by De somn. 3, 457 b 24

καταπίπτουσι ... οἱ ἄνθρωποι, μόνον γὰρ ὀρθὸν τῶν ζῴων

, and Pol. 1. 2, 1253 a 16

τοῦτο γὰρ πρὸς τἆλλα ζῷα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἴδιον, τὸ μόνον ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ ... αἴσθησιν ἔχειν

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-96

1448b8 μαθήσεις : Quintilian 10. 2, 1

Neque enim dubitari potest quin artis pars magna contineatur imitatione. nam ut invenire primum fuit estque praecipuum, sic ea quae bene inventa sunt utile sequi

1448b9

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-97

σημεῖον A σημεῖον is that which proves or confirms a proposition; an αἴτιον, something that explains or gives a reason for it. Aristotle defines a σημεῖον in An. pr. 2. 27, 70 a 7

σημεῖον δὲ βούλεται εἶναι πρότασις ἀποδεικτικὴ ἀναγκαία ἢ ἔνδοξος

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-98

ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων : 're ipsa'. τῶν ἔργων here is often rendered by 'works of art'.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-99

1448b10 γὰρ αὐτὰ λυπηρῶς ὁρῶμεν : Rhet. 1. 11, 1371 b 4

ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ μανθάνειν τε ἡδὺ καὶ τὸ θαυμάζειν, καὶ τὰ τοιάδε ἀνάγκη ἡδέα εἶναι οἷον τό τε μεμιμημένον ... καὶ πᾶν ὃ ἂν εὖ μεμιμημένον ᾖ, κἂν μὴ ἡδὺ αὐτὸ τὸ μεμιμημένον· οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ τούτῳ χαίρει, ἀλλὰ συλλογισμός ἐστιν ὅτι τοῦτο ἐκεῖνο, ὥστε μανθάνειν τι συμβαίνει

. — De part. an. 1. 5, 645 a 11

καὶ γὰρ ἂν εἴη παράλογον καὶ ἄτοπον, εἰ τὰς μὲν εἰκόνας αὐτῶν [i.e. τῶν ζῴων τῶν μὴ κεχαρισμένων] θεωροῦντες χαίρομεν ὅτι τὴν δημιουργήσασαν τέχνην συνθεωροῦμεν

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-100

1448b12 ἀτιμοτάτων : De anima 1. 2, 404 b 3

ἐν ἅπασι γὰρ ὑπάρχειν αὐτὸν [i.e. νοῦν] τοῖς ζώοις, καὶ μεγάλοις καὶ μικροῖς καὶ τιμίοις καὶ ἀτιμοτέροις

. — De part. an. 1. 5, 645 a 15 .

1448b13

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-101

καὶ τοῦτο . For the conjunction comp. 13, 1453 a 17

σημεῖον δὲ καὶ τὸ γιγόμενον

. — De somno 3, 456 a 28

σημεῖον δὲ τούτων καὶ τὰ ὑπνωτικά

. — Meteor. 2. 8, 367 a 11

τεκμήριον δ᾿ ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ γιγνόμενον

1448b16

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-102

θεωροῦντας μανθάνειν : comp. Rhet. 1. c. , and Plato Rep. 475 D

οἱ ... φιλοθεάμονες πάντες ἔμοιγε δοκοῦσι τῷ καταμανθάνειν χαίροντες τοιοῦτοι εἶναι

. Our pleasure in the contemplation of a picture or other work of imitative art is explained here to be the natural concomitant of an intellectual act, the discovery or recognition on our part of the meaning of the picture.

1448b17

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-103

οὐχ ᾗ . οὐχὶ for οὐχ ᾗ is found in Kb in Eth. N. 8. 12, 1161 b 1, 18 and in D (the Marcianus) in An. post. 1. 23, 84 b 8 .

1448b20

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-104

κατὰ φύσιν δὲ ὄντος ἡμῖν τοῦ μιμεῖσθαι What Aristotle is now considering is the evolution of the poet ; and he tells us that the imitative aptitude of the poet is only a higher and more developed form of that natural aptitude for imitation which is common to all mankind.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-105

καὶ τῆς ἁρμονίας καὶ τοῦ ῥυθμοῦ seem to be added as an afterthought, in recognition of the historical connexion between music and poetry. Except in its lyric forms, however, poetry was now no longer combined with music ; in Aristotle's view, also, even metre is at the most only one of its accidents ( 1, 1447 b 11 ).

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-106

1448b22 ἐξ ἀρχῆς is much the same thing as ἐν ἀρχῇ. The antithesis between ἐξ ἀρχῆς πεφυκότες and προάγοντες will be not unlike that in Metaph. A 2, 982 b 13

ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν τὰ πρόχειρα τῶν ἀπόρων θαυμάσαντες, εἶτα κατὰ μικρὸν οὕτω προϊόντες

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-107

αὐτά : loosely used for 'their work' or 'performances'; it anticipates what is termed in the next line 'their improvisations'. προάγειν is here (and again in 4, 1449 a 13 ) a transitive verb. The meaning of the word in the present context is to 'advance', or 'carry a stage further', as may be seen from the parallel in Soph. el. 33, 183 b

οἱ μὲν γὰρ τὰς ἀρχὰς εὑρόντες παντελῶς ἐπὶ μικρόν τι προήγαγον· οἱ δὲ νῦν εὐδοκιμοῦντες ... οὕτως ηὐξήκασιν

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-108

1448b23 αὐτοσχεδιασμάτων On the verb αὐτοσχεδιάζειν = 'to speak off-hand, without premeditation or previous study'. The fact is described in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes 54

θεὸς δ᾿ ὑπὸ καλὸν ἄειδεν, ἐξ αὐτοσχεδίης πειρώμενος

. The phallic-song, in which Aristotle finds the germ of Comedy, was sometimes described as an ᾠδὴ αὐτοσχέδιος.

1448b24

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-109

διεσπάσθη δὲ corresponds with the γεννῆσαι μὲν ὅλως in b4. κατὰ τὰ οἰκεῖα ἤθη: comp. Plato Rep. 396 C sqq. .

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-110

1448b25 τὰς καλὰς ... πράξεις καὶ τὰς τῶν τοιούτων As Düntzer and Bernays have shown, this is not a tautology, as the actions of those who are καλοὶ (τῶν τοιούτων) are not always καλαὶ πράξεις; comp. Plato Rep. 396 C

μάλιστα μὲν μιμούμενος τὸν ἀγαθὸν ἀσφαλῶς τε καὶ ἐμφρόνως πράττοντα, ἐλάττω δὲ καὶ ἧττον ἢ ὑπὸ νόσων ἢ ὑπὸ ἐρώτων ἐσφαλμένον ἢ καὶ ὑπὸ μέθης ἢ τινος ἄλλης ξυμφορᾶς

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-111

1448b27 ψόγους has the same same concrete sense of 'invectives' in Plato Laws 829 C

ἐγκώμιά τε καὶ ψόγους ποιεῖν

. The earliest, as well as the most eminent representative of this kind of literature, was Archilochus, the

ψογερὸς Ἀρχίλοχος βαρυλόγοις ἔχθεσιν πιαινόμενος

of Pindar ( Pyth. 2. 100 ).

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-112

ὕμνους καὶ ἐγκώμια : Plato Rep. 607 A

ὕμνους θεοῖς καὶ ἐγκώμια τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς

. — Etym. Gud. s. v. ὕμνος

Ὕμνος ἐγκωμίου διαφέρει καθὸ ὁ μὲν ὕμνος ἐπὶ θεοῦ λέγεται τὸ δὲ ἐγκώμιον ἐπὶ ἀνθρώπου

. On hymns and encomia as very primitive forms of Greek poetry see Bergk, Gr. Litt. 1 p. 423.

1448b29

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-113

εἰκὸς δὲ εἶναι πολλούς , scil. τοιούτους; comp. Goulston's version, 'verisimile autem est, qui talia condiderint, extitisse multos'. Aristotle says this because he thinks that even in those days the baser sort ( οἱ εὐτελέστεροι b26) were probably in a majority ; he has no romantic illusions as to the superiority of the men of an earlier age ( Pol. 2. 8, 1269 a 5 ). On the pre-Homeric poets, to whom Aristotle refers, comp. Sextus Emp. Adv. math. 1. 204

οὐχ ὑπὸ πάντων ὁμολογεῖται ποιητὴς ἀρχαιότατος εἶναι Ὅμηρος· ἔνιοι γὰρ Ησίοδον προήκειν τοῖς χρόνοις λέγουσιν, Λίνον τε καὶ Ὀρφέα καὶ Μουσαῖον καὶ ἄλλους παμπληθεῖς

: see also Bernhardy Gr. Litt. 1 p. 308. Aristotle, however, was quite aware that the writings which bore the names of these legendary poets were not really by them ( H. A. 6. 6, 563 a 18 ; see Bernays, Dialoge d. Aristot. p. 95).

1448b30

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-114

ἐκείνου ὁ Μαργίτης : Eustratius on Eth. N. 6. 7, 1141 a 14 (p. 320 30 Heylb.)

παράγει . . . καί τινα ποίησιν Μαργίτην ὀνομαζομένην Ὁμήρου. μνημονεύει δ᾿ αὐτῆς οὐ μόνον αὐτὸς Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ ποιητικῆς ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἀρχίλοχος καὶ Κρατίνος καὶ Καλλίμαχος ἐν τῷ ἐπιγράμματι καὶ μαρτυροῦσιν εἶναι Ὁμήρου τὸ ποίημα

. On the Margites, which Aristotle thus attributes to Homer, see Kinkel, EGF. p. 64. This statement in the Poetics does not throw any light on the question of the original form of the Margites, whether the iambic lines in it were a primitive part of the poem, or subsequently added by Pigres (see Goettling, Op. Acad. p. 167, and Hiller, N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1887 p. 13 for a discussion of it) ; it stands in a parenthesis, and must not be taken in any direct connexion with the ἐν οἷς... ἰαμβεῖον ἦλθε μέτρον that follows.

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-115

καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα refers to writings more or less like the Margites by post-Homeric poets—not to other minor poems of a light order attributable to Homer himself, as Bergk (Gr. Litt. 1 p. 775) suggests.

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-116

ἐν οἷς = ἐν δὲ τούτοις, scil. τοῖς ψόγοις, the relative beginning a new sentence, as in 24, 1459 b 12

οἷς ἅπασιν

. — Phys. 8. 3, 253 b 12

πρὸς οὓς . . οὐ χαλεπὸν ἀπαντῆσαι

. — Metaph. Θ 3, 1046 b 33

οἷς τὰ συμβαίνοντα ἄτοπα οὐ χαλεπὸν ἰδεῖν

. — Λ 8, 1074 b 8

ὧν εἴ τις χωρίσας αὐτὸ λάβοι μόνον τὸ πρῶτον

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-117

1448b31 κατὰ τὸ ἁρμόττον : 17, 1455 b 10

κατὰ τὸ εἰκός

. — Rhet. 1. 1, 1355 a 22 and 9, 1367 b 12

κατὰ τὸ προσῆκον

(opposed to παρὰ τὸ προσῆκον). — Eth. N. 4. 6, 1123 a 20

παρὰ τὸ δέον

. The reading of the Aldine (and of Parisinus 2038), καὶ τὸ ἁρμόττον, has been accepted by Bon. Ind. 357 b 48 .

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-118

1448b32 ἦλθε : the verb has the same sense in Eth. N. 5. 8, 1133 a 20

ἐφ᾿ ὃ τὸ νόμισμα ἐλήλυθε

. — Pol. 1. 9, 1258 a 6

τὸ ἕτερον εἶδος τῆς χρηματιστικῆς διὰ τοῦτ᾿ ἐλήλυθεν

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-119

1448b33 ἰαμβεῖον καλεῖται : Strabo 422 Cas.

ὁ μὲν (scil. ὁ δάκτυλος) ὕμνοις ἐστὶν οἰκεῖος ὁ δ᾿ ἴαμβος κακισμοῖς

. — Proclus Chrestom. 7, p. 346 Gaisf.

τὸν ἴαμβον τάττεσθαι μὲν ἐπὶ λοιδορίας τὸ παλαιόν· καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὸ ἰαμβίζειν κατά τινα γλῶσσαν λοιδορεῖν ἔλεγον ... ἔοικε δὲ ὁ ἴαμβος τὸ μὲν παλαιὸν ἐπὶ τῶν εἰς ψόγον καὶ ἔπαινον γραφομένων ὁμοίως λέγεσθαι ἐπεὶ δέ τινες ἐπλεόνασαν ἐν ταῖς κακολογίαις τὸ μέτρον, ἐκεῖθεν τὸ ἰαμβίζειν εἰς τὸ ὑβρίζειν ὑπὸ τῆς συνηθείας ἐκπεσεῖν

. — Schol. Hephaest. 6, p. 182 Gaisf.

ἐκλήθη δὲ ἴαμβος, ἀφ᾿ οὗ τὸ μέτρον παρονομάζεται ἰαμβικόν, ἐπείπερ οἱ ὑβρίζειν καὶ λοιδορεῖν τινὰς βουλόμενοι τούτῳ ἐχρῶντο τῷ μέτρῳ· ἰαμβίζειν γὰρ ἔλεγον οἱ παλαιοὶ τὸ ὑβρίζειν

. — Suetonii Reliq. p. 19 Reiff.

Iambus est carmen maledicum appellatum est autem παρὰ τὸ ἰαμβίζειν, quod est maledicere

1448b34

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-120

τῶν παλαιῶν . The reference is apparently to Homer and Archilochus, as the first and greatest representatives of the two great directions in poetry; comp. Velleius Paterc. 1. 5

Neque quenquam alium, cuius operis primus auctor fuerit, in eo perfectissimum praeter Homerum et Archilochum reperiemus

. Dio Chrysost. Or. 33, p. 5 R.

δύο γὰρ ποιητῶν γεγονότων ἐξ ἅπαντος τοῦ αἰῶνος, οἷς οὐδένα τῶν ἄλλων συμβάλλειν ἄξιον, Ὁμήρου τε καὶ Ἀρχιλόχου, τούτων Ὅμηρος μὲν σχεδὸν πάντα ἐνεκωμίασε Ἀρχίλοχος δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐναντίαν ἦκε [fort. ἠξε], τὸ ψέγειν

. Their pre-eminence is implied in the juxtaposition of the two names in Heraclitus fr. 119 (42 Diels)

τόν τε Ὅμηρον ἔφασκεν ἄξιον ἐκ τῶν ἀγώνων ἐκβάλλεσθαι καὶ ῥαπίζεσθαι καὶ Ἀρχίλοχον ὁμοίως

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-121

τὰ σπουδαῖα : [no further note in snippet].

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-122

ποιητής : comp. Plato Apol. 18 B

τὰ μετέωρα φροντιστής

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-123

1448b35 οὐχ ὅτι εὖ , scil. ἐποίησεν. Homer 'wrote well', as a master of the art of poetic expression (comp. 24, 1459 b 16 ; 1460 b 1 ) ; his poems are 'imitations', or pictures of human life, which distinguishes them from those of Empedocles and others (comp. 1, 1447 b 15 ) ; and they are moreover 'dramatic imitations', i. e. not unlike those in the Drama (comp. 24, 1460 a 5 ). In this way, then, Aristotle intimates that Homer not only dealt with the same kind of subject as Tragedy ( τὰ σπουδαία), but also anticipated the dramatic manner.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-124

1448b36 σχήματα . . . ὑπέδειξεν , 'marked out for us the great outlines of Comedy'. σχῆμα has the same sense in 5, 1449 b 3 , and in Plato Laws 5, 737 D

σχήματος ἕνεκα καὶ ὑπογραφῆς

. For the use of ὑπέδειξε comp. Rhet. 3. 2, 1404 b 25

ὅπερ Εὐριπίδης ποιεῖ καὶ ὑπέδειξε πρῶτος

. — Ath. Pol. 41

Ἀριστείδης μὲν ὑπέδειξεν, Ἐφιάλτης δὲ ἐπετέλεσεν

. — Isocrates 268 C

ταῦτα πράττοντες καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὑποδεικνύοντες

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-125

1448b37 οὐ ψόγον ἀλλὰ τὸ γελοῖον δραματοποιήσας The sense is that, when Homer passed from σπουδαία to φαῦλα, his treatment of the latter was more akin to that in the comic poets than to that in the ἰαμβοποιοί; Margites with him was only ridiculous—not vicious or held up to obloquy as vicious, as a writer of ψόγοι would have made him. A ψόγος dwells on some serious vice of character; whereas Comedy, as Aristotle conceives it, deals only with those lesser faults which we are able to laugh at (see on 5, 1449 a 33 ). This view of the Margites is not quite in harmony with that in 4, 1448 b 30 , where it is regarded as a ψόγος, the first known instance of the kind. With οὐ ψόγον Vahlen supplies ποιήσας from the δραματοποιήσας that follows. This is legitimate enough, but hardly necessary, as δραματοποιεῖν, 'to write, or describe, as a dramatist would' (see on 22, 1458 b 9 ) is just as applicable to ψόγον as it is to τὸ γελοῖον (comp. Tyrwhitt's rendering 'non vituperium sed ridiculum dramatice exprimens'). The meaning Aristotle attaches to it may be seen from μιμήσεις δραματικὰς ἐποίησεν in b35 (v. ad loc.).

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-126

1448b38 ὥσπερ Ἰλιὰς καὶ ἡ Ὀδύσσεια Vahlen illustrates this insertion of the article before Ὀδύσσεια by De resp. 17, 478 b 28

ἔστι δὲ θάνατος καὶ ἡ φθορὰ πᾶσιν ὁμοίως τοῖς μὴ ἀτελέσιν

, and Rhet. 3. 13, 1414 b 13

ἔσται οὖν ... διήγησις ἕτερον καὶ ἡ ἐπιδιήγησις καὶ προδιήγησις

, and a number of other passages in Aristotle (comp. also Riddell, Digest of Idioms § 240 G). On the other hand Spengel would restore the article before Ἰλιὰς on account of its appearance in the parallel in 26, 1462 b 8

ὥσπερ ἡ Ἰλιὰς ἔχει πολλὰ τοιαῦτα μέρη καὶ ἡ Ὀδύσσεια

(comp. also 24, 1459 b 14

ἡ μὲν Ἰλιὰς ... ἡ δὲ Οδύσσεια

). There is as a rule nothing exceptional or anomalous in Aristotle's usage in reference to the article with the titles of books. He is apt to omit it, just as Athenaeus does, when the title is given in the actual form which it would have as the heading of a MS. (comp. Apollonius Synt. 1, 26), after the preposition ἐν. The Poetics supply a number of examples of this usage, e.g. 16, 1455 a 2

ἐν Ἀλκίνου ἀπολόγῳ

. — 24, 1460 a 35

τὰ ἐν Ὀδυσσείᾳ ἄλογα

. — 14, 1454 a 1

ἐν Ἀντιγόνη

. — 16, 1455 a 4

ἐν Χοηφόροις

. — 24, 1460 a 31

ἐν Ἠλέκτρᾳ

. — 32

ἐν Μυσοῖς

. — 25, 1461 a 21

ἐν Ορέστῃ

. In 24, 1460 a 30 , however, the traditional text omits the article with a title in the nominative; for it is clear that Οἰδίπους in this place means the Oedipus Tyrannus, in the same way as with us 'Hamlet' may mean the play, not the person. In many places in which the article is omitted, the title is used in a general sense as a common noun; thus in Soph. el. 24, 180 a 21

δός μοι Ιλιάδα

means 'give me an Iliad' (i. e. a copy of the Iliad). Instances of this in the Poetics are 8, 1451 a 20

Ἡρακληίδα Θησηίδα

, 'a Heracleid, a Theseid'. — 24, 1459 b 15

Ὀδύσσειαν

, 'an Odyssey'. — 23, 1459 a 3

Ἰλιάδος καὶ ᾿Ὀδυσσείας

, 'a poem like the Iliad or Odyssey'. — b 4

Κυπρίων

, 'a poem like the Κύπρια'. I am inclined to think, therefore, that Spengel was right in suggesting ὥσπερ (ἡ) Ιλιάς in the present passage; and also that in 24, 1460 a 30 the true reading must be ὥσπερ (ὁ) Οἰδίπους.

1449a3

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-127

ἑκατέραν τὴν ποίησιν recalls the distinction drawn in 4, 1448 b 24 between the two great forms of poetry, the higher and the lower.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-128

κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν φύσιν : 4, 1448 b 24

κατὰ τὰ οἰκεῖα ἤθη

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-129

1449a4 ἀντὶ τῶν ἰάμβων κωμῳδοποιοὶ ἐγένοντο Vahlen compares De part. an. 2. 13, 657 b 34

ἀντὶ ταύτης τῆς φυλακῆς πάντα σκληρόφθαλμά ἐστιν

, and Herod. 7. 62

ἀντὶ τῶν πίλων μιτρηφόροι ἦσαν

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-130

1449a7 ἔχει... τοῖς εἶδεσιν ἱκανῶς Aristotle assumes that Tragedy has by this time attained to its natural form ( 15

ἔσχε τὴν αὐτῆς φύσιν

); but he declines to consider the question whether there is still a possibility of improvement in the treatment of its various formative constituents. The suggestion that the εἴδη here meant are the same as the μέρη distinguished in chap. 6 , from another point of view, is due to Madius. εἶδος in the sense of a formative constituent is perhaps unique in Aristotle, but there are certainly a few instances of it in Plato Rep. iv , where the three faculties in the soul are sometimes described as εἴδη ( 434 D , 439 E , 440 B ) and sometimes as μέρη ( 442 B, C ). The alternative interpretation is to take εἴδη in the logical sense of 'species'. This view, though not improbable in itself (comp. 18, 1455 b 32 ), is hardly reconcileable with the use of εἴδη in 6, 1450 a 13 as a designation for the μέρη with which the chapter is dealing.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-131

αὐτό τε καθ᾿ αὑτὸ κρῖναι The conjunction serves to connect κρῖναι with ἐπισκοπεῖν, the second clause being complementary to the first (comp. 6, 1450 b 3 ). Similarly in De anima 3. 3, 427 b 15

φαντασία γὰρ ἕτερον καὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ διανοίας· αὐτή τε οὐ γίγνεται ἄνευ αἰσθήσεως, καὶ ἄνευ ταύτης οὐκ ἔστιν ὑπόληψις

, the second clause ( αὐτή τε κτέ.) is explanatory of the first. κρῖναι has been taken as an infinitive of limitation by Vahlen, who quotes H. A. 9. 38, 622 a 20

τῶν δ᾿ ἐντόμων ἐργατικώτατον ζῴων ἐστί, σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ πρὸς τἆλλα συγκρίνεσθαι πάντα, τό τε τῶν μυρμήκων γένος καὶ τὸ τῶν μελιττῶν

. As far as I can see, an infinitive of limitation would not be quite in place in a passage like the present. For the antithesis between καθ᾿ αὑτὸ and πρὸς τὰ θέατρα comp. Top. 5. 1, 128 b 16

ἀποδίδοται δὲ τὸ ἴδιον ἢ καθ᾿ αὐτὰ καὶ ἀεὶ ἢ πρὸς ἕτερον καὶ ποτέ

. — Cat. 6, 5 b 16

οὐδὲν γὰρ αὐτὸ καθ᾿ αὑτὸ μέγα λέγεται ἢ μικρόν, ἀλλὰ τῷ πρὸς ἕτερον ἀναφέρεσθαι

. κρίνειν has an indirect question after it in Metaph. A 4, 984 b 31

τούτους μὲν οὖν πῶς χρὴ διανείμαι ἐξέστω κρίνειν ὕστερον

1449a9

γενομένης δ᾿ οὖν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς αὐτοσχεδιαστικής =

γενομένη δ᾿ οὖν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς αὐτοσχεδιαστική

. Having begun with γενομένης αὐτοσχεδιαστικῆς, scil. τῆς τραγῳδίας, Aristotle sees that the same is true of Comedy, and adds a parenthesis to show that; after which he says in 13

ηὐξήθη

, just as though γενομένη... αὐτοσχεδιαστική had begun the clause. For another instance of a gen. abs. in lieu of a nominative see 17, 1455 a 3 . A parenthetical addition of very similar form is found in 5, 1449 b 12 , and also in Metaph. Θ 10, 1051 b 11 . ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς is used adverbially in the same sense as ἐξ ἀρχῆς. Several of the recent editors and translators, however, take ἀρχῆς and αὐτοσχεδιαστικῆς together as meaning an 'improvisational beginning'. This certainly simplifies matters, but it may be doubted whether ἀρχὴ αὐτοσχεδιαστική would naturally bear that meaning.

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-132

1449a11 τῶν ἐξαρχόντων

ἐξάρχειν τὸν διθύραμβον, ἢ τὰ φαλλικά, dicebantur qui choro utrivis canendo praeiverunt; qui, ut verisimile est, ab initio poetae ipsi fuerunt

, says Tyrwhitt, quoting Archilochus ( fr. 77 Bergk

ὡς Διωνύσοι᾿ ἄνακτος καλὸν ἐξάρξαι μέλος οἶδα διθύραμβον

). By the ἐξάρχων here Aristotle means the poet-composer, who supplied both words and air, and taught them to the chorus—not as is sometimes supposed, the κορυφαῖος, who was only one of the chorus. ἐξάρχειν διθύραμβον is practically a synonym for διδάσκειν διθύραμβον, the expression in Herodotus i. 23. It is clear that Aristotle has in his own mind a general view of the historical development of early Greek poetry, but he tells us as little as possible about it. The intention of the Poetics is to give us a theory of the Epic and of the Drama, not a treatise on the history and archaeology of the Drama. Tragedy began when the author of the dithyramb came forward with an 'improvisation', i. e. with a ῥῆσις or spoken statement, which he improvised in the interval between the two halves of the song of the chorus. The allusion in τῶν ἐξαρχόντων in the text is probably to Thespis, whom he is known to have mentioned in a fragment preserved by Themistius Or. 26, 382 Dind.

οὐ προσέχομεν Ἀριστοτέλει ὅτι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ὁ χορὸς εἰσιὼν ᾔδεν εἰς τοὺς θεούς, Θέσπις δὲ πρόλογόν τε καὶ ῥῆσιν ἐξεῦρεν;

. The 'prologue and speech' introduced by Thespis may be identified with the improvisations of the actor-poet, which transformed the Dithyramb into Tragedy.

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-133

1449a12 φαλλικά Photius Lex.

Φαλλικόν· ποίημα αὐτοσχέδιον ἐπὶ τῷ φαλλῷ ἀδόμενον

. — Hesychius

Φαλλικόν· ὄρχημά τι· οἱ δὲ μέλος· ἄλλοι ᾠδὴν αὐτοσχέδιον ἐπὶ τῷ φαλλῷ ἀδομένην

. In these phallus-songs Aristotle sees the origin of Comedy; it arose through the author of the song 'improvising' some scurrilous tale, and becoming in this way the forerunner of the single actor of the earliest form of Comedy.

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-134

1449a13 προαγόντων : see on 4, 1448 b 22 .

1449a14

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-135

μεταβολάς : 5, 1449 a 37

αἱ τῆς τραγῳδίας μεταβάσεις

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-136

1449a15 ἐπαύσατο For the tense of the participle comp. An. post. 2. 1, 89 b 27

εὑρόντες γὰρ ὅτι ἐκλείπει πεπαύμεθα

. — Meteor. 1. 3, 339 b 32

θεωρήσαντες ἂν τὰ νῦν δεικνύμενα ... ἴσως ἂν ἐπαύσαντο ταύτης τῆς παιδικῆς δόξης

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-137

φύσιν : Pol. 1. 2, 1252 b 32

ἡ δὲ φύσις τέλος ἐστίν· οἷον γὰρ ἕκαστόν ἐστι τῆς γενέσεως τελεσθείσης, ταύτην φαμὲν τὴν φύσιν εἶναι ἑκάστου, ὥσπερ ἀνθρώπου ἵππου οἰκίας

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-138

καὶ τό τε τῶν ὑποκριτῶν πλῆθος There is no need to assume a lacuna here. Having shown how Tragedy began with a single actor, Aristotle proceeds to note the introduction of a second, and after that, of a third actor. The increasing prominence of the actor is in his view the most significant fact in the evolution of the Drama. The καί is explanatory, introducing a series of statements in support of the original assertion that Tragedy underwent many changes before attaining to its ultimate form.

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-139

ὑποκριτῶν The actor is called a ὑποκριτής because he was the poet's spokesman, who interpreted his text to the public. The term must have acquired this sense at the time when the poet left the acting to others, instead of being himself the performer of his pieces, as he originally was according to Rhet. 3. 1, 1403 b 23 . The position of the ὑποκριτής was analogous to that of the ῥαψῳδός; they were both intermediaries who interpreted the words of a poet to the public. Plato in the Ion in one place terms him a ἑρμηνεύς and in another ὑποκριτής, apparently without any difference of meaning: Ion 530 C

τὸν γὰρ ῥαψῳδὸν ἑρμηνέα δεῖ τοῦ ποιητοῦ τῆς διανοίας γίγνεσθαι τοῖς ἀκούουσι

, and 535 E

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ θεατὴς τῶν δακτυλίων ὁ ἔσχατος ... ὁ δὲ μέσος σὺ ὁ ῥαψῳδὸς καὶ ὑποκριτής, ὁ δὲ πρῶτος αὐτὸς ὁ ποιητής

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-140

1449a16 Αἰσχύλος comp. the Aristotelian survey of the progress of the Drama in Themistius Or. 26 p. 382 Dind.

οὐ προσέχομεν Ἀριστοτέλει ὅτι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ὁ χορὸς εἰσιὼν ᾔδεν εἰς τοὺς θεούς, Θέσπις δὲ πρόλογόν τε καὶ ῥῆσιν ἐξεῦρεν, Αἰσχύλος δὲ τρίτον ὑποκριτὴν καὶ ὀκρίβαντας, τὰ δὲ πλείω τούτων Σοφοκλέους ἀπελαύσαμεν καὶ Εὐριπίδου?

There is no doubt a discrepancy between this and the statement in the text about Aeschylus, but it need not disturb us, unless we assume Aristotle to have been incapable of a change of opinion even on a small matter of learned research. Ancient opinion was divided on the point: Vita Aeschyli (Dindorf, Poet. scen. prol. p. 3)

ἐχρήσατο δ᾿ ὑποκριτῇ πρώτῳ μὲν Κλεάνδρῳ, ἔπειτα καὶ τὸν δεύτερον αὐτῷ προσῆψε Μυννίσκον τὸν Χαλκιδέα τὸν δὲ τρίτον ὑποκριτὴν αὐτὸς ἐξεῦρεν, ὡς δὲ Δικαίαρχος ὁ Μεσσήνιος, Σοφοκλῆς

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-141

1449a17 τὸν λόγον the portion recited or spoken, as opposed to τὰ τοῦ χοροῦ, the portion sung ( 18, 1456 a 28

τὰ ἀδόμενα

); comp. the use of λόγοι in 6, 1450 b 6, 9 in the sense of the speeches or ῥήσεις in a play. Λόγος is a word with a Protean variety of meanings even in the Poetics. In 1, 1447 a 22 it means 'language', as opposed to metre and music; in 6, 1450 b 15 'prose', as distinct from verse; in 22, 1459 a 13 an 'oration', as opposed to a poem; in 15, 1454 a 18 (comp. 19, 1456 a 37 ), the 'language', as distinct from the action, of the personages; in 17, 1455 b 17 (comp. 5, 1449 b 8 ), the 'story', as distinct from its setting in the actual poem. And in 20, 1457 a 23 it is one of the technical terms of Aristotelian logic or grammar.

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-142

1449a18 πρωταγωνιστὴν παρεσκεύασεν 'made it assume the leading part in the play'. For this metaphorical use of πρωταγωνιστής comp. that of the derivative πρωταγωνιστεῖν in Pol. 8. 4, 1338 b 29

ὥστε τὸ καλὸν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τὸ θηριῶδες δεῖ πρωταγωνιστεῖν· οὐ γὰρ λύκος οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων θηρίων τι ἀγωνίσαιτο ἂν οὐθένα καλὸν κίνδυνον, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός

. Instances of this extension of meaning (which is common enough in later Greek) will be found in HSt. s.v. πρωταγωνιστής . Aristotle is apt to use technical terms of theatrical origin in their popular sense (see on 14, 1453 b 8

χορηγίας

) even in a book like the Poetics.

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-143

σκηνογραφίαν i. e. Sophocles was the first to have the screen behind the actors painted to represent the façade of a palace or a temple, or whatever else the play required as its background. The improvement here ascribed to Sophocles was sometimes attributed to Aeschylus ( Sommerbrodt, Scaenica p. 142 ; Haigh, Attic Th. p. 181 ).

1449a19

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-144

ἔτι δὲ τὸ μέγεθος so as to suggest an idea of the importance or dignity of the object: comp. Eth. N. 4. 4, 1122 b 32

μέγεθος ἔχει καὶ ἀξίωμα

. — Pol. 5, 10, 1313 a 7

τὸ μέγεθος καὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα τῆς ἀρχῆς

. The ἀπεσεμνύνθη in the next line shows this to be at any rate by implication the sense of μέγεθος in the present passage. Aristotle evidently had in his own mind a clear and precise conception of the origin of Tragedy, though it is difficult for us to recover more than fragments of it from a statement so brief and allusive as that in the text. He merely tells us (1) that the most primitive tragedies dealt with short stories; (2) that the language of the primitive actor, instead of being serious and solemn, was sportive or jocose , and (3) in trochaics, not in iambics. By way of explanation of this last point, he adds that, as Tragedy was originally akin to the satyric drama, the language of the primitive tragic actor had still something of the rhythm of the dance about it. Aristotle's idea of the original tragic actor may possibly have been that he also was made up as a satyr. He certainly mentions one characteristic of the stage-satyr, his jesting language , and seems to imply another, viz. his dance-like movements.

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-145

ἐκ μικρῶν μύθων : such as might be told, for instance, in a single act. For the asyndeton comp. 5, 1449 b 12 ; De anima 3. 2, 426 b 24 ; De sensu 3, 440 a 8

οἷον ἐνίοτε οἱ γραφῆς ποιοῦσιν· ἑτέραν χρόαν ἐφ᾿ ἑτέραν ἐναργεστέραν ἐπαλείφουσιν

; Metaph. Θ 10, 1051 b 11 .

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-146

1449a20 ὀψὲ ἀπεσεμνύνθη The time meant is presumably the age of Phrynichus.

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-147

1449a21 ἐκ τετραμέτρου ἰαμβεῖον ἐγένετο : Rhet. 3. 1, 1404 a 30

οἱ τὰς τραγῳδίας ποιοῦντες ... ἐκ τῶν τετραμέτρων εἰς τὸ ἰαμβεῖον μετέβησαν διὰ τὸ τῷ λόγῳ τοῦτο τῶν μέτρων ὁμοιότατον εἶναι τῶν ἄλλων

1449a23

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-148

ὀρχηστικωτέραν : 24, 1459 b 37

τὸ δὲ ἰαμβεῖον καὶ τετράμετρον κινητικὰ καὶ τὸ μὲν ὀρχηστικὸν τὸ δὲ πρακτικόν

. — Rhet. 3. 8, 1408 b 32

τῶν δὲ ῥυθμῶν ὁ μὲν ἡρῷος σεμνὸς καὶ λεκτικῆς ἁρμονίας δεόμενος, ὁ δ᾿ ἴαμβος αὐτή ἐστιν ἡ λέξις ἡ τῶν πολλῶν διὸ μάλιστα πάντων τῶν μέτρων ἰαμβεῖα φθέγγονται λέγοντες. δεῖ δὲ σεμνότητα γενέσθαι καὶ ἐκστῆσαι. ὁ δὲ τροχαῖος κορδακικώτερος δηλοῖ δὲ τὰ τετράμετρα· ἔστι γὰρ ῥυθμὸς τροχαῖος τὰ τετράμετρα

. — Longinus 41. 1

μικροποιοῦν δ᾿ οὐδὲν οὕτως ἐν τοῖς ὑψηλοῖς ὡς ῥυθμὸς κεκλασμένος λόγου καὶ σεσοβημένος, οἷον δὴ πυρρίχιοι καὶ τροχαῖοι καὶ διχόρειοι, τέλεον εἰς ὀρχηστικὸν συνεκπίπτοντες

. ὀρχηστικός in this connexion means practically μιμητικὸς ὀρχήσεως, just as ἠθικός in the Poetics means μιμητικὸς ἤθους. Similarly λεκτικός = μιμητικὸς λέξεως (comp. 21, 1459 a 12 ), πρακτικός = μιμητικὸς πράξεως, and παθητικός = μιμητικὸς πάθους.

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-149

λέξεως , 'speech' as opposed to song (comp. on 21, 1459 a 12 ).

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-150

1449a24 αὐτὴ ἡ φύσις : 24, 1460 a 4

αὐτὴ ἡ φύσις διδάσκει τὸ ἁρμόττον αὐτῇ αἱρεῖσθαι

. — De caelo 3. 8, 306 b 15

ἔοικεν ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ τοῦτο σημαίνειν ἡμῖν

. — Hippocrates 3 p. 606 K.

ἀνευρίσκει ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ ἑωυτῇ τὰς ἐφόδους οὐκ ἐκ διανοίας, οἷον τὸ σκαρδαμύσσειν καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα ὑπουργέει καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα· ἀπαίδευτος ἡ φύσις ἐοῦσα καὶ οὐ μαθοῦσα τὰ δέοντα ποιέει

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-151

1449a26 λεκτικὸν : 21, 1459 a 11

ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἰαμβείοις διὰ τὸ ὅτι μάλιστα λέξιν μιμεῖσθαι ταῦτα ἁρμόττει ὅσοις κἂν ἐν λόγοις τις χρήσαιτο

. Comp. also Rhet. 3. 1, 1404 a 30 , 3. 8, 1408 b 32 . The term is sufficiently explained by

πλεῖστα γὰρ ἰαμβεῖα λέγομεν ἐν τῇ διαλέκτῳ τῇ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

in 26 .

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-152

διαλέκτῳ , 'talk', 'converse', as in Plato Symp. 203 A

διὰ τούτου πᾶσά ἐστιν ἡ ὁμιλία καὶ ἡ διάλεκτος θεοῖς πρὸς ἀνθρώπους

: comp. Rhet. 3. 8, 1408 b 34

μάλιστα πάντων τῶν μέτρων ἰαμβεῖα φθέγγονται λέγοντες

, and 3. 2, 1404 b 34

πάντες γὰρ μεταφοραῖς διαλέγονται

. For the general meaning of διάλεκτος see on 22, 1458 b 32 . Horace's alternis aptus sermonibus (A. P. 81) is a distant echo of this statement of Aristotle's. Cicero also observes that ordinary speech constantly falls into iambics: Orator 189

senarios vero et Hipponacteos effugere vix possumus; magnam enim partem ex iambis nostra constat oratio

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-153

1449a27 λεκτικῆς ἁρμονίας ἁρμονία here seems to mean 'pitch' ( τόνος) as in Rhet. 3. 1, 1403 b 31 . Aristoxenus recognizes a similar distinction between the musical and the conversational μέλος:

λέγεται γὰρ δὴ καὶ λογῶδές τι μέλος, τὸ συγκείμενον ἐκ τῶν προσῳδιῶν τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασιν· φυσικὸν γὰρ τὸ ἐπιτείνειν καὶ ἀνιέναι ἐν τῷ διαλέγεσθαι

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-154

ἐπεισοδίων : see on 12, 1452 b 20 .

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-155

1449a30 ὡς ἕκαστα κοσμηθῆναι λέγεται is added to explain the main statement, τὰ ἄλλα . . . ἔστω εἰρημένα. For the general form of the sentence Vahlen compares Metaph. Γ 3, 1005 b 19

τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ ἅμα ὑπάρχειν τε καὶ μὴ ὑπάρχειν ἀδύνατον τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ κατὰ τὸ αὐτό καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα προσδιορισαίμεθ᾿ ἄν, ἔστω προσδιωρισμένα

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-156

κοσμηθῆναι = ἐπικοσμηθῆναι. Certain elements in a play Aristotle dismisses as κόσμοι, decorative accessories rather than structural parts of the work. With this use of κοσμεῖν we may compare that of ἡδύνειν in 6, 1449 b 28 and 24, 1460 b 3 , to denote the addition of accessories designed to make the work agreeable to us.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-157

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-158

1449a32 ἡ δὲ κωμῳδία κτέ. The progress of Tragedy having been sketched, the next point to be considered is the progress of Comedy ( a 37 — b 8 ). The statement is introduced by a definition ( a 32-37 ) based on hints already given in preceding chapters as to the nature of Comedy. In 2, 1448 a 16 Comedy was said to deal with personages worse than the average man ( χείρους, = φαυλότεροι in the present passage) ; and in 4, 1448 b 36 its subject was assumed to be τὸ γελοῖον. These two points Aristotle reconciles and combines in a rough provisional definition before proceeding to the question more immediately before him, that of the μεταβάσεις of Comedy. It is not necessary, therefore, to suppose this defining clause to be out of place. If we try the experiment of transferring it to another place, it will be found that little or nothing is gained by this disturbance of the traditional order.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-159

1449a33 ὥσπερ εἴπομεν : in 2, 1448 a 17 and 4, 1448 b 37 .

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-160

πᾶσαν κακίαν : Plato Rep. 490 D

ὁρᾶν αὐτῶν τοὺς μὲν ἀχρήστους, τοὺς δὲ πολλοὺς κακοὺς πᾶσαν κακίαν

. — Demosthenes 18, 279

τὸ δὲ δὴ καὶ τοὺς πρὸς ἔμ᾿ αὐτὸν ἀγῶνας ἐάσαντα νῦν ἐπὶ τόνδ᾿ ἤκειν καὶ πᾶσαν ἔχει κακίαν

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-161

1449a34 ἀλλὰ τοῦ αἰσχροῦ ἐστι τὸ γελοῖον μόριον a compressed statement, practically equivalent to οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἀλλὰ καθ᾿ ἕν τι εἶδος κακίας· τοῦ γὰρ αἰσχροῦ ἐστι τὸ γελοῖον μόριον. The personages in Comedy are worse than most men, but only in one particular respect, as presenting a certain harmless deformity or ugliness of character, which makes them ridiculous only—not objects for blame or aversion. It is, in Aristotle's view, the harmlessness of the evil in them that makes them fit objects of laughter.

τὸ γὰρ γελοῖον κτέ. Two kinds of possible objects of laughter are implied in the text. (1) An act is γελοῖον when it is of the nature of a harmless mistake or blunder ( ἁμάρτημα ἀνώδυνον) ; and (2) a person is γελοῖος when he presents some moral or physical deformity of the same harmless kind ( αἶσχος ἀνώδυνον). The negative element here is a very essential part of the definition. Plato also, who thinks that the spectacle of human ignorance is the true object of laughter in Comedy, explains that, to be laughable, the ignorance must be harmless ( ἀβλαβὴς τοῖς ἄλλοις). As γελοῖα are the basis of all Comedy, Aristotle must be assumed to have devoted a section of his theory of Comedy (in the lost Second Book) to the causes and conditions of laughter, in the same way as we find him analysing τὸ φοβερὸν καὶ ἐλεεινόν in chaps. 13-14 of the existing Poetics. It is not impossible that several traces of his theory survive in Cicero's discussion of the 'Ridiculous' in De Oratore 2, 58-59 , which seems to be on distinctly Aristotelian lines.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-162

ἁμάρτημα : see on 13, 1453 a 16 .

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-163

1449a35 αἶσχος (like the adj. αἰσχρός) includes moral as well as physical deformity. Though the illustration in 36 relates to physical ugliness, Aristotle is really thinking of the ugliness of character in the personages of Comedy, who have been described as being χείρους τῶν νῦν ( 2, 1448 a 17 ). Their visible ugliness is part of their ὄψις (see on 6, 1449 b 33 ), which lies outside the limits of the art of the poet himself.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-164

1449a36 τὸ γελοῖον πρόσωπον For the masks in Comedy see Pollux 4, 143 .

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-165

αἰσχρόν τι καὶ διεστραμμένον : Plato Rep. 506 C

βούλει οὖν αἰσχρὰ θεάσασθαι, τυφλά τε καὶ σκολιά, ἐξὸν παρ᾿ ἄλλων ἀκούειν φανά τε καὶ καλά;

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-166

1449a37 ἀνώδυνον : comp.

ἄνευ ὀδύνης

in 37.

ὀδύνη

is a pain that one feels strongly. Plato Crat. 419 C

ὀδύνη δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐνδύσεως τῆς λύπης κεκλημένῃ ἔοικεν

. The Stoic definition ( Diog. Laert. 7. 112 ) was ὀδύνη λύπη ἐπίπονος, translated by Cicero ( Tusc. 4. 8 ) by aerumna aegritudo laboriosa.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-167

εὐθὺς : 'to take the first instance that occurs'; in 10, 1452 a 36 it means suapte natura ( Bon. Ind. 296 a 13 ).

1449b1

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-168

κωμῳδῶν The word being intended to bear the sense of the comic actor, i. e. the actor-poet, since Aristotle is referring to the time when the actor was the poet himself. This sense of the word in the Greek of Aristotle's period has been contested by Mr. H. P. Richards; but I think he has carried his negation too far, more especially as we find the corresponding word τραγῳδοί in the sense of the tragic actors in 22, 1458 b 32 . The traditional doctrine of the grammarians was that κωμῳδοί was used for the actors as well as for the members of the chorus in Comedy: Ammonius π. διαφ. λέξ. p. 86 Valck.

Κωμῳδὸς καὶ Τραγῳδὸς λέγεται ὁ χορευτής καὶ ὑποκριτής

. That κωμῳδοί may refer to the actors even in strict Attic seems to be shown by Plato Phaedr. 236 C

ἵνα μὴ τὸ τῶν κωμῳδῶν φορτικὸν πρᾶγμα ἀναγκαζώμεθα ποιεῖν

. For Aristotle's time, however, the use seems to be pretty clearly established by the language of his contemporary, Chares of Mytilene:

ὑπεκρίθησαν δὲ τραγῳδοὶ μὲν Θεσσαλὸς καὶ Ἀθηνόδωρος καὶ Ἀριστόκριτος, κωμῳδοὶ δὲ Λύκων καὶ Φορμίων καὶ Ἀρίστων

. And half a century after Aristotle this was the normal sense of the term, as is proved by inscriptions of the period. The history of the word, therefore, runs parallel with that of the comic chorus. Whatever its form may have been, it was no longer a very important part of a comedy. And if that was the fact, the gradual restriction of the term κωμῳδός to the actor would be the natural result of the absence or diminished importance of the chorus in the Comedy of the period.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-169

1449b2 ὀψέ ποτε Aristotle seems to have had a definite date in his mind. He conceives the history of Attic Comedy to begin with Chionides, who is said to have exhibited as early as B.C. 487; but the formal recognition of it by the state must have come later, probably about B.C. 465.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-170

ἐθελονταὶ ἦσαν

Intelligi potest de Choro, sed etiam de poetis... ἐκαλοῦντο δὲ καὶ ἐθελονταὶ διδάσκαλοι, δραμάτων δηλαδή, ὅτε τις μὴ λαβὼν χορὸν μηδὲ χορηγητὴν ἔχων ἑαυτῷ τὰ πάντα παρεῖχε

. Hinc enim poetarum, nascente Comoedia, conditio difficilis maxime apparet, quod non modo Chorum docere sed etiam conducere, nutrire, vestibus alioque omni apparatu instruere necesse haberent (Tyrwhitt). A somewhat similar use of the term seems to have survived at Thebes, where ἐθελοντής is said to have been the name for the actor in a rude species of burlesque. The alternative to Tyrwhitt's interpretation is to suppose the reference to be either to volunteer χορηγοί ( Demosth. 21. 13

ὑπεσχόμην ἐγὼ χορηγήσειν ἐθελοντής

), or to volunteer actors and chorus-singers.

σχήματα : comp. 4, 1448 b 36 and Bon. Ind. 740 a 24 . It has been thought that the form of expression here may imply some slowness to grant the name ποιητής to a comedian.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-171

1449b3 μνημονεύονται As soon as Comedy became a state institution, an official record of the successful poets must have been kept in the public archives.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-172

ἀπέδωκεν : De sensu 2, 438 b 17

ἀποδιδόναι καὶ προσάπτειν ἕκαστον τῶν αἰσθητηρίων ἑνὶ τῶν στοιχείων

. In Plato Laws 2, 669 C

ἀποδοῦναι

and προσαρμόττειν are treated as synonyms.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-173

προλόγους The term is defined in 12, 1452 b 19 . The introduction of a 'prologue' in Tragedy was sometimes said to have been due to Thespis: Themist. Or. 26 p. 382 Dind.

Θέσπις δὲ πρόλογον καὶ ῥῆσιν ἐξεῦρεν

. It was obviously a significant moment in the history of the Drama when the play, instead of beginning with a choral song, opened with a statement spoken by an actor.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-174

1449b4 πλήθη : comp. the use of πλήθη in 4, 1449 a 28 and 21, 1458 a 13 . The plural is in keeping with that in προλόγους and μύθους in the context.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-175

μύθους : see on b 9 .

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-176

1449b6 Ἐπίχαρμος καὶ Φόρμις These words cannot be retained where they stand. No appropriate verb can be supplied with them; for though Aristotle might have said μύθους ἀπέδωκε, he could hardly have meant to say μύθους ποιεῖν ἀπέδωκε. And even if ἀπέδωκε is to be understood, there is an awkward asyndeton in τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς. which on this assumption should surely be τὸ μὲν 〈οὖν〉 ἐξ ἀρχῆς, as is actually read in certain of the apographs. From the reminiscence of this passage (comp. Welcker, Kl. Scr. I p. 330 ) in Themistius Or. 27 p. 406 Dind.

καὶ κωμῳδία τὸ παλαιὸν ἤρξατο μὲν ἐκ Σικελίας (ἐκεῖθεν γὰρ ἤστην Ἐπίχαρμός τε καὶ Φόρμος), κάλλιον δὲ Ἀθήναζε συνηυξήθη

, it would seem that the words Ἐπίχαρμος καὶ Φόρμις were originally part of a clause which came in after ἐκ Σικελίας ἦλθεν, and that what Aristotle wrote was something like this:

τὸ δὲ μύθους ποιεῖν τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐκ Σικελίας ἦλθεν (ἦσαν γὰρ Ἐπίχαρμος καὶ Φόρμις ἐκεῖθεν), τῶν δὲ Ἀθήνησιν Κράτης κτέ.

(v. J. of Phil. 5 p. 118 )

1449b7

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-177

Κράτης : his 'floruit' may be put about B. C. 450. For the fragments of his comedies see Kock, CAF. 1 p. 130 ; Meineke, FCG. 1 p. 58 .

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-178

1449b8 ἀφέμενος τῆς ἰαμβικῆς ἰδέας

Ac mihi quidem hoc Aristoteles significare voluisse videtur, cum Cratinus ceterique antiquiores comici certos quosdam homines in fabulis suis exagitassent populoque ridendos propinassent, Cratetem primum apud Athenienses extitisse qui Epicharmi exemplo comicae poesios materiam a singulorum hominum irrisione ad generales morum notationes rerumque descriptiones traduceret. Quod autem lacessendi consuetudinem omisisse Crates ab Aristotele dicitur, id plane fragmenta fabularum confirmant, in quibus nihil prorsus reperias ex quo certos quosdam homines eum carpsisse intellegatur

Meineke l. c. p. 59 . The 'iambic form' of Comedy is the Old Comedy, which, from the personal nature of its satire, was only one remove from the 'invective' of Archilochus and the Iambographers ( 4, 1449 a 4 ). It is thus characterized in Horace Sat. 1. 4. 1

Eupolis atque Cratinus Aristophanesque poetae Alque alii, quorum comoedia prisca virorum est, Si quis erat dignus describi, quod malus aut fur, Quod moechus forel aut sicarius aut alioqui Famosus, multa cum libertate notabant

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-179

καθόλου ποιεῖν λόγους is the opposite of περὶ τὸν καθ᾿ ἕκαστον ποιεῖν (see 9, 1451 b 14 ). The implied antithesis is between a story about some particular person, e. g. Alcibiades, and one about (for instance) 'a man', or 'a man of such and such a type' ( ὁ τοιόσδε, Rhet. 1. 2, 1355 b 30 ), i. e. as we should say, 'a character', the representative of a possible class. A 'character' is a coherent group of qualities disengaged from the various accidents which coexist with it in the concrete individual; it is therefore in the nature of things something general and attributable to several, whereas the individual as such is unique. Aristotle's view is that the personages in Crates, as in all the higher forms of poetry, are 'characters', i. e. more or less idealized personages, not real men as in History, the ψόγος, and the Old Comedy. How these abstracts of human personality come to get proper names attached to them in the Drama is a point which Aristotle considers at some length in 9, 1451 b 13-22 (comp. 17, 1455 b 12 ).

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-180

1449b9 μύθους : i.e. his stories were as imaginary as his personages. μῦθος according to Plato Rep. 377 A is a λόγος ψευδής (either taken from legend or invented by the poet himself), though there may be some element of truth in it.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-181

ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐποποιία κτέ. At this point, the evolution of the Drama having been sketched, Aristotle inserts a provisional note on the points of agreement and difference between Tragedy and epic poetry, which anticipates to a certain extent the longer statement in chaps. 23-24 . The two points of agreement had been already intimated, the first in 4, 1448 b 34 , and the second in 5, 1449 a 20 .

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-182

1449b10 μέχρι μὲν τοῦ ... εἶναι : 7, 1451 a 10

μέχρι τοῦ σύνδηλος εἶναι

. — Top. 8. 1, 155 b 7

μέχρι μὲν οὖν τοῦ εὑρεῖν τὸν τόπον ὁμοίως τοῦ φιλοσόφου καὶ τοῦ διαλεκτικοῦ ἡ σκέψις

. The construction συνακολουθεῖν μέχρι occurs in Phys. 1. 5, 188 b 26

μέχρι μὲν οὖν τούτου σχεδὸν συνηκολουθήκασι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων οἱ πλεῖστοι

—where also συνακολουθεῖν, just like ἀκολουθεῖν here, is the opposite of διαφέρειν ( 188 b 30 : comp. Bon. Ind. 26 a 23 ). In these and similar instances the preposition μέχρι is to be understood as inclusive of that which is mentioned as the limit (comp. Eucken, Sprachgebr. p. 17 ). A difficulty has been found in ἠκολούθησεν (by Thurot and Spengel), on the ground that it would be more natural to speak of Tragedy following the Epic than of the Epic following Tragedy. This view assumes that ἀκολουθεῖν must mean to 'follow after' in order of time, whereas the word may very well mean 'go with' (comp. Rhet. 1. 6, 1362 b 29 ), i. e. 'agree with'. The aorist seems to imply that the fact has been already recognized. With the traditional reading μόνου (retained by Vahlen) the infinitive εἶναι which follows is out of construction.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-183

1449b10 διὰ μέτρου μεγάλου For the preposition comp. 1, 1447 a 27

διὰ τῶν σχηματιζομένων ῥυθμῶν

. — 4, 1449 a 11

διὰ τριμέτρων

. — 4, 1449 a 16

διὰ τῶν μέτρων

. — 6, 1449 b 30

διὰ μέτρων

. As here used, μέτρον μέγα seems to mean a large kind of verse, one fitted for a large subject (comp. 4, 1449 a 6

μείζονα σχήματα

). The hexameter is a metre of this description ( 24, 1460 a 3 ); and Aristotle may be presumed, I think, to have taken the same view of the tragic iambic as corresponding to the μέγεθος of the tragic stories, and the gravity of the tragic diction (comp. 4, 1449 a 19 ). Vahlen, retaining the manuscript reading μέχρι μόνου μέτρου μεγάλου, takes μέτρον μέγα to mean

spatium magnum sive fines ampli

; this, however, is hardly probable with τὸ μέτρον in the sense of 'metre' in the very next line (comp. Gomperz, Zu Aristoteles' Poetik 1 p. 25 ). The following are some of the attempts at emending this passage: μέχρι μόνου μέτρου μετὰ λόγου (the Aldine, and corr. Parisinus 2038); μέχρι μὲν τοῦ μέτρῳ [μετὰ λόγου] (Tyrwhitt); μέχρι μόνου τοῦ διὰ λόγου ἐμμέτρου μεγάλου (Ueberweg); μέχρι μὲν τοῦ [μέτρου μεγάλου] (Christ).

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-184

μίμησις . . . σπουδαίων : as was said in 4, 1448 b 34.

σπουδαίων

is presumably neuter (comp. 4, 1448 b 34 , and the note on 3, 1448 a 19 ).

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-185

1449b11 τῷ δὲ τὸ μέτρον ἁπλοῦν ἔχειν scil. τὴν ἐποποιίαν. ἁπλοῦν is the opposite of ποικίλον (comp. Bon. Ind. 76 b 12 ) ; the contrast is between the one metre of the Epic (v. 24, 1459 b 32 ) and the variety of metres in Tragedy.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-186

ταύτῃ In illustration of the construction Vahlen quotes 23, 1459 a 30

ταύτῃ θεσπέσιος ἂν φανείη τῷ μηδὲ τὸν πόλεμον ἐπιχειρῆσαι ποιεῖν ὅλον

. — Pol. 7. 15, 1334 a 41

οὐ ταύτῃ διαφέρουσι τῶν ἄλλων, τῷ μὴ νομίζειν

. — Plato Rep. 605 C

τῷ πρὸς ἕτερον τοιοῦτον ὁμιλεῖν ταύτῃ ὡμοίωται

1449b12

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-187

ἔτι δὲ τῷ μήκει scil. διαφέρει ἡ ἐποποιία. Having laid this down, however, Aristotle remembers that the difference did not always exist; he accordingly repeats his original proposition by a resumptive καὶ τούτῳ διαφέρει (comp. Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 1 p. 660 ), in order to introduce a qualifying clause, καίτοι τὸ πρῶτον κτέ.. The clause marked as a parenthesis is equivalent to ἡ μὲ γὰρ κτέ. (actually found in some apographs), and is similar in form to that in 4, 1449 a 19 (v. ad loc.). Aristotle is thinking of a very obvious fact, viz. that an epic (the Iliad or Odyssey, for instance) runs to several thousand lines, whereas a tragedy rarely exceeds some 1,600. This difference he never loses sight of; he notes it in 17, 1455 b 16 , and (in a context just like the present) in 24, 1459 b 17

διαφέρει δὲ κατά τε τῆς συστάσεως τὸ μήκος ἡ ἐποποιία καὶ τὸ μέτρον

; and he returns to it in his concluding chapter ( 26, 1462 a 18 ) where the comparative merits of the two forms of poetry are under discussion. These parallels, as Teichmüller has seen, are enough to show that μῆκος must denote here not the ambitus actionis, the imaginary duration of the action of the poem, as is often supposed, but rather the real length of the work itself, a length to be measured by the number of lines the work would take up in a book, or the hours it would need for recitation. It has the same sense in 7, 1451 a 6 and in 24, 1459 b 18 . A reason for this difference of length, one quite sufficient for Aristotle's purpose, is given in the parenthesis, ἡ μὲν ὅτι μάλιστα κτέ.. He regards it as the natural consequence of another kind of difference, viz. the fact that the action in a Greek tragedy is as a rule kept within a limit of some 24 hours, whereas that in an epic may extend over weeks, or even years. There being this difference, therefore, in the extent of the action, the quantum of matter to be included in the story, it is only natural that there should be a corresponding difference in the length of the literary statement in the two instances, and that an epic poem accordingly should be of greater length than a tragedy. A certain correspondence between the length and the quantum of matter in a poem is recognized in 26, 1462 b 2 . Assuming this correspondence, Aristotle explains the great length of an epic, as compared with a tragedy, as due to the great length of time over which the epic action extends. In other words, he passes from the idea of the actual length, the actual time required for the recitation, to that of the imaginary time covered by the action of the poem; and he does this on the tacit assumption that the two things are so closely connected that the one may serve to explain the other (comp. Ueberweg, Aristoteles über Dichtkunst p. 57 ). Teichmüller's theory, that Aristotle is referring in the parenthesis to the time of the actual recitation or performance, and thinking of the series of dramas (a trilogy or tetralogy) presented on the stage in a single day, may be set aside at once, not only on archaeological grounds, but also because it assumes an impossible sense for ὑπὸ μίαν περίοδον ἡλίου.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-188

1449b13 πειρᾶται means much the same thing as βούλεται in 2, 1448 a 18 . The same anxiety to avoid overstatement is to be seen in ὅτι μάλιστα and ἢ μικρὸν ἐξαλλάττειν in the context.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-189

μίαν περίοδον ἡλίου cannot be, as Teichmüller imagines, a way of describing the natural day of 12 hours or so ; the periphrasis is deliberately chosen in order to make it clear that the solar day of 24 hours is meant. A περίοδος of the sun is not its half-circuit, but its circuit, i. e. the time it takes to come round again to an assumed starting-point. For other Aristotelian instances of this sense of the word see Bon. Ind. 582 b 29 . The statement in the text was often quoted in former times as evidence for the assertion that the so-called 'Unity of Time' was one of Aristotle's rules for the Drama. 'The stage', says Sydney in his Apology for Poetry (p. 63 Arber), 'should always represent but one place; and the uttermost time presupposed in it should be, both by Aristotle's precept and common sense, but one day'. What Aristotle actually says is not a precept, but only an incidental recognition of a fact in the practice of the theatre in his age. The same is true also of the 'Unity of Place', which was believed to be implied as a rule in 24, 1459 b 25 . The 'Unity of Action', however, is very emphatically asserted in chaps. 8–11 and elsewhere.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-190

μικρὸν ἐξαλλάττειν = 'to vary, or depart, from that only a little', i. e. 'to exceed that limit only a little'. The reference is not to variation within the limit, but to variation beyond it.

1449b15

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-191

τὸ πρῶτον In the earliest drama, says Aristotle, the Unity of Time was not observed with strictness, any more than it is in epic poetry. This passage has been discussed by M. Maurice Croiset ( Rev. des Études grecques p. 373; comp. Heimsoeth, De tragoediae graecae trilogiis p. iv ), who suggests that Aristotle may be referring to the period anterior to the institution of the trilogy, when a long tragic story, instead of being dealt with in three tragedies, may be supposed to have been told in one. It is clear that the action in such a play would be very like that of an epic, and cover a longer time than 24 hours. One may ask how in the absence of some device like the modern curtain the lapse of time between act and act could be sufficiently indicated; and one may also ask whether there was the same chorus throughout the performance. These are difficulties which we have now no means of answering.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-192

ἐν ταῖς τραγῳδίαις The preposition shows that Aristotle is thinking not of the time of the performance, but of something within the play, the imaginary time of the action in it ( Ribbeck, Rh. Mus. 24, 135 ); comp. 13, 1453 a 25

τοῦτο δρᾷ ἐν ταῖς τραγῳδίαις

1449b16

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-193

μέρη : i.e. the constituents enumerated and distinguished in 6, 1449 b 31 sqq. . The parts peculiar to Tragedy are melody and 'spectacle' ( 24, 1459 b 10 ).

1449b17

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-194

διόπερ κτέ. Similarly in chaps. 23–24, before explaining the differences between epic poetry and Tragedy, Aristotle is at some pains to show that a good epic will have much the same structure as a good tragedy, and that in most respects the same canons of construction are applicable to it ( 23, 1459 a 17 — 24, 1459 b 17 ). The corollary ends at ἐπῶν; what follows ( μὲν γὰρ κτέ.) is a reason in support of the main statement (b 16).

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-195

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-196

1449b21 περὶ . . . τῆς ἐν ἑξαμέτροις μιμητικῆς : in chaps. 23–24 .

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-197

περὶ κωμῳδίας : in the lost Second Book of the Poetics.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-198

1449b23 ἀναλαβόντες : Top. 6. 14, 151 b 19

καλῶς εἰρημένον ὅρον ἀναλαβεῖν

. — Meteor. 1. 3, 339 a 33

ἀναλαβόντες οὖν τὰς ἐξ ἀρχῆς θέσεις . . λέγωμεν

. — 1. 8, 345 b 31

ἡμεῖς δὲ λέγωμεν ἀναλαβόντες τὴν ὑποκειμένην ἀρχὴν ἡμῖν

. — Rhet. 1. 13, 1373 b 27

ἀναλαβόντες τί ἐστι τὸ ἀδικεῖσθαι λέγωμεν

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-199

ὅρον τῆς οὐσίας : the definition of its essence, or essential nature; comp. Metaph. Z 13, 1039 a 19

δοκεῖ γε πᾶσι καὶ ἐλέχθη πάλαι ἢ μόνον εἶναι οὐσίας ὅρον ἢ μάλιστα

. — De part. an. 1. 1, 642 a 26

ὁρίσασθαι τὴν οὐσίαν

. — 4. 5, 678 a 34

τῷ λόγῳ... τῷ ὁρίζοντι τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῶν

1449b24

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-200

ἔστιν οὖν τραγῳδία κτέ. The definition, which is in logical form, per genus et differentias, professes to be a summary of points already established; and in its principal elements it is that. (1) That Tragedy is a μίμησις was said in 1, 1447 a 13 ; and that it is a μίμησις πράξεως is implied in 1, 1447 a 28 . (2) σπουδαίας, which differentiates Tragedy from Comedy, recalls chap. 2 and 4, 1448 b 34 — καὶ τελείας μέγεθος ἐχούσης being added in recognition apparently of the point indicated in 4, 1449 a 19 . (3) The means in Tragedy were noted in 1, 1447 b 24–28 ; and (4) the dramatic manner of its imitation in 3, 1448 a 23–28 . But for the concluding clause, on the effect of Tragedy on the emotions, we have not been prepared by anything in the earlier chapters. Aristotle no doubt regarded one part of it, δι᾽ ἐλέου καὶ φόβου, as self-evident, but the rest is presumably an anticipation of a point worked out at length in the lost Second Book of the Poetics. In just the same way we find him using the term προαιρετική in the definition of virtue in Eth. N. 2. 6, 1106 b 36 , and reserving the formal explanation of προαίρεσις for 3. 4, 1111 b 4 . This concluding clause is an integral part of the definition, since the end of the thing to be defined cannot be ignored in any logically complete statement of its nature ( De anima 1. 1, 403 a 25 ; Metaph. H 2, 1043 a 14 ).

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-201

1449b25 τελείας μέγεθος ἐχούσης The point is considered in chap. 7, where 'completeness' is said to imply a whole of some magnitude ( 7, 1450 b 24 ). We have not yet been told that the action in Tragedy must be a τελεία πρᾶξις, but from the explanatory μέγεθος ἐχούσης Aristotle would seem to regard the point as the natural consequence of the μέγεθος mentioned already in 4, 1449 a 19 as one of the characteristics of Tragedy proper. In that case the term distinguishes Tragedy proper with its complete and self-contained stories from the rudimentary Drama of an earlier period.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-202

ἡδυσμένῳ : Plato Rep. 607 A

εἰ δὲ τὴν ἡδυσμένην μοῦσαν παραδέξῃ ἐν μέλεσιν ἢ ἔπεσιν, ἡδονή σοι καὶ λύπη ἐν τῇ πόλει βασιλεύσετον

. The word is taken from cookery (comp. De sensu 4, 442 a 10 ). The nature of the metaphor may be seen, in the case of the substantive ἥδυσμα, from Aristotle's criticism of the style of Alcidamas in Rhet. 3. 3, 1406 a 19

οὐ γὰρ ἡδύσματι χρῆται ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐδέσματι τοῖς ἐπιθέτοις

('the sauce with him is the dish'). Said of language ἡδυσμένος implies the accession of something (here metre and music) to make it agreeable, just as κοσμηθῆναι in 4, 1449 a 29 meant the accession of something to make the work beautiful. An echo of this passage (comp. 6, 1450 b 11 ) may perhaps be recognized in Plutarch Erot. 769 C

λόγῳ ποίησις ἡδύσματα (τὰ) μέλη καὶ μέτρα καὶ ῥυθμοὺς ἐφαρμόσασα

, and also in Strabo 818 Cas.

φλυαροῦσιν ὥσπερ μέλος ἢ ῥυθμὸν [ἢ] ἥδυσμά τι τῷ λόγῳ τὴν τερατείαν προσφέροντες

. The metaphor reappears in Shakespeare, Hamlet 2. 2

I remember one said there were no sallets in the lines to make the matter savoury

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-203

ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰδῶν scil. τῶν ἡδυσμάτων, understood from ἡδυσμένῳ. Similarly in Isocrates 190 D

περὶ τούτων δηλῶσαι μὴ μόνον τοῖς τεταγμένοις ὀνόμασιν, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν ξένοις τὰ δὲ καινοῖς τὰ δὲ μεταφοραῖς, καὶ μηδὲν παραλιπεῖν ἀλλὰ πᾶσι τοῖς εἶδεσι διαποικίλαι τὴν ποίησιν

one may supply τῶν ὀνομάτων with εἶδεσι. For another instance of this allusive use of εἶδος see 25, 1461 b 22 . In what follows (b 29) ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰδῶν is replaced by τοῖς εἶδεσι ; the reading of the MS., ἑκάστου, seems to have arisen through χωρίς having been mistaken for a preposition. The juxtaposition of χωρίς and ἑκάστῳ is just like that in Pol. 7. 1, 1323 b 41

καὶ χωρὶς ἑκάστῳ καὶ κοινῇ ταῖς πόλεσιν

(comp.

χωρὶς ἕκαστον

in De caelo 2. 12, 292 a 13 , b 27) . The implied antithesis in the present passage is between 'each separately' ( χωρίς), and 'all together, and at once' ( ἅμα: comp. De gen. et corr. 1. 5, 322 a 13 , and Metaph. E 4, 1027 b 23 ). Tragedy (unlike the Dithyramb etc.) has the ἥδυσμα of metre in the dialogue, and that of melody only in the choral parts (see on 1, 1447 b 28 ). ἑκάστῳ, therefore, is loosely put for ἑκατέρῳ (comp. Pol. 3. 12, 1282 b 38 , and HSt. s. v. ).

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-204

1449b26 δρώντων scil. τῶν μιμουμένων , the subject being omitted as it is in 13, 1450 a 10 , 21, b 31, and 26, 1461 b 29 . Other Aristotelian instances of this ellipse with a gen. absolute may be seen in Bon. Ind. 149 b 29 . Tyrwhitt, with less probability, as it seems to me, supplies μίμησις with δρώντων, comparing 3, 1448 a 29

μιμοῦνται δρῶντας

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-205

οὐ δι᾿ ἀπαγγελίας scil. μιμουμένων.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-206

1449b27 δι᾽ ἐλέου καὶ φόβου means practically δι᾿ ἐλεεινῶν καὶ φοβερῶν, 'by piteous and alarming scenes'; comp. Goulston's paraphrase ,

'per misericordiam metumque factis expressum'

. The more abstract form of expression is adopted in order to prepare the way for τῶν τοιούτων παθημάτων. For the use of the preposition in this connexion comp.

διὰ μέτρων περαίνεσθαι

in b 30 . — De part. an. 3. 4, 666 a 15

περαίνονται [scil. αἱ κινήσεις] διὰ τοῦ ἕλκειν καὶ ἀνιέναι

. — Plato Gorg. 450 D

διὰ λόγου πᾶν περαίνουσι

. — Rep. 392 D

δι᾿ ἀμφοτέρων περαίνουσιν

(v. Bernays, Zwei Abhandl. p. 85 ). This excitement of pity and fear is, as far as the poet is concerned, the end of Tragedy, but it is in truth only a means to its ultimate end, its κάθαρσις of such emotions.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-207

τὴν τῶν τοιούτων παθημάτων κάθαρσιν 'its catharsis of such emotions' , just as ποιεῖσθαι τὴν μίμησιν ( 1, 1447 a 22 ; 6, 1449 b 31 ) means 'to make their imitation', and ποιεῖν τὴν ἡδονήν ( 4, 1448 b 18 ), 'to produce its pleasure' (comp. 4, 1448 b 7 , and Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 1 p. 593 ). The article, in fact, is not so otiose as is usually supposed. This interpretation of the article removes more than one of the preliminary difficulties in this much debated passage, the implication being that a cathartic effect is not peculiar to Tragedy; so that the text is seen at once to stand in close relation to the passage in Pol. 8. 7 (v. Fr. V), in which the existence of several forms of catharsis is affirmed. Aristotle recognizes there a catharsis of 'enthusiasm' effected by certain kinds of music, as well as a catharsis of pity and fear effected by Tragedy ; and there is reason to think that a catharsis of laughter also must have been similarly posited as the effect and ultimate justification of Comedy in the lost Second Book of the Poetics. τῶν τοιούτων παθημάτων, therefore, is a general expression for this whole group of disturbing emotions (enthusiasm, pity, fear, etc.), instead of being, as is so often thought, either limited to the two emotions (pity and fear) which appear in the context, or applying to the emotions in general. The great difficulty, however, in this formula is as to the interpretation of κάθαρσις. Is the term to be understood as a physiological metaphor, in the sense of 'purging', or 'clearing away' ; or as a metaphor from the religious rite of lustration, in the sense of 'purification'? The ancient evidence, in Aristotle and elsewhere, is to my mind very decidedly in favour of the first interpretation. I. This, the pathological interpretation, as it may be called, is now generally associated with the names of Weil (1848) and Bernays (1857), who each independently arrived at a very similar conclusion. It is in reality much older; all its essential points in fact are to be found in Tyrwhitt's note on the present passage :

'Satis apparet, Aristotelem hic regulam de tragoedia tragica instituisse, qua scilicet probaret affectus misericordiae et metus, qui in tragoediis vehementissime excitantur, non ex eo nutriri et validiores effici, quod Plato criminabatur, sed contra levari et exhauriri; et proinde affectuum horum purgationem opus esse proprium et quasi finem Tragoediae; cum caeterae Poesis species vel ad doctrinam, vel ad delectationem magis aptae sint.'

. To understand Aristotle's position we have to go back to Plato's condemnation of the Drama in the Tenth Book of the Republic. One of Plato's points is, that the Drama appeals mainly to two of the inferior elements in the soul, our faculty for grief ( τὸ θρηνῶδες, τὸ ἐλεεινόν) and our faculty for laughter ; and that its effect is to gratify these at the expense of the reason, and ultimately to weaken or nullify the self-control prescribed by reason ( Rep. 605 c-606 c ). As a view like this, supported by so great a name, could hardly be ignored by Aristotle in an Art of Poetry based throughout on the assumption of the legitimacy of the Drama, and of the emotional effects it aims at, his catharsis theory may very well be supposed to have been intended as his answer to the Platonic indictment. Though the formal exposition of the theory, as it was to be read in the complete Poetics, is no longer before us, it is still possible to recover some idea of it from the two statements in the Politics on the 'cathartic' effect of certain kinds of music. In Pol. 8. 6, 1341 a 21 , as a reason for leaving the flute to professionals, instead of making it part of a liberal education for all, Aristotle explains that the flute, instead of having an 'ethical' effect, is simply orgiastic or exciting, and to be kept for the times when the hearing of music is a 'catharsis' rather than a form of instruction:

οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ αὐλὸς ἠθικὸν ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ὀργιαστικόν, ὥστε πρὸς τοὺς τοιούτους αὐτῷ καιροὺς χρηστέον ἐν οἷς ἡ θεωρία κάθαρσιν μᾶλλον δύναται ἢ μάθησιν

. It will be seen that a sharp distinction is drawn here between the emotional effect of the flute, and the 'ethical' effect of certain other kinds of music ; and that κάθαρσις is in Aristotle's view connected with the former rather than with the latter. A much more important passage, however, is that in Pol. 8. 7, 1341 b 32 , which will be found in extenso among the Fragments of the Poetics (Fr. V). It begins by assuming a current division of 'airs' into ἠθικά, πρακτικά, καὶ ἐνθουσιαστικὰ μέλη, and a similar classification of 'harmonies' or modes. The distinction here is between (1) the music that imitates character, and has thus a reflex influence on the character of the hearer (comp. Pol. 8. 5, 1340 b ); (2) that which imitates action (comp. Plato Rep. 399 A ), and moves us to it ; and (3) that which imitates, and so arouses in us, the orgy of emotion termed by the Greeks 'enthusiasm'. The most 'ethical' harmonies may be practised by all, as a regular part of their lives; whereas the other two kinds are to be left to professionals. This tolerance of the 'enthusiastic harmonies' in a well-ordered state Aristotle justifies by showing that they stand in much the same position as Tragedy. There are certain emotions, he tells us, which arise in some degree in every man's soul, and in a disquieting degree ( ἰσχυρῶς) in certain of us, e.g. pity and fear. Enthusiasm is one of these disturbing emotions. Experience, however, shows that the enthusiastic music (that of the hymns of Olympus, for instance) has a salutary effect on those subject to accesses ( κατοκώχιμοι) of enthusiasm, restoring them to a normal condition of calm and peace ( καθισταμένους: comp. Bon. Ind. 356 a 35 and 375 a 8 ), just as though they had undergone a cure or catharsis at the hands of a physician ( ὥσπερ ἰατρείας τυχόντας καὶ καθάρσεως). The same sort of treatment ( πάσχειν) is required by other emotional natures also, e.g. by those liable to accesses of pity and fear, and by the rest of mankind likewise, in so far as they have a share in these feelings ; all want a certain catharsis, a pleasurable relief ( κουφίζεσθαι) from emotion. And it is in just the same way (i.e. by the relief they bring) that the cathartic airs give a harmless delight to mankind. The sense of κάθαρσις in the Politics is well explained by Sepulveda in his note on 8. 6, 1341 a 23 :

'Purgatio intelligitur expulsio cuiuspiam affectus'

; and again in that on 8. 7, 1342 a 6 ( τῷ δὲ ἧττον διαφέρει καὶ τῷ μᾶλλον):

'Itaque plus et minus, tamen omnes moventur affectibus, a quibus iucunde per musicam sanantur et quasi medicamento quodam adhibito purgantur'

(comp. J. of Phil. 27 p. 269 ). The term in fact is a metaphor from medicine, as Aristotle intimates by making it a synonym for ἰατρεία ( ὥσπερ ἰατρείας τυχόντας καὶ καθάρσεως), in a context too which presents a whole series of words which either have, or may have, a medical meaning ( πάθος, πάσχειν, ἰσχυρῶς, κίνησις, κατοκώχιμοι, καθισταμένους, κουφίζεσθαι, καθαρτικά). In Greek physiology and pathology κάθαρσις is a very general term for a physical clearance or discharge, the removal by art or an effort of nature of some bodily product (some περίττωμα, as Aristotle would call it), which, if allowed to remain, would cause discomfort or harm. The κάθαρσις of the soul as described in the Politics is a similar process in reference to certain emotions ( πάθη)—the tacit assumption being apparently that the emotions in question are analogous to those peccant humours in the body which, according to the ancient humoral theory of medicine, have to be expelled from the system by the appropriate κάθαρσις. With some adaptation of the statements and hints in Pol. 8. 7 , as thus interpreted, it is not difficult to recover the outlines at any rate of the Aristotelian theory of the cathartic effect of Tragedy: Pity and fear are elements in human nature, and in some men ( τοὺς ἐλεήμονας καὶ τοὺς φοβητικούς) they are present in a disquieting degree ( ἰσχυρῶς). With these latter the tragic excitement is a necessity ( ἀναγκαῖον πάσχειν) ; but it is also in a certain sense good for all. It serves as a sort of medicine, producing a catharsis to lighten and relieve the soul ( κουφίζεσθαι) of the accumulated emotion within it ; and as the relief is wanted, there is always a harmless pleasure attending the process of relief. This, then, may be taken as Aristotle's answer to the Platonic argument in the Republic ; it shows that the pleasure we derive from the moving scenes in Tragedy is not, as Plato had maintained, a demoralizing, but on the contrary a harmless pleasure, ( χαρὰ ἀβλαβής). The legitimacy of this pleasure is assumed throughout the Poetics (see especially 14, 1453 b 11 ), but its precise nature is not explained, either in the existing book or elsewhere, by Aristotle. It falls naturally enough, however, into its place in the classification of pleasures in the Nicomachean Ethics, which recognizes the existence of a class of things as pleasurable not directly and in themselves, but through their effect, as being of the nature of cures or remedies ( ἰατρεῖαι) to remove the disquietude arising from an unsatisfied want, and restore us to a normal condition of body or mind ( Eth. N. 7. 13, 1152 b 34 ; 7. 15, 1154 b 17 ). The tragic excitement, which in the language of the Politics, acts as an ἰατρεία or κάθαρσις, is clearly a pleasure of this kind, one of those described by Aristotle as ἰατρεύοντα ἡδέα. A further point in his idea of κάθαρσις may perhaps be noticed, as suggested at any rate by his use of the term to express the effect of Tragedy on the mind. A catharsis in the medical sense of the word is an ἰατρεία, and only for occasional use ; and its analogue, the παθημάτων κάθαρσις, may very well be presumed to resemble it in this respect. In assuming Tragedy, therefore, to have a cathartic rather than a permanent moral effect, Aristotle would seem to have been mindful of the position of the Drama in Greek life, and to have seen that the dramatic performances in the theatre were not sufficiently frequent or continuous to generate a moral habit, or make a lasting impression for good or evil on character—a point overlooked not only by Plato but also by Lessing and most of the modern interpreters of the Aristotelian theory of Tragedy (comp. E. Müller, Theorie der Kunst bei den Alten 2 p. 378 ). In the phrase παθημάτων κάθαρσις the genitive after κάθαρσις, denoting the object purged away or removed, is a construction not uncommon in Aristotle's physiological writings (v. Bon. Ind. 354 b 22 ); and it is found also in other authors, e.g. Hippocrates 1 p. 104 K.

πτυέλων καθάρσεις

. — p. 654

καθάρσεις τοῦ θερμοῦ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος

. — 3 p. 502

τῶν ἀπὸ πλευμόνων καθάρσεις

. — Thucydides 2. 49

ἀποκαθάρσεις χολῆς

. — Demosthenes 64. 12

κάθαρσις αἵματος

. — Polybius 5. 100. 6

ἀνακάθαρσις πτώματος

. The same construction is found with κάθαρσις (etc.) in its metaphorical application to the analogous process in the mind: Plato Phaed. 69 B

κάθαρσίς τις τῶν τοιούτων πάντων

, 'a purging away of all such things' (Jowett), where the object purged away or removed is shown by the context to be certain affections of the soul ( ἡδονῶν καὶ φόβων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πάντων τῶν τοιούτων). — Plutarch De cap. ex inimicis utilit. 91 F

τῶν παθῶν τούτων ποιούμενος εἰς τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἀποκαθάρσεις

. — Iamblichus De myst. 1. 12

κάθαρσις παθῶν

. — Hierocles in Aur. carm. p. 124 (Needham)

ἡ τῶν λυμαινομένων παθῶν ἐκκάθαρσις

. — p. 134

κάθαρσις τῆς οἰήσεως

. — p. 194

ἀποκάθαρσις νείκους

. Aristotle's τὴν τῶν τοιούτων παθημάτων κάθαρσιν may perhaps be an unconscious reminiscence of the phrase in Plato. The idea of κάθαρσις, in the sense of a working-off of emotion brought about by something that excites emotion, was not unknown in late Greek literature ; it is recognized in reference to music by Plutarch and Aristides Quintilianus, and in reference to the Drama by Iamblichus and Proclus. The theories reproduced by these writers are clearly of Peripatetic origin, and on exactly the same lines as the Aristotelian justification of the emotional forms of music and of the Drama in the brief statement in the Politics. (1) In his very curious chapter on the ἀκροθώρακες, on whom wine is said to have a sedative effect, Plutarch illustrates the paradox ( Qu. conv. 3. 8, 657 A ) by a parallel instance, that of the sad airs at funerals, which, while exciting the grief of the mourners, at the same time work off their sorrow:—

ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ θρηνῳδία καὶ ὁ ἐπικήδειος αὐλὸς ἐν ἀρχῇ πάθος κινεῖ καὶ δάκρυον ἐκβάλλει [ἐκκαλεῖ Emperius], προάγων δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν εἰς οἶκτον οὕτω κατὰ μικρὸν ἐξαιρεῖ [ἐξερᾶ Bernays] καὶ ἀναλίσκει τὸ λυπητικόν· ὁμοίως ἴδοις ἂν καὶ τὸν οἶνον, ὅταν σφόδρα ταράξῃ καὶ παροξύνῃ τὸ ἀκμαῖον καὶ θυμοειδές, αὖθις καταδύοντα [? καταλύοντα], καὶ καθιστάντα τὴν διάνοιαν ὡς πορρωτέρω μέθης προϊοῦσαν ἡσυχάζειν

. (2) The language in Aristides Quintilianus De Musica 3. 25 (p. 13 Jahn) , on the cathartic effect of the music and dancing in the Bacchic and other mysteries, has a more distinctly Aristotelian imprint on it:—

διὸ καὶ τὰς Βακχικὰς τελετὰς καὶ ὅσαι ταύταις παραπλήσιοι λόγου τινὸς ἔχεσθαί φασιν, ὅπως ἂν ἡ τῶν ἀμαθεστέρων πτοίησις διὰ βίον ἢ τύχην ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν ταύταις μελῳδιῶν τε καὶ ὀρχήσεων ἅμα παιδιαῖς ἐκκαθαίρηται

. (3) There are two passages in Iamblichus, which may serve to illustrate the Aristotelian idea of κάθαρσις. In De myst. 3. 9 (ed. Parthey) , writing as a Neoplatonic occultist against the naturalistic explanation of enthusiasm, he insists that it is an error to regard the effect of the enthusiastic music as being of the nature of a mere ἀποκάθαρσις, a working-off or evacuation ( ἀπέρασις) of some morbid product within the soul :—

ἀπέρασιν δὲ καὶ ἀποκάθαρσιν ἰατρείαν τε οὐδαμῶς αὐτὸ κλητέον, οὐδὲ γὰρ κατὰ νόσημά τι ἢ πλεονασμὸν ἢ περίττωμα πρώτως ἐν ἡμῖν ἐμφύεται, θεία δε αὐτοῦ συνίσταται ἡ πᾶσα ἄνωθεν ἀρχὴ καὶ καταβολή

. There is reason to think that the theory thus set aside was that of Theophrastus, and, through him, of Aristotle. And it will be seen how completely the language of the above passage harmonizes with the pathological interpretation of the formula, ὥσπερ ἰατρείας τυχόντας καὶ καθάρσεως in the Politics. The second passage is in De myst. 1. 11 :—

αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων παθημάτων τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν πάντῃ μὲν εἰργόμεναι καθίστανται σφοδρότεραι, εἰς ἐνέργειαν δὲ βραχεῖαν [so Bernay's; βραχεῖς vulg.] καὶ ἄχρι τοῦ συμμέτρου προαγόμενοι χαίρουσι μετρίως καὶ ἀποπληροῦνται, καὶ ἐντεῦθεν ἀποκαθαιρόμεναι πειθοῖ καὶ οὐ πρὸς βίαν ἀναπαύονται. διὰ δὴ τοῦτο ἔν τε κωμῳδίᾳ καὶ τραγῳδίᾳ ἀλλότρια πάθη θεωροῦντες ἵσταμεν τὰ οἰκεῖα πάθη καὶ μετριώτερα ἀπεργαζόμεθα καὶ ἀποκαθαίρομεν

. The theory Iamblichus is accepting for the moment is that the passions cannot be suppressed for any length of time with impunity ; that they require an occasional outlet (comp. ἀποκαθαιρόμεναι) to keep them quiet ; and that the secret of our interest in the Drama is that it serves to work off emotion ( τὰ οἰκεῖα πάθη ἀποκαθαίρομεν). It is clear that Iamblichus must have had a pathological explanation of the effect of the Drama before him. But he has taken the edge off the Aristotelian theory by giving it an ethical turn; it will be seen that he makes the catharsis of passions mean the same thing as the moderation of them ( μετριώτερα ἀπεργαζόμεθα καὶ ἀποκαθαίρομεν), thus anticipating by many centuries the interpretation of παθημάτων κάθαρσις now usually associated with the names of Heinsius and Lessing. (4) The cathartic effect of the Drama is one of the many controversial points discussed by Proclus in his commentary on Plato's Republic. The passages bearing on it will be found quoted under Fr. V. According to Proclus the Aristotelian answer to Plato was that the Drama serves a useful purpose as an outlet for emotions which would disturb the peace of the soul, if their just claims were not recognized and from time to time duly satisfied by means of some such gratification as is supplied in the theatre. This view of the effect of the Drama Proclus attributes to Aristotle ; his reference, however, to other apologists for the Drama may make one hesitate to believe him to have found it for himself in the now lost Second Book of the Poetics. The statement in its existing form seems rather to have been taken from some follower of Aristotle, possibly from Theophrastus, its phraseology representing the sense rather than the words of the Aristotelian original. Disengaged from its Neoplatonic surroundings in Iamblichus and Proclus, the catharsis theory before them may be thus reconstructed in outline: The Drama has a therapeutic (comp. Proclus τὸ πεπονηκὸς αὐτῶν θεραπεύσαντας) rather than a directly moral effect ; and the excitement it supplies is required by us at times (comp. Proclus δεόμενα δέ τινος ἐν καιρῷ κινήσεως) to carry off (comp. παθῶν ἀπεράσεις in both Iamblichus and Proclus) or purge away (comp. Iamblichus πάθη ἀποκαθαίρομεν) certain emotions, and relieve the soul of the disquietude they would cause (comp. Proclus ἀνενοχλήτους ἡμᾶς ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ... ποιεῖν), if defrauded of the satisfaction naturally due to them (comp. Proclus πρὸς ἀφοσίωσιν τῶν παθῶν). The whole theory in fact is simply a fuller and more complete version of that we still have in brief in the Politics, with ἀποκάθαρσις or ἀπέρασις in place of the primitive Aristotelian term, κάθαρσις. II. Notwithstanding the arguments of Weil and Bernays, the old interpretation of παθημάτων κάθαρσις, which makes it mean the 'purification' of certain passions, is far from being extinct even in our own day. Κάθαρσις is supposed to be a metaphor from the religious rite of purification, whereby the hand or soul was cleansed from some pollution or stain of sin. Understood in this sense, therefore, the term would naturally imply that certain passions require 'purification' from something, i.e. from something more or less of the nature of an impurity. What this element of impurity is, and in what sense the emotions in question are supposed to become 'pure', are points on which there is no slight divergence of opinion among the upholders of this interpretation of κάθαρσις. The principal explanations which have been propounded may be roughly distinguished and classified as follows: (1) Tragedy is said to purify pity and fear, because the frequent excitement of these emotions in the theatre has a tendency to weaken their force, and thus moderate and reduce them to just measure (Heinsius, Milton, Lessing, etc.). (2) The lessons and examples in Tragedy have a purifying and moderating effect on pity, fear, and other evil passions (Victorius, etc.). (3) The tragic pity and fear are regarded as pure, because they are aroused not by real suffering, but only by the imaginary woes of the theatre; so that there is no admixture of pain in them (Batteux, etc.). (4) They are regarded as pure, because, as aroused by Tragedy, they are disinterested emotions, with no self-regarding element in them (Brandis, Susemihl). (5) They are pure, because the sublimity of Tragedy exalts pity and fear into high and noble forms of feeling (Hermann). The first of these, the only view that calls for serious consideration, has an especial interest for us owing to the fact that in the eighteenth century it found a very distinguished exponent in Lessing. It must be admitted, however, that Lessing himself did little more than expand the old idea of 'moderating' the passions, and translate it back into the language of the Nicomachean Ethics. 'The tragic purification of the passions,' he says, 'consists merely in the conversion of pity and fear into virtuous habits of mind'.

'Da nämlich, es kurz zu sagen, diese Reinigung in nichts anderm beruht, als in der Verwandlung der Leidenschaften in tugendhafte Fertigkeiten, bei jeder Tugend aber, nach unserm Philosophen, sich dies diesseits und jenseits ein Extrem findet, zwischen welchem sie inne steht: so muss die Tragödie, wenn sie unser Mitleid in Tugend verwandeln soll, uns von beiden Extremen des Mitleids zu reinigen vermögend sein; welches auch von der Furcht zu verstehen'

( Hamb. Dram. St. 78 ). As Heinsius had said something very like this long before him, Lessing's originality here is not so marked as his power of statement. The whole theory, as stated even by Lessing, is open to many and very grave objections. (1) It confuses two distinct things, the purification of a feeling and the purification of the soul from a feeling. (2) It confuses the ideas of 'pure' and 'moderate', though there is no direct logical or other relation between them; excess or defect in certain matters may be a fault, but they cannot be termed 'impurities'. (3) It rests on a false hypothesis as to the position of Tragedy in the social life of ancient Greece; the performance of Tragedy was too occasional to have a marked and abiding effect on the moral character of the hearers. (4) Even if the tragic excitement of emotion be supposed to have been sufficiently frequent to produce a habit, it does not follow that the resulting habit would be one of moderation in the matter of feeling; we have no right to suppose that the habitual indulgence of strong emotion (e.g. pity and fear) will weaken its force or reduce it to just measure. Habits according to Aristotle arise from corresponding activities, Eth. N. 2. 1 p. 1103 b 21

ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων ἐνεργειῶν αἱ ἕξεις γίνονται

. We should expect, therefore, that the strong emotion aroused by Tragedy would, if habitualized by repetition, end in a habit of strong emotion, not in a habit of subdued or moderate emotion, not in that mean state of feeling which Aristotle identifies with virtue. The primary error, however, in this and similar interpretations of παθημάτων κάθαρσις is that it reads a directly moral meaning into the term, as though the theatre were a school, and the tragic poet a teacher, of morality. That, however, is not Aristotle's theory; the great function of the tragic poet, he thinks, is to excite certain emotions, and procure us the pleasure that must accompany such excitement ( Poet. 14, 1453 b 11 ). This pleasurable excitement of emotion, in fact, is with him the end and aim of Tragedy, so far as the poet himself is concerned. The statesman, however, viewing human nature and society as a whole, is able to look beyond all this, and see the ultimate justification of the existence of Tragedy. In the Politics, accordingly, Aristotle recognizes the usefulness of Tragedy, explaining that it supplies a natural want, as a sort of catharsis of emotion, which as emotional creatures men require from time to time to keep their souls in health and quietude. This is a reasonable apology for Tragedy, and a sufficient answer to Plato's criticism. One may perhaps also say of it, that it is more consonant with fact and experience than the moral or disciplinary purpose which many still profess to regard as the true raison d'étre of the theatre.

1449b29

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-208

ἁρμονίαν καὶ μέλος The και is explanatory, μέλος being added as a synonym to explain ἁρμονία (v. on 1, 1447 a 22 ).

1449b30

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-209

διὰ μέτρων is opposed to διὰ μέλους: comp. Probl. 19. 31, 920 b 12

διὰ τὸ πολλαπλάσια εἶναι τότε τὰ μέλη ἐν ταῖς τραγῳδίαις τῶν μέτρων

. — Plato Symp. 187 D

μέλεσί τε καὶ μέτροις

. — Lysis 205 A

οὗ τι τῶν μέτρων δέομαι ἀκοῦσαι οὐδὲ μέλος

. — Isocrates 191 B

ταῖς ᾠδαῖς καὶ τοῖς μέτροις

1449b31

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-210

πράττοντες ποιοῦνται τὴν μίμησιν scil. οἱ μιμούμενοι. Aristotle is thinking not of the poet but of the performers, who tell the story by acting it on the stage (v. on 3, 1448 a 23 ). πράττοντες recalls the idea of the δρώντων in the preceding definition of Tragedy.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-211

1449b33 ὁ τῆς ὄψεως κόσμος ὄψις is usually rendered by 'spectaculum,' 'apparatus,' 'scenery,' or mise en scène; according to Twining it comprehends 'scenery, dresses—the whole visible apparatus of the theatre'. This explanation is too wide; the reference is merely to the visible appearance of the actors when got up in character by the σκευοποιός or costumier (see on 6, 1450 b 20 ). Aristotle accordingly more than once uses the word in a concrete sense in the plural, because each of the characters would require a special and distinctive make-up. The formula ὁ τῆς ὄψεως κόσμος implies that the visible make-up of the actors is of the nature of a decorative adjunct (v. on 4, 1449 a 29 ), a mere accessory to the poet's work (v. 6, 1450 b 16 ), on which he, as an artist, has no right to rely for his effects (v. 14, 1453 b 7 ). The term ὄψις like many other technical words in the Poetics was probably already familiar in this sense in the language of the theatre (comp. Festschrift Theodor Gomperz dargebracht p. 166 ).

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-212

μελοποιία (properly the making of μέλη) replaces the original term μέλος as a synonym for it; comp. 6, 1450 b 16 , and Pol. 8. 7, 1341 b 23

τὴν μουσικὴν ὁρῶμεν διὰ μελοποιίας καὶ ῥυθμῶν οὖσαν

1449b34

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-213

λέγω δὲ λέξιν μὲν ταύτην is to be compared with

λέγω γὰρ μῦθον τοῦτον

in 6, 1450 a 4 (v. ad loc.). A definition is given because λέξις is a term with several meanings (v. on 21, 1459 a 12 ). The present definition describes the λέξις in a play in reference to the poet, as the 'composition of the verses'; that which comes later on, in 6, 1450 b 13 , views it rather from the side of the dramatic personages, as the 'expression of their thought in words'.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-214

1449b35 μέτρων has the concrete sense of 'verses', like τοῖς μέτροις in 1, 1447 b 29 (comp. on b 30 ).

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-215

1449b36 πᾶσαν πᾶσιν, the emendation of Madius, may perhaps seem to be supported by the fragment of Democritus ( fr. 165 Diels ),

ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν ὃ πάντες ἴσμεν

. But no change is really wanted; instead of defining μελοποιία Aristotle thinks it enough to say that its whole nature is too obvious to require explanation.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-216

ἐπεὶ δὲ πράξεώς ἐστι κτέ. Comp. μίμησις πράξεως in the preceding definition. Having spoken of the externals of a tragedy, its ὄψις, λέξις and μελοποιία, Aristotle passes on to elements of another kind, those which constitute its internal content. The subject in a tragedy is an action with the personages concerned therein as agents. The μῦθος, the fable or plot of the play, represents the action as such; the ἦθος and διάνοια manifested in the language of the dramatis personae represent the personality of the agents. Oedipus, for instance, is in a poem only a name for a certain group of qualities, moral and intellectual, which his actions and the language put into his mouth reveal to us (comp. 9, 1451 b 7 ).

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-217

ποιούς τινας εἶναι κατά τε τὸ ἦθος καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν Intellectual as well as moral states are included under ποιότητες ( Cat. 8, 8 b 29 ). A little further on, however, in 1450 a 5 , Aristotle uses the term ποιούς τινας as though it naturally referred rather to the ἦθος or moral character. For the antithesis between ἦθος and διάνοια comp. Pol. 8. 1, 1337 a 38

οὐδὲ φανερὸν πότερον πρὸς τὴν διάνοιαν πρέπει μᾶλλον ἢ πρὸς τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἦθος

, and the distinction assumed throughout the Nicomachean Ethics and elsewhere between the ἠθικαί and the διανοητικαὶ ἀρεταί.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-218

1450a1 πέφυκεν begins the apodosis. There are thus in the natural order of things, says Aristotle, two distinguishable factors in the action of the individual agent, his ἦθος and his διάνοια; these are the inner causes of men's actions, and of the success or failure of their lives. πέφυκεν is, like the Platonic φύσιν ἔχει ( Rep. 473 C , 489 B ), impersonal. Vahlen illustrates this usage from Pol. 2. 2, 1261 b 7

οὔτε πέφυκε μίαν οὕτως εἶναι τὴν πόλιν

. — 4. 12, 1296 b 26

ἐνταῦθα πέφυκεν εἶναι δημοκρατίαν

, and Demosthenes 14, 30

τὰς κρήνας καὶ τὰ φρέατα ἐπιλείπειν πέφυκεν

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-219

1450a2 κατὰ ταύτας =

κατὰ τὰς πράξεις

; comp. a 19

κατὰ δὲ τὰς πράξεις εὐδαίμονες ἢ τοὐναντίον

1450a3

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-220

τῆς μὲν πράξεως ὁ μῦθος ἡ μίμησις To complete the statement Aristotle might very well have added a clause like

τῶν δὲ πραττόντων τὰ ἤθη καὶ αἱ διάνοιαι

; and it has been suggested ( J. of Phil. 5 p. 119 ) that these words or something equivalent must have dropped out. In a context like the present, however, this second point may have been left to be mentally supplied by the reader (comp. Vahlen ad loc.), as the emphatic mention of the first point ( τῆς μὲν πράξεως κτέ.) is enough to suggest it (comp. De interpr. 14, 23 b 30 , and Waitz ad loc.). For this use of μέν solitarium comp. 26, 1462 b 5 , and Waitz on An. pr. 2. 11, 61 b 19 .

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-221

1450a4 τοῦτον (= τοῦτο) is preparative and explained by τὴν σύνθεσιν τῶν πραγμάτων. The assimilation of gender has been a stumbling-block to Madius and others, though found again in 22, 1458 a 26

αἰνίγματός τε γὰρ ἰδέα αὕτη ἐστί, τὸ λέγοντα ὑπάρχοντα ἀδύνατα συνάψαι

(comp. Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 1 p. 74 ).

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-222

1450a6 διάνοιαν scil. εἶναι λέγω. Instead of attempting a definition, Aristotle evades the difficulty by saying that διάνοια is manifested in the argumentative and reflective utterances of the dramatis personae (comp. infra b 11 ). The statement here is merely provisional, as one may see by comparing the fuller exposition in 19, 1456 a 34 — b 8 —where we are told among other things that the διάνοια of a personage may be shown in his actions as well as in his words. Διάνοια in the sense it bears in the Poetics is, like ἦθος, an element in the personality of the dramatis personae. It is their intellectual capacity, as evinced in their language (or it may be, in their actions), and it is to be seen whenever they argue or make an appeal to the feelings of their hearers, in other words, when they reason or plead with one of the other dramatis personae in the same sort of way as a rhetor might do. Hence it is that the general theory of the διάνοια in a play is said ( 19, 1456 a 34 ) to belong to Rhetoric rather than Poetry; and a speech with a great display of διάνοια in it is a rhetorical speech (v. on b 6 ). The term answering to Aristotle's διάνοια in Isocrates is ἐνθυμήματα, 'arguments': Isocr. 191 B

μετὰ μέτρων καὶ ῥυθμῶν ἅπαντα ποιοῦσιν . . . τοσαύτην ἔχει χάριν, ὥστ᾿ ἂν καὶ τῇ λέξει καὶ τοῖς ἐνθυμήμασιν . . . ἔχῃ κακῶς, ὅμως αὐταῖς ταῖς εὐρυθμίαις καὶ ταῖς συμμετρίαις ψυχαγωγοῦσι τοὺς ἀκούοντας

. — 319 D

καὶ γὰρ τῇ λέξει ποιητικωτέρᾳ καὶ ποικιλωτέρᾳ τὰς πράξεις δηλοῦσι, καὶ τοῖς ἐνθυμήμασιν ὀγκωδεστέροις καὶ καινοτέροις χρῆσθαι ζητοῦσιν

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-223

λέγοντες : comp. b 6

ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων

, and b 7

πολιτικῶς ἐποίουν λέγοντας

. Aristotle is thinking more immediately of the ῥήσεις in a tragedy, and of the intellectual, i. e. the rhetorical or argumentative, capacity they may reveal in the personages.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-224

1450a7 ἀποδεικνύασίν τι :

ἀποδεικνύουσί τι ὡς ἔστιν ἢ ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν

. — 19, 1456 a 37

τό τε ἀποδεικνύναι καὶ τὸ λύειν

. — Rhet. 1. 1, 1355 a 5

ἡ δὲ πίστις ἀπόδειξίς τις· τότε γὰρ πιστεύομεν μάλιστα ὅταν ἀποδεδεῖχθαι ὑπολάβωμεν

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-225

ἢ καὶ ἀποφαίνονται γνώμην The equivalent in b 12 is the more general expression,

καθόλου τι ἀποφαίνονται

, but it is hardly worth while to bring the two passages into unison by restoring here (with Bernays, Zwei Abhandl. p. 155 ) ἢ καθόλου ἀποφαίνονται, on the assumption that γνώμην may have come in as a gloss. A γνώμη as defined in the Rhetoric is a maxim, or general proposition relating to the conduct of life: Rhet. 2. 21, 1394 a 21

ἔστι δὲ γνώμη ἀπόφανσις, οὐ μέντοι περὶ τῶν καθ᾿ ἕκαστον, οἷον ποιός τις Ιφικράτης, ἀλλὰ καθόλου· καὶ οὐ περὶ πάντων καθόλου, οἷον ὅτι τὸ εὐθὺ τῷ καμπύλῳ ἐναντίον, ἀλλὰ περὶ ὅσων αἱ πράξεις εἰσί, καὶ αἱρετὰ ἢ φευκτά ἐστι πρὸς τὸ πράττειν

. The corresponding Latin term was sententia: Quintilian 8. 5. 3

Antiquissimae sunt quae proprie . . . sententiae vocantur, quas Graeci γνώμας appellant: utrumque autem nomen ex eo acceperunt, quod similes sunt consiliis aut decretis

1450a8

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-226

μέρη εἶναι ἕξ An answer to the question announced in 1, 1447 a 10

ἐκ πόσων καὶ ποίων ἐστὶ μορίων

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-227

καθ᾿ ὃ ποιά τις ἐστὶν ἡ τραγῳδία The word μέρος being ambiguous ( Metaph. Δ 25, 1023 b 12 ; Ζ 10, 1034 b 32 ), this clause had to be added to mark the distinction between the 'parts' at present under consideration and those to be enumerated hereafter in chap. 12. The parts here described are the formative constituents of a tragedy; whereas those defined in chap. 12 are the sections into which it is divided. It is through these various formative constituents that we are able to speak of a tragedy as ποία τις—as good or bad, as ἠθική or πεπλεγμένη or παθητική, or whatever else it may be said to be, when we come to judge of its quality.

1450a12

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-228

οὐκ ὀλίγοι αὐτῶν =

οὐκ ὀλίγοι τῶν ποιητῶν

. The ὡς εἰπεῖν which follows should perhaps be transposed and inserted after πᾶν in the next line. Of the many emendations that have been propounded the simplest certainly is that of Bursian, οὐκ ὀλίγοι αὐτῶν 〈ἀλλὰ πάντες〉, on which that formerly suggested by myself, ὀλίγου αὐτῶν 〈ἅπαντες〉 ( J. of Phil. 14 p. 44 ), was based. οὐκ ὀλίγοι αὐτῶν, however, has on it a certain stamp of genuineness. The sense seems to be this: The six parts are in the nature of things possible elements in every tragedy, so to say; and due use has been made of them by not a few of the poets. The statement may be compared with those in a 25 , 36, and 18, 1456 a 3 , where the existence is recognized of plays weak or deficient in some of the parts. For the sense of ἔχει in this passage (='admits of', 'has in it the possibility of') comp. 2, 1448 a 7 ; and for the distinction between it and κέχρηνται, Eth. N. 7. 4, 1146 b 32

ὁ ἔχων μὲν οὐ χρώμενος δὲ τῇ ἐπιστήμῃ

. — 1147 a 1

ἔχοντα μὲν ἀμφοτέρας [scil. τὰς προτάσεις] οὐδὲν κωλύει πράττειν παρὰ τὴν ἐπιστήμην, χρώμενον μέντοι τῇ καθόλου ἀλλὰ μὴ τῇ κατὰ μέρος

(comp. Bon. Ind. 854 b 37 ).

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-229

1450a13 εἴδεσι : see on 4, 1449 a 7 .

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-230

ὄψεις : see on 6, 1449 b 33 .

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-231

πᾶν , i. e. every play; comp. 12, 1452 a 18

ἁπάντων

. — 18, 1456 a 31

ἐξ ἄλλου εἰς ἄλλο

1450a15

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-232

μέγιστον κτέ. Aristotle proceeds at this point to arrange the six elements in the order of their relative importances; and he begins by asserting, with an abundance of reasons which seems to imply that it was a subject of controversy at the time, the supreme importance of the μῦθος. As it is the first duty of a tragedy to represent an action, the μῦθος or story of action in it must be the first and most essential element in its construction. The characters, i.e. the personal agents, are mainly required in order to work out the story, and as means to that end; so that this element is to be deemed of secondary and subordinate significance as compared with the μῦθος. The paramount importance of plot in Drama has been re-asserted with equal emphasis in our own time by an eminent living dramatist: 'The idea, the plot, always comes first. The plot, in a sense, is nine-tenths of a play' ( H. A. Jones, Strand Magazine 34 p. 379 ).

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-233

ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων σύστασις = ὁ μῦθος. As the action in a tragedy is a whole of some magnitude (comp. 4, 1449 a 19 ; 6, 1449 b 25 ), it must have a plurality of incidents ( πράγματα) embodied in it. What Aristotle means by a combination of incidents may be seen from his synopses of the Iphigenia and Odyssey in 17, 1455 b 2 sqq. .

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-234

1450a17 βίου : Plato Laws 817 B

ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν τραγῳδίας αὐτοὶ ποιηταὶ κατὰ δύναμιν ὅτι καλλίστης ἅμα καὶ ἀρίστης· πᾶσα οὖν [? γοῦν] ἡμῖν ἡ πολιτεία ξυνέστηκε μίμησις τοῦ καλλίστου καὶ ἀρίστου βίου, ὃ δή φαμεν ἡμεῖς γε ὄντως εἶναι τραγῳδίαν τὴν ἀληθεστάτην

. — Lycurgus in Leocr. 102

οἱ ποιηταὶ μιμούμενοι τὸν ἀνθρώπινον βίον

. Alcidamas described the Odyssey as a

καλὸν ἀνθρωπίνου βίου κάτοπτρον

( Aristot. Rhet. 3. 3, 1406 b 12 ). Of Menander also it was said:

Μένανδρε καὶ βίε, πότερος ἄρ᾿ ὑμῶν πότερον ἀπεμιμήσατο;

( Nauck, Aristophanis Byz. Fragm. p. 249 ).

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-235

καὶ εὐδαιμονίας : Plato Rep. 603 C

πράττοντας, φαμέν, ἀνθρώπους μιμεῖται ἡ μιμητικὴ βιαίους ἢ ἑκουσίας πράξεις καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πράττειν ἢ εὖ οἰομένους ἢ κακῶς πεπραγέναι

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-236

1450a18 ἐν πράξει According to the definition in Eth. N. 1. 6, 1098 a 16 happiness is a certain kind of activity, a

ψυχῆς ἐνέργεια κατ᾿ ἀρετήν

. Comp. Phys. 2. 6, 197 b 4

ἡ δὲ εὐδαιμονία πρᾶξίς τις· εὐπραξία γάρ

. — Pol. 7. 3, 1325 a 32

ἡ γὰρ εὐδαιμονία πρᾶξίς ἐστιν

(also Eth. N. 1. 8, 1098 b 21 ; Rhet. 1. 5, 1360 b 14 ).

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-237

τὸ τέλος : Eth. N. 1. 8, 1098 b 18

πράξεις τινὲς λέγονται καὶ ἐνέργειαι τὸ τέλος

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-238

οὐ ποιότης : Eth. N. 10. 2, 1173 a 14

οὐδὲ γὰρ αἱ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἐνέργειαι ποιότητές εἰσιν, οὐδ᾿ ἡ εὐδαιμονία

1450a21

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-239

πράττουσι scil. οἱ μιμούμενοι. The reference is to the actors (see on 3, 1448 a 23 ) rather than the poets.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-240

συμπεριλαμβάνουσιν scil. ἐν τῇ μιμήσει, 'they include in the representation'; συμπεριλαμβάνειν in this sense is not infrequent in later Greek (v. HSt. s. v. ). It is hardly necessary, therefore, to reject it for the reading of one of the apographs, συμπαραλαμβάνουσιν, though it is no doubt quite true that manuscripts are apt to confuse the two prepositions.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-241

1450a22 διὰ τὰς πράξεις διά in this connexion must mean 'with a view to', 'for the sake of', as in Thuc. 2. 89. 4

διὰ τὴν σφετέραν δόξαν

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-242

καὶ ὁ μῦθος The καί is explanatory, 'that is to say'.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-243

1450a23 τὸ δὲ τέλος μέγιστον ἁπάντων modelled on the proverb in Plato Rep. 377 A

ἀρχὴ παντὸς ἔργου μέγιστον

, which reappears in Aristotle Soph. el. 33, 183 b 22

μέγιστον γὰρ ἴσως ἀρχὴ παντός, ὥσπερ λέγεται

. — Probl. 10. 13, 892 a 29

ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀρχὴ παντὸς ἔργου μέγιστον· ἥμισυ γάρ

1450a25

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-244

τῶν νέων As it is clear from 14, 1453 b 28 that Euripides is not classed among the old poets ( οἱ παλαιοί), οἱ νέοι, 'the moderns,' must mean the poets from Euripides downwards. It is to be observed also that, when Aristotle a little further on in this chapter distinguishes between οἱ ἀρχαῖοι and οἱ νῦν, the point noted as characteristic of 'the moderns' ( ῥητορικῶς ποιοῦσι λέγοντας) is manifestly true of Euripides, and was recognized as true of him by the ancients themselves (see on ῥητορικῶς, b 8 ).

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-245

ἀήθεις : 24, 1460 a 11

οὐδέν᾿ ἀήθη ἀλλ᾿ ἔχοντα ἤθη

. ἀήθης is, like other compounds of α privativum ( De anima 2. 10, 427 a 26 ; Metaph. Δ 22, 1022 b 32 ), an ambiguous word, as it may mean either 'destitute of character', or merely 'deficient in character'. Aristotle must be using it in this latter sense, since a play with personages wholly destitute of character is hardly conceivable. The language in the illustration which follows from painting,

οὐδὲν ἔχει ἦθος

, is an instance of a common form of exaggeration, just like that in the saying of Pope,

Most women have no characters at all

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-246

1450a26 τοιοῦτοι i. e. ἀήθεις.

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-247

οἷον καὶ τῶν γραφέων Ζεῦξις πρὸς Πολύγνωτον πέπονθεν : De gen. an. 5. 3, 783 a 6

ἔστι δ᾿ ἔνια τῶν ζῴων . . . μαλακὴν μὲν ἔχει τὴν τρίχα ἧττον δὲ λεπτήν, οἷον τὸ τῶν δασυπόδων πρὸς τὸ τῶν προβάτων πέπονθεν

. — Rhet. 3. 2, 1404 b 22

οἷον ἡ Θεοδώρου φωνὴ πέπονθε πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ὑποκριτῶν

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-248

γραφέων For other illustrations from painting see on 2, 1448 a 5 .

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-249

1450a27 Πολύγνωτον The same view of him, as one who knew how to indicate character in painting, is implied in Pol. 8. 5, 1340 a 37

τὰ Πολυγνώτου κἂν εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν γραφέων ἢ τῶν ἀγαλματοποιῶν ἐστιν ἠθικός

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-250

1450a28 Ζεύξιδος This taken in connexion with what is said of him later on, in 25, 1461 b 12 , would seem to show that, in Aristotle's view, Zeuxis sacrificed expression to beauty.

1450a29

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-251

ῥήσεις i. e. the speeches put into the mouths of the personages in a play or poem (comp. 15, 1454 a 31 ; 18, 1450 b 31 ). The word had been already used in this technical sense by both Plato and Aristophanes.

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-252

ἠθικάς In the Rhetoric the ἠθικὸς λόγος is one designed to create a favourable idea of the speaker's ἦθος, in contradistinction to the παθητικὸς λόγος, which addresses the feelings, and the ἀποδεικτικὸς λόγος, which addresses the reason of his audience. In matters of imitative art, however, the usual meaning of ἠθικός is μιμητικὸς ἤθους, 'expressive of character' (comp. Bon. Ind. 315 b 21 )—which is the sense the word has in the present and other passages in the Poetics. Thus in 18, 1456 a 1 a certain kind of tragedy is termed the ἠθική τραγῳδία, 'the tragedy of character', because its main interest is as a portraiture of character; in 23, 1459 b 16 the Odyssey is described as ἠθική, because it is more of a portraiture of character than the Iliad; in 24, 1460 b 3 certain passages in a poem are termed ἠθικά μέρη, as serving to bring out the ἦθος of the personages in the story.

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-253

λέξει καὶ διανοίᾳ εὖ πεποιημένας , 'made perfect in the matter of language and thought'. The same use of the dative is found in a 36

τῇ λέξει καὶ τοῖς ἤθεσιν ἀκριβοῦν

. — 24, 1460 b 2

τῇ δὲ λέξει δεῖ διαπονεῖν

; and in Alcidamas De soph. 12

οἱ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἀκριβῶς ἐξειργασμένοι [scil. λόγοι].

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-254

1450a30 οὔπω ποιήσει ὃ ἦν τῆς τραγῳδίας ἔργον : Rhet. 3. 2, 1404 b 2

ὁ λόγος, ἐὰν μὴ δηλοῖ, οὐ ποιήσει τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ἔργον

. The Arabic version seems to suggest οὔπω (see on 9, 1451 b 13 ) rather than οὐ. For the fut. with οὔπω comp. Eth. N. 5. 10, 1135 a 22

ὥστε ἔσται τι ἄδικον μὲν ἀδίκημα δὲ οὔπω, ἐὰν μὴ τὸ ἑκούσιον προσῇ

. — 6. 13, 1144 a 35

ὥστε τὴν μὲν ἤδη τὴν δ᾿ οὔπω εἰληφὼς ἔσται

. The imperfect in ἦν τῆς τραγῳδίας ἔργον implies that the point has been already settled in the preceding discussion (comp. Bon. Ind. 754 a 40 ), the reference being presumably to 6, 1449 b 36 , where Tragedy is said to be a μίμησις πράξεως.

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-255

1450a31 ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον scil. ποιήσει, as in Eth. N. 6. 8, 1141 b 18

εἰ γὰρ εἰδείη ὅτι τὰ κοῦφα εὔπεπτα κρέα καὶ ὑγιεινά, ποῖα δὲ κοῦφα ἀγνοοῖ, οὐ ποιήσει ὑγίειαν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ εἰδὼς ὅτι τὰ ὀρνίθεια [κοῦφα καὶ] ὑγιεινὰ ποιήσει μᾶλλον

. For the form of antithesis comp. De caelo 2. 3, 286 a 5

πόρρω δ᾿ οὐχ οὕτω τῷ τόπῳ, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ ... ὀλίγην ἔχειν αἴσθησιν

, and the instances collected by Vahlen (ad loc.) and Schwab (Schanz's Beiträge 4. 1, p. 66).

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-256

τούτοις refers back to the ῥήσεις ἠθικαὶ καὶ λέξει καὶ διανοίᾳ εὖ πεποιημέναι of 29. Aristotle's point is, that the dramatic effectiveness of a tragedy depends before all else on its plot, and that no literary or rhetorical brilliancy will make up for a weak plot.

1450a33

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-257

ψυχαγωγεῖ comp. b 17

ψυχαγωγικόν

. Said of a work of art the word means no more than to 'move' or 'rivet the attention', and is thus the equivalent of our word 'attract' or (as people now sometimes say) 'fascinate'. This sense of ψυχαγωγεῖν is as old as Xenophon: Mem. 3. 10. 6

ὃ δὲ μάλιστα ψυχαγωγεῖ διὰ τῆς ὄψεως τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, τὸ ζωτικὸν φαίνεσθαι, πῶς τοῦτο ἐνεργάζῃ τοῖς ἀνδριασιν;

. It is found more than once in Isocrates: 24 D

δέδεικται τοῖς ἐπιθυμοῦσι τοὺς ἀκροωμένους ψυχαγωγεῖν ὅτι τοῦ μὲν νουθετεῖν καὶ συμβουλεύειν ἀφεκτέον, τὰ δὲ τοιαῦτα λεκτέον οἷς ὁρῶσι τοὺς ὄχλους μάλιστα χαίροντας

. — 191 A

τοσαύτην ἔχει χάριν, ὥστ᾿ ἂν καὶ τῇ λέξει καὶ τοῖς ἐνθυμήμασιν ἔχῃ κακῶς, ὅμως αὐταῖς ταῖς εὐρυθμίαις καὶ ταῖς συμμετρίαις ψυχαγωγοῦσι τοὺς ἀκούοντας

. Later writers also often use the word in the sense of to 'attract' or 'please'; comp. the Antiatticista in Bekker's Anecdota 116

ψυχαγωγεῖν: τὸ τέρπειν

, and Vahlen, Symb. Phil. Bonn. p. 168.

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-258

1450a34 αἵ τε περιπέτειαι καὶ ἀναγνωρίσεις These are considered later on in chap. 11 . It will be observed that Aristotle uses the two terms without explanation, as though they were already part of the established language of the theatre. The appositional clause comes in as an afterthought, at some distance from the words it illustrates (comp. Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 1 p. 282 ).

1450a37

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-259

συνίστασθαι is apparently a middle in 24, 1460 a 34 also (v. ad loc.).

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-260

οἷον καὶ introduces not an instance but a parallel from a different class of things just like ὥσπερ καὶ, from which it is often hardly distinguishable in sense (comp. Top. 6. 9, 148 a 4 ; Eth. N. 9. 1, 1164 a 15 ; Rhet. 3. 11, 1412 a 11 ; 3. 12, 1413 b 25 ) . In De mem. 1, 450 b 20 and in Plato Phaedr. 255 C

οἷον

is so completely equivalent to ὥσπερ as to have a οὕτως as its antecedent. In Poet. 25, 1460 b 33

οἷον ... ταύτῃ

is practically the same thing as ὥσπερ ... οὕτως.

1450a38

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-261

ἀρχὴ A little before this the μῦθος was said to be the τέλος τῆς τραγῳδίας (a 22). From one point of view it is the ἀρχή, as being the necessary basis of every tragedy; from another it is the τέλος, because it is this much more than the characters that Tragedy

μίμησις πράξεως

has to represent.

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-262

ψυχὴ : Isocrates 142 B

ἔστι γὰρ ψυχὴ πόλεως οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ πολιτεία

. — 261 B

πᾶσα πολιτεία ψυχὴ πόλεώς ἐστιν

. — [Demosthenes] 60. 23

ἡ τῶνδε τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀρετὴ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἦν ψυχὴ τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν

— Martianus Capella 3, 268

Est accentus, ut quidam putaverunt, anima vocis

1450a39

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-263

παραπλήσιον κτέ. This clause Castelvetro and others would transpose and insert after σύστασιν πραγμάτων in 33. It comes in, however, naturally enough where it stands, as an afterthought to illustrate the secondary position ( δεύτερον δὲ τὰ ἤθη) of the element of character in a play. So also in the sister art of painting, says Aristotle, the colouring is of subordinate importance in comparison with the design which makes the work to mean something and be like something; a portrait is a portrait, and will give us the pleasure of one, even though executed in mere whites and greys; whereas a medley of much more beautiful colours without a design to give them meaning will not produce the same pleasure, because we cannot see that it represents anything. The nature of the pleasure found in a work of imitative art was explained in 4, 1448 b 13 .

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-264

1450b1 εἰ γάρ τις ἐναλείψειε κτέ. The sense is thus given by Goulston:

'si quis tabulam, pigmentis licet pulcherrimis, temere fusimque illeverit; non perinde spectantem oblectet, ac si, albo licet colore, imaginem delinearet certam: pari modo in tragoediis absque constitutione rerum minus valent mores quam morum expers fabula.'

. The object left to be understood with ἐναλείψειε is τὸν πίνακα, the 'panel' or 'canvas', as we should say; ἀλείφειν and ἐπαλείφειν are used in just the same way, in the sense of covering a surface with colour. ἐναλείφειν, it is to be observed, has apparently a different kind of object in De gen. an. 2. 6, 743 b 23

οἱ γραφεῖς ὑπογράψαντες ταῖς γραμμαῖς οὕτως ἐναλείφουσι τοῖς χρώμασι τὸ ζῷον

('painters first sketch the outline of the figure before proceeding to work it out in colour'). χύδην means 'without system or order', i.e. without a design to give form and sense to the whole. The direct opposite of this unmeaning medley of the most beautiful colours ( εἴ τις ἐναλείψειε τοῖς καλλίστοις φαρμάκοις χύδην) is a portrait in plain whites and greys ( λευκογραφήσας εἰκόνα); in what follows, therefore, εἰκόνα serves as an antithesis to χύδην (comp. Vahlen, Symb. Phil. Bonn. p. 166) and λευκογραφήσας to τοῖς καλλίστοις φαρμάκοις. λευκογραφεῖν, as a derivative from λευκογράφος (a word no longer to be found), is to 'paint monochromes in white', i.e. in shades of white and grey (it would seem) on a dark ground. Zeuxis, whom Aristotle has just mentioned in 27, was among other things a painter of monochromes in white—

pinxit et monochromata ex albo

( Pliny N. H. 35. 64 ; comp. Brunn, Gr. Künstler 2 p. 55 ). A portrait, however, even though it be a mere monochrome in whites (comp. λευκογραφήσας εἰκόνα), will have a meaning, and give the mind the intellectual pleasure which accompanies the recognition of the meaning (comp. 4, 1448 b 15 ); whereas a medley of beautiful colours has no meaning, and the pleasure it gives the beholder is of a wholly different order (comp. 4, 1448 b 18

οὐχ ᾗ μίμημα ποιήσει τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀλλὰ διὰ ... τὴν χροιάν

). The antithesis, therefore, is simply between beautiful colours without an εἰκών, and an εἰκών without any beauty of colour. Vahlen's view of the import of these words is somewhat different. He thinks that λευκογραφήσας may denote the preliminary sketch (like ὑπογράφειν in the above-quoted passage in the De gen. an.) in white, which is afterwards filled in with colour, when the picture comes to be finished; so that the clause may be taken to describe two stages in the process of painting, (1) λευκογραφεῖν εἰκόνα, and (2) ἐναλείφειν φαρμάκοις, and serves to illustrate the order of procedure in Tragedy, where the μῦθος is said to come first, as the ἀρχὴ τῆς τραγῳδίας, and the ἤθη second:

'orationis formam sic accipio, εἴ τις ἐναλείψειε τοῖς καλλίστοις φαρμάκοις χύδην, οὐκ ἂν ὁμοίως εὐφράνειεν καὶ λευκογραφήσας εἰκόνα εἰ ἐναλείψειε φαρμάκοις', ut χύδην, h. e. nulla ante delineatione facta, et λευκογραφήσας εἰκόνα inter se opponantur'

. This very subtle interpretation seems to me to read more into Aristotle's words than is required for the argument. Aristotle would perhaps have said: οὐκ ἂν ὁμοίως εὐφράνειε καὶ εἰ λευκογραφήσας εἰκόνα οὕτως ἐναλείψειε τοῖς φαρμάκοις.

1450b3

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-265

ἔστιν τε μίμησις πράξεως κτέ. supports the statement (38-39) before the parenthesis by recalling the general fact on which it is based (v. 20-23).

1450b4

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-266

τρίτον δὲ ἡ διάνοια As the intellectual quality of the dramatis personae comes out mainly in what they are made to say, διάνοια is provisionally explained (see on 6) as a power of making the best of one's case or of saying the right thing.

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-267

1450b5 τὰ ἐνόντα scil. ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν, as in Isocr. 292 E

ὑπισχνοῦνται τοιούτους ῥήτορας τοὺς συνόντας ποιήσειν ὥστε μηδὲν τῶν ἐνόντων ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι παραλιπεῖν

(comp. Bon. Ind. 250 a 56 ). The whole expression τὰ ἐνόντα καὶ τὰ ἁρμόττοντα covers the same ground as that in Rhet. 2. 22, 1396 b 5

τὰ ἐνδεχόμενα καὶ τὰ ἐπικαιρότατα

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-268

1450b6 ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων has been taken to mean 'in soluta oratione' (Paccius), and 'in orationibus' (Valla) or 'in eloquentia', 'bei der Beredsamkeit' (Vahlen). The explanation, however, in the context, ἐποίουν λέγοντας (57), is enough to show that the λόγοι Aristotle has in mind are the λόγοι in a play, i.e. the ῥήσεις put into the mouths of the personages. This is apparently the sense the word bears in the next sentence also,

τῶν λόγων ἐν οἷς μηδ᾿ ὅλως ἔστιν τι προαιρεῖται ἢ φεύγει ὁ λέγων

(b 9).

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-269

τῆς πολιτικῆς καὶ ῥητορικῆς ἔργον Aristotle seems to be thinking of what is said in a play by the chief personages (e. g. the tragic hero), and of the kind of intellectual capacity ( διάνοια) revealed in their statements. One has to remember that the chief personages in ancient Tragedy are not ordinary men, and that the tragic hero is expressly said by Aristotle ( 13, 1453 a 10-21 ) to be always in the best tragedies a man of great position and lineage. In a play, therefore, such personages might very well be made to speak πολιτικῶς, 'like statesmen', and to show a statesmanlike power of saying what is appropriate to the situation before them ( τὰ ἁρμόττοντα). But it would also be possible to make them speak ῥητορικῶς, 'like rhetors', with something of the rhetor's cleverness in seizing on the various possible points that may be urged on the occasion ( τὰ ἐνόντα, i.e. τὰ ἐνδεχόμενα). Though ῥητορική stands in a certain relation to πολιτική ( Rhet. 1. 2, 1356 a 27 ), the distinction between them is a very real one with Aristotle; πολιτική is with him the practical wisdom of the statesman ( Eth. N. 6. 8, 1141 b 23 ), and ῥητορική only a form of the art of argumentation—a

δύναμις τοῦ πορίσαι λόγους

( Rhet. 1. 2, 1356 a 33 ), or

δύναμις περὶ ἑκάστου τοῦ θεωρῆσαι τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον πιθανόν

( Rhet. 1. 2, 1355 b 26 ). There is no reference to πολιτική in chap. 19 . Aristotle may perhaps have felt that the practice of the later dramatists ( οἱ νῦν) was too firmly established to admit of change, and that the tragic personages accordingly must still be allowed to speak ῥητορικῶς, as they did in the Tragedy of his time.

1450b7

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-270

ἀρχαῖοι : the dramatists anterior to Euripides (see on 6, 1450 a 25 ).

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-271

πολιτικῶς . ... λέγοντας which Valla rendered by 'civiliter dicentes', is often taken to mean 'to speak the language of civil life', like ordinary citizens, as distinct from the professional orator. But as the context shows that the ability to speak πολιτικῶς implies something of πολιτική in the speaker (comp. Newman on Pol. 2. 11, 1273 b 12 ), πολιτικῶς would seem rather to mean 'like a πολιτικός'—the statesman being assumed to say that which is befitting ( τὰ ἁρμόττοντα) without any ostentation of rhetorical cleverness (comp. HSt. s. v. πολιτικός ). Vahlen (Symb. phil. Bonn. p. 175) supposes the expression to coincide in sense with the ἠθικῶς λέγειν of Rhet. 3. 17, 1418 b 38 which means ἀπὸ προαιρέσεως λέγειν, as opposed to ἀπὸ διανοίας λέγειν ( Rhet. 3. 16, 1417 a 23 ). The objection to this interpretation is twofold. (1) Aristotle is to all appearance not contrasting διάνοια with ἦθος, but distinguishing between the two forms it may assume in the dramatic ῥήσεις. (2) πολιτικῶς λέγειν can hardly be identical with ἠθικῶς λέγειν; the personages in Comedy speak ἠθικῶς, but it would be a paradox to say of them that they speak πολιτικῶς, in the sense of there being something of πολιτική in their utterances.

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-272

1450b8 ῥητορικῶς Euripides is termed by Aristophanes ( Pax 534 ) a

ποιητὴς ῥηματίων δικανικῶν

. Quintilian also (10. 1, 68) thinks the study of his plays one of the best preparations for the bar:

'Illud quidem nemo non fateatur necesse est, iis qui se ad agendum comparant utiliorem longe fore Euripidem. namque is et sermone magis accedit oratorio generi et sententiis densus et in iis quae a sapientibus tradita sunt paene ipsis par, et dicendo ac respondendo cuilibet eorum qui fuerunt in foro diserti comparandus.'

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-273

ἦθος A statement is said to have ἦθος in it when it reveals the moral purpose of the speaker, the kind of thing that he purposes to do or not to do. ἦθος is an element in oratory also, as the credibility of the orator often depends on the impression one forms of his character. The language in the text may be compared with that in Rhet. 2. 21, 1395 b 13

ἦθος δ᾿ ἔχουσιν οἱ λόγοι ἐν ὅσοις δήλη ἡ προαίρεσις· αἱ δὲ γνῶμαι πᾶσαι τοῦτο ποιοῦσι διὰ τὸ ἀποφαίνεσθαι τὸν τὴν γνώμην λέγοντα καθόλου περὶ τῶν προαιρετῶν, ὥστ᾿ ἂν χρησταὶ ὦσιν αἱ γνῶμαι, καὶ χρηστοήθη φαίνεσθαι ποιοῦσι τὸν λέγοντα

. — 3. 16, 1417 a 16

ἠθικὴν δὲ χρὴ τὴν διήγησιν εἶναι. ἔσται δὲ τοῦτο ἂν εἰδῶμεν τί ἦθος ποιεῖ. ἓν μὲν δὴ τὸ προαίρεσιν δηλοῦν, ποιὸν δὲ τὸ ἦθος τῷ ποιὰν ταύτην· ἡ δὲ προαίρεσις ποιὰ τῷ τέλει. διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔχουσιν οἱ μαθηματικοὶ λόγοι ἤθη, ὅτι οὐδὲ προαίρεσιν· τὸ γὰρ οὗ ἕνεκα οὐκ ἔχουσιν. ἀλλ᾿ οἱ Σωκρατικοί· περὶ τοιούτων γὰρ λέγουσιν.

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-274

1450b09 ὁποῖά τις. This (the reading of o) is very rightly retained by Vahlen, who translates the clause by

quod aperiat voluntatem, qualia quis in quibus apertum non est aut appetat aut fugiat

; the explanation is added to show that προαίρεσις is to be taken in a wide sense, which may include aversion as well as desire. For an explanatory clause of this form comp. 16, 1455b10

συνελογίσαντο τὴν εἱμαρμένην ὅτι ἐν τούτῳ εἵμαρτο ἀποθανεῖν

, and Plato Rep. 535 A

μέμνησαι οὖν τὴν προτέραν ἐκλογὴν τῶν ἀρχόντων, οἷους ἐξελέξαμεν ;

ἐν οἷς οὐκ ἔστι δῆλον is added because there are situations in which the moral purpose of the agent is too obvious to require to be revealed in an 'ethical' speech; see 19, 1456 b7 for a parallel statement on the subject of διάνοια.

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-275

1450b9_2 προαιρεῖται. Though the usual opposite of φεύγειν is the simple verb αἱρεῖσθαι ( Bon. Ind. 18b3 ), there is a certain propriety in προαιρεῖται in a clause explanatory of προαίρεσις. The word is found in a similar antithesis in Eth. N. 10. 1, 1172b25

τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἡδέα προαιροῦνται, τὰ δὲ λυπηρὰ φεύγουσιν.

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-276

1450b11 διόπερ κτέ. In the Rhetoric we are told that a mathematical argument does not admit of any colouring of character, because the facts with which it deals are indifferent to us—not objects of either desire or aversion: Rhet. 3. 16, 1417b9

διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔχουσιν οἱ μαθηματικοὶ λόγοι ἤθη, ὅτι οὐδὲ προαίρεσιν· τὸ γὰρ οὗ ἕνεκα οὐκ ἔχουσιν.

In like manner a speech in a play may be on a subject wholly indifferent to the speaker, and in that case there is no room for any infusion of ἦθος into his statement.

1450b12

25. mvp-aristotle-comment-277

καθόλου τι ἀποφαίνονται replaces the ἀποφαίνονται γνώμην in 7 ( v. ad loc.).

1450b13

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-278

τέταρτον δὲ τῶν ἐν λόγῳ κτέ. On the reading which I have ventured to introduce into the text see the J. of Phil. 5 p. 1191. It is clear that the four elements in a tragedy, the μύθος ἤθη διάνοια and λέξις, belong to it as a work of literature, and that the music and 'spectacle' are accessories, which attach to it only when it comes to be acted on the stage. Apart from these accessories, a tragedy is, like an epic ( comp. 23, 1459 b10 ), a μίμησις ἐν λόγῳ (see on 1, 1447 29 ), and all the elements which constitute it are ἐν λόγῳ. τὰ ἐν λόγῳ, therefore, is a comprehensive designation for the four literary elements, as distinct from the non-literary elements ( τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν b 15), the music and 'spectacle', with which the enumeration concludes. If τῶν μὲν λόγων be retained, the genitive ¹ has to be taken as an objective gen. after λέξις. Valla renders the words by

orationum dictio

, Paccius by

sermonum dictio

, and Goulston by

ipsarum orationum elocutio

. The main difficulty, however, is in the particle, which has never been satisfactorily explained. Vahlen formerly ( Symb. Phil. Bonn. p. 181 ) connected the clause with that which follows in 615 τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν κτέ., supposing the sense to be 'viertens für die Dialoge ( τῶν λόγων) die sprachliche Form; für das übrige ( τῶν λοιπῶν) die Melopöie'. His later view (1885) is that the μέν in τῶν μὲν λόγων may be an instance of μέν solitarium, and that Aristotle may have meant at first to append something about the τῶν δὲ μελῶν... Such a division of the fourth part, it seems to me, is wholly inconsistent with the general scheme of the six parts, which is throughout this chapter so clearly before Aristotle's mind, as well as with the express mention of the μελοποιία in its proper place in the next sentence.

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-279

1450b13_2 ὥσπερ πρότερον εἴρηται. If the reference is to 6, 1449 b 34 , where the λέξις is defined as ἡ τῶν μέτρων σύνθεσις, Aristotle must have forgotten the exact terms of his previous formula. The point, however, is practically the same in both instances; λέξις is to be understood in the sense of 'diction' or 'expression in language', and not in any of the other senses which the word might bear (see on 23, 1459 12 ).

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-280

1450b14 διὰ τῆς ὀνομασίας διὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων, i. e. by means of the words or language of the speaker. As the ὄνομα, which includes the verb and the adverb as well as the noun, is the directly significant part of all language, ὀνομασία means practically the same thing as vocabulary or language.

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-281

1450b14_2 ἑρμηνείαν, 'communication', 'expression'; the Latin equivalent for it is interpretatio. After ἑρμηνείαν we may supply τῶν ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ, the spoken word being the outward sign or expression of a thought in the mind: De interpr. 1, 16ª3

ἔστι μὲν οὖν τὰ ἐν τῇ φωνῇ τῶν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ παθημάτων σύμβολα.

On the meaning of ἑρμηνεία in Aristotle see Waitz, Organon 1 p. 323 , and Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachwissenschaft 1 p. 235.

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-282

1450b15 ἔχει τὴν αὐτὴν δύναμιν ταὐτὸ δύναται, 'is practically the same thing' (see on 1, 1447ª8 ).

27. mvp-aristotle-comment-283

1450b16 πέντε Similar instances of an intrusive numeral will be found in Rhet. 1. 2, 1356 21 , and 1. 13, 1373 b3 ( v. Roemer ad loc.). Vahlen accepts the correction πέμπτον, in the sense of quinto loco: 'reliquarum autem partium (h. e. quae post illas quattuor iam reliquae sunt duae) quinto loco μελοποιία gravissimum est condimentum, ὄψις autem ad poeticam artem omnino non pertinet'.

1450b16_2

27. mvp-aristotle-comment-284

μέγιστον τῶν ἡδυσμάτων: see on 6, 1449 b 25 ( ἡδυσμένῳ). For the pleasure given by music comp. Pol. 8. 5, 1339 b 20

τὴν δὲ μουσικὴν πάντες εἶναί φαμεν τῶν ἡδίστων.

— 1340 a 2

δεῖ μὴ μόνον τῆς κοινῆς ἡδονῆς μετέχειν ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς, ἧς ἔχουσι πάντες αἴσθησιν· ἔχει γὰρ ἡ μουσικὴ τὴν ἡδονὴν φυσικήν, διὸ πάσαις ἡλικίαις καὶ πᾶσιν ἤθεσιν ἡ χρῆσις αὐτῆς ἐστι προσφιλής.

—

οἱ μὲν γὰρ νέοι διὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν ἀνήδυντον οὐδὲν ὑπομένουσιν ἑκόντες, ἡ δὲ μουσικὴ φύσει τῶν ἡδυσμένων [ἡδυσμάτων] ἐστίν.

Bernays ( Zwei Abhandl. p. 157) supposed that a further statement on the subject of music, like that in the Anonymus De Comedy ( Kaibel, CGF. 1 p. 52 ),

μέλος τῆς μουσικῆς ἐστιν ἴδιον, ὅθεν ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνης τὰς αὐτοτελεῖς ἀφορμὰς δεήσει λαμβάνειν

, may have dropped out after ἡδυσμάτων.

1450b17

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-285

ψυχαγωγικόν: see on 33.

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-286

1450b17_2 ἀτεχνότατον: 13, 1453 67

τὸ δὲ διὰ τῆς ὄψεως τοῦτο παρασκευάζειν ἀτεχνότερον καὶ χορηγίας δεόμενόν ἐστιν.

ἄτεχνος is frequently used in the sense of 'depending on means outside the art itself'; comp. Rhet. 3. 16, 1416 b 18

σύγκειται γὰρ ἔχων ὁ λόγος τὸ μὲν ἄτεχνον, οὐθὲν γὰρ αἴτιος ὁ λέγων τῶν πράξεων, τὸ δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς τέχνης.

The opposite of it in this sense is ἔντεχνος ( Bon. Ind. 11964 ).

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-287

1450b18 ἡ γὰρ τῆς τραγῳδίας δύναμις κτέ. The tragic effect may be produced by a good tragedy even without any actual performance of it on a stage, i. e. as a mere work of literature ( comp. 14, 1453b4 , and 26, 1462ª11 ). The reading of A o here, ὡς γὰρ, is defended by Vahlen, who translates it by quia enim (wenn nämlich), on the assumption that the apodosis is omitted in the same way as in Eth. N. 8. 6, 1157 3

οἱ δ᾽ ἀγαθοὶ δι᾽ αὐτοὺς φίλοι· ᾗ γὰρ ἀγαθοί

[scil. φίλοι εἰσίν].— 8. 10, 1159 10

οἱ χρήσιμοι δὲ καὶ ἡδεῖς ἐπὶ πλεῖον διαμένουσιν ἕως γὰρ ἂν πορίζωσιν ἡδονὰς ἢ ὠφελείας ἀλλήλοις

[scil. διαμένουσιν], and certain more or less similar passages. The present passage (with the reading ὡς γὰρ) does not seem to me to be a genuine parallel. On behalf of the amended reading ( ἡ γὰρ) it has to be remembered that a confusion between ἡ and the compendium for ὡς is not so uncommon in MSS. of a certain date ( Bast, Comm. Palaeogr. p. 780 ).

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-288

1450b18_2 ἄνευ ἀγῶνος. ἀγών is generally rendered by certamen or 'contest', but it is not clear that that is the sense Aristotle attaches to it in the present and other places ( 7, 1451b ; 13, 1453ª27 ) of the Poetics. It seems to mean rather little more than a 'public performance'. Similarly ἀγωνίζεσθαι in 7, 1451ª8 and 24, 146089 means apparently 'to perform in public', συναγωνίζεσθαι in 18, 1456ª26 'to take part in such a performance'; and ἀγώνισμα in 9, 1451b37 a 'work to be performed in public'. The word ἀγωνιστής, likewise, in Pol. 8. 7, 1342=18 and Probl. 19. 15, 918b 28 , means no more than a 'public' or 'professional performer' ( comp. πρωταγωνιστής etc.). In Rhet. 3. 12, 1413b4

ἀγωνιστικὴ λέξις

means the style allowable in public speaking, as distinct from the γραφικὴ λέξις, the more formal style required for a purely literary work. The idea of contest or competition, there- fore, is not always a recognizable element in the meaning of this group of words ( comp. Nitzsch, De historia Homeri 2 p. 113 ).

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-289

1450b18_3 ἀγῶνος καὶ ὑποκριτῶν: 13, 1453ª27

ἐπὶ τῶν σκηνῶν καὶ τῶν ἀγώνων.

— Probl. 19. 15, 918 28

ὁ μὲν γὰρ ὑποκριτὴς ἀγωνιστής.

— Rhet. 3. 12, 141358

ἔστι δὲ λέξις γραφικὴ μὲν ἡ ἀκριβεστάτη, ἀγωνιστικὴ δὲ ἡ ὑποκριτικωτάτη κτέ.

The present clause shows that the ὄψις is ἥκιστα οἰκεῖον τῆς ποιητικῆς; the next, that it is ἀτεχνότατον.

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-290

1450b18_4 ὄψεων: for the plural see on 6, 1449b 33 .

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-291

1450b18_5 σκευοποιοῦ, the theatrical costumier, who enabled the actors to appear in character by supplying the masks, dresses, and other paraphernalia of their make-up; comp. Aristophanes Eq. 230

καὶ μὴ δέδιθ· οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἐξῃκασμένος. ὑπὸ τοῦ δέους γὰρ αὐτὸν οὐδεὶς ἤθελε τῶν σκευοποιῶν εἰκάσαι

(v. Schol. ad loc.). — Aelian V. H. 2. 13

οἱ σκευοποιοὶ ἔπλασαν αὐτὸν ὡς ὅτι μάλιστα ἐξεικάσαντες.

— Pollux 4. 115

σκευὴ μὲν ἡ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν στολή . . . σκευοποιός δὲ ὁ προσωποποιός.

— 2. 47

ἡ δὲ νέα κωμῳδία καὶ προσωποποιὸν εἴρηκεν ὃν ἡ ἀρχαία σκευοποιὸν ἐκάλει

(ν. Meineke, FCG. 4 p. 680). For σκευή in the sense of the make-up of actors see Eurip. Suppl. 1054 , Aristoph. Ran. 108 , Plato Rep. 577 b.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-292

1450b20

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-293

κεῖται: as has been stated in the definition of Tragedy in 6, 1449b 25 ( comp. Bon. Ind. 380b 43 ).

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-294

1450b24 τελείας καὶ ὅλης. Although there is strictly speaking a certain distinction between the idea of 'complete' ( τέλειος: . Metaph. Δ 16, 1021 b12) and that of 'whole' ( ὅλος: ν. Metaph. Δ 26, 1023 b 26), the two terms are so closely allied in sense as to be all but synonymous: Phys. 3. 6, 207ª13

ἄπειρον μὲν οὖν ἐστιν οὗ κατὰ ποσὸν λαμβάνουσιν αἰεί τι λαβεῖν ἔστιν ἔξω.

οὗ δὲ μηδὲν ἔξω, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶ τέλειον καὶ ὅλον οὕτω γὰρ ὁριζόμεθα τὸ ὅλον, οὗ μηθέν ἄπεστιν ὅλον δὲ καὶ τέλειον ἢ τὸ αὐτὸ πάμπαν ἢ σύνεγγυς τὴν φύσιν ἐστίν.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-295

ἐχούσης τι μέγεθος: see on 4, 1449 19 and 6, 1449 b 25 .

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-296

1450b25 μηδὲν ἔχον μέγεθος 'of no size,' as we say, means the same thing as πάμμικρον in b 37 (Sauppe ap. Teichmüller, Aristot. Forsch. p. 54 ), just as in 6, 1450 a 28

οὐδὲν ἔχει ἦθος

means practically 'has but very little character' in it.

1450b27

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-297

μὴ ἐξ ἀνάγκης By a 'beginning' Aristotle does not mean something without antecedents, but only something that may be detached as it were from its antecedents, and viewed apart from them as the first term in a new series of events.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-298

1450b28 μετ᾿ ἐκεῖνο δ᾿ comp. 6, 1450 a 30

μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο

. — b 31

καὶ μετ᾿ ἐκεῖνο

. An. pr. 1. 4, 25 b 35

καλῶ δὲ μέσον μὲν καὶ αὐτὸ ἐν ἄλλῳ καὶ ἄλλο ἐν τούτῳ ἐστίν

1450b34

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-299

ἰδέαις ἰδέα, 'form,' 'sort,' or 'kind,' is frequently used, just like εἶδος, which has much the same sense, without any genitive to explain it. Instances of this allusive, or rather evasive, use will be found in 5, 1449 b 8 , in 19, 1456 b 3 , and in 22, 1458 b 18 . It is a favourite term with Isocrates also: 24 c

ἀμφοτέραις ταῖς ἰδέαις ταύταις κατεχρήσαντο

. — 36 A

χρὴ δὲ δοκιμάζειν τὰς ἀρετὰς οὐκ ἐν ταῖς αὐταῖς ἰδέαις ἁπάσας, ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲν δικαιοσύνην ἐν ταῖς ἀπορίαις, τὴν δὲ σωφροσύνην ἐν ταῖς δυναστείαις κτέ.

— 319 D

ταῖς ἄλλαις ἰδέαις ἐπιφανεστέραις καὶ πλείοσιν ὅλον τὸν λόγον διοικοῦσιν

. — De perm. § 183

τὰς ἰδέας ἁπάσας, αἷς ὁ λόγος τυγχάνει χρώμενος, διεξέρχονται τοῖς μαθηταῖς

. For instances from other authors see Campbell's Essay on Plato's use of language, Rep. of Plato 2. p. 301 .

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-300

τὸ καλὸν κτέ. Having just laid it down that the μῦθος must be a complete whole, Aristotle assumes that it must also be a beautiful whole, and proceeds to show that, if it is to be that, it must be of a certain magnitude, neither too long nor too short. Beauty, he says, depends on two conditions: the beautiful object must be (1) large enough to allow of our seeing the orderly arrangement of its parts, and (2) not so large as to be incapable of being taken in as a whole in one coup d'œil. With this we may compare Metaph. M 3, 1078 a 36

τοῦ δὲ καλοῦ μέγιστα εἴδη τάξις καὶ συμμετρία καὶ τὸ ὡρισμένον

—where τάξις corresponds with the first, and τὸ ὡρισμένον with the second of the two conditions in the present passage. For the form of the opening statement comp. De long. vitae 5, 466 a 26

τὰ μεγάλα καὶ ζῷα καὶ φυτά

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-301

ζῷον : 23, 1459 a 20

ἵν᾿ ὥσπερ ζῷον ἓν ὅλον ποιῇ τὴν οἰκείαν ἡδονήν

. The analogy between a literary whole and a living organism is postulated in Plato Phaedr. 264 c

ἀλλὰ τόδε γε οἶμαί σε φάναι ἄν, δεῖν πάντα λόγον ὥσπερ ζῷον συνεστάναι σῶμά τι ἔχοντα αὐτὸν αὐτοῦ, ὥστε μήτε ἀκέφαλον εἶναι μήτε ἄπουν, ἀλλὰ μέσα τε ἔχειν καὶ ἄκρα, πρέποντ᾿ ἀλλήλοις καὶ τῷ ὅλῳ γεγραμμένα

. It seems to mean here a living, as distinct from an artificial, whole, as it clearly does in Top. 1. 15, 106 a 20

τῷ καλῷ τῷ μὲν ἐπὶ τοῦ ζῴου τὸ αἰσχρόν, τῷ δ᾿ ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας τὸ μοχθηρόν

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-302

ταῦτα = τὰ μέρη implied in συνέστηκεν ἐκ τινῶν.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-303

1450b35 πρᾶγμα a 'thing': Top. 1. 5, 102 a 18

ἴδιον δ᾿ ἐστὶν μὴ δηλοῖ μὲν τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι, μόνῳ δ᾿ ὑπάρχει καὶ ἀντικατηγορεῖται τοῦ πράγματος

. — De anima 3. 8, 432 a 3

πρᾶγμα οὐθέν ἐστι παρὰ τὰ μεγέθη, ὡς δοκεῖ, τὰ αἰσθητὰ κεχωρισμένον

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-304

1450b36 μέγεθος ὑπάρχειν μὴ τὸ τυχόν : De gen. an. 2. 6, 745 a 5

ἔστι γάρ τι πᾶσι τοῖς ζώοις πέρας τοῦ μεγέθους

. — Pol. 7. 4, 1326 a 35

ἔστι τι καὶ πόλεσι μεγέθους μέτρον, ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πάντων, ζῴων φυτῶν ὀργάνων

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-305

1450b37 μεγέθει : Eth. N. 4. 7, 1123 b 6

ἐν μεγέθει γὰρ ἡ μεγαλοψυχία, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ κάλλος ἐν μεγάλῳ σώματι, οἱ μικροὶ δ᾿ ἀστεῖοι καὶ σύμμετροι, καλοὶ δ᾿ οὐ

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-306

τάξει According to Top. 3. 1, 116 b 21 , beauty is thought to consist in συμμετρία (

τὸ δὲ κάλλος τῶν μελῶν τις συμμετρία δοκεῖ εἶναι

); and according to Metaph. M 3, 1078 a 36 in τάξις καὶ συμμετρία καὶ τὸ ὡρισμένον. In the beauty of a μῦθος, however, there is no room for the idea of συμμετρία.

1450b38

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-307

συγχεῖται The reason for our not seeing any beauty in a very minute creature is that we perceive it as a whole too quickly to discern the parts and the order and symmetry there may be in them. συγχεῖται = 'becomes blurred, or indistinct', as in H. A. 7. 5, 585 a 34

συγκεχυμένον μέλαν

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-308

1450b39 θεωρία 'sight' or 'view' (comp. Bon. Ind. 329 a 31 ).

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-309

ἀναισθήτου χρόνου There is no necessity to bracket χρόνου (with Bonitz). The time a thing takes to be seen may be of perceptible or of imperceptible duration; and in the latter case it may very well be described as an ἀναίσθητος χρόνος, a time too short for one to be conscious of its duration. This expression appears in the definition of the 'sudden' in Phys. 4. 13, 222 a 15

τὸ δ᾿ ἐξαίφνης τὸ ἐν ἀναισθήτῳ χρόνῳ διὰ μικρότητα ἐκστάν

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-310

1451a1 οὔτε παμμέγεθες comp. the rule for the size of the πόλις in Pol. 5. 2, 1302 b 35 and 7. 4, 1326 a 35 .

1451a3

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-311

ὥστε marks the apodosis (comp. 9, 1452 a 10 and Bon. Ind. 873 a 31 ).

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-312

καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν συστημάτων The argument proceeds on the assumption of an analogy between a beautiful whole that addresses the eye, and one that addresses the mind; and the conclusion is that as the one is εὐσύνοπτον, so the other must be εὐμνημόνευτον. At this point Aristotle changes his construction, repeating his original statement ( 1450 b 34 ) in the form required for an argument from analogy, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν συστημάτων καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων . . . οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν μύθων, with συστημάτων as a short equivalent for the foregoing ἅπαν πρᾶγμα ὃ συνέστηκεν ἐκ τινῶν. A σύστημα is a product of combination, something that comes into being through a union, natural or artificial, of parts into a whole; a state, for instance, is a σύστημα ( Eth. N. 9. 8, 1168 b 32 ) as being due to a combination of classes or individuals, and a ζῷον is a σύστημα ( De gen. an. 2. 4, 740 a 20 ), as being an organized whole of parts. The present passage, however, implies a more restricted sense of σύστημα, as though the term were properly applicable only to a whole that is made, as distinct from an organic whole, which grows to be what it is. This or some similar sense is suggested by the passage also in Eth. N. 9. 8, 1168 b 32

ὥσπερ δὲ καὶ πόλις τὸ κυριώτατον μάλιστ᾽ εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ πᾶν ἄλλο σύστημα, οὕτω καὶ ἄνθρωπος

—where the implication is that a man is not a σύστημα proper, though his composite nature gives him a certain resemblance to one. The difficulty in the manuscript reading σωμάτων is that the word would have to be understood in one of two senses, either in that of ‘material substances’, or in that of ‘living bodies’. The first interpretation is out of the question, since beauty is in the τάξις or συμμετρία τῶν μερῶν, and, therefore, in the form, not in the matter, of things. The second, which makes ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων and ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων mere synonyms, leaves us without any equivalent for the ἅπαν πρᾶγμα ὃ συνέστηκεν ἐκ τινῶν of his original statement ( 1450 b 34 ), which was, if I am not mistaken, far too important for Aristotle's argument to be ignored in any résumé of it (comp. J. of Phil. 5 p. 120 ).

1451a4 ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων see on 1450 b 36 .

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-313

εὐσύνοπτον 'easily taken in as a whole by the eye', as opposed το εὐμνημόνευτον (a 5), 'easily taken in as a whole by the memory'. The word, however, is metaphorically used as equivalent to εὐμνημόνευτος in 23, 1459 a 33 , as also in Rhet. 3. 9, 1409 b 35

λέγω δὲ περίοδον λέξιν ἔχουσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ τελευτὴν αὐτὴν καθ᾿ αὑτὴν καὶ μέγεθος εὐσύνοπτον

ἡδεῖα δ᾿ ἡ τοιαύτη καὶ εὐμαθής .. εὐμαθὴς δὲ ὅτι εὐμνημόνευτος

1451a6

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-314

ὅρος ὁ μὲν πρὸς τοὺς ἀγῶνας the limit in practice, in contradistinction to the theoretic limit of length, ὁ κατ᾿ αὐτὴν τὴν φύσιν τοῦ πράγματος ὅρος (a 9) . In actual practice the length of the play is determined by the conditions of the public performances ( ἀγῶνες) in which it will be presented on the stage; the time it is to occupy there is fixed by custom and convention rather than theory.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-315

1451a7 τὴν αἴσθησιν scil. ">τῶν θεατῶν (see on 15, 1454 b 15 ); comp. 4, 1449 a 8

πρὸς τὰ θέατρα

. The language here, though quite general, seems to refer more especially to the power of attention in the audiences.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-316

1451a8 ἑκατὸν τραγῳδίας ἀγωνίζεσθαι an extreme instance like the μυρίων σταδίων ζῷον in a 2. The subject of ἀγωνίζεσθαι, if expressed, would be 'the performers', ἀγωνίζεσθαί τι in stage matters being synonymous with ὑποκρίνεσθαί τι; comp. Demosth. 19, 246

τοῦτο δὲ τὸ δρᾶμα Μόλων ἠγωνίζετο

. — 250

ἃ ἡγωνίσω καὶ ἀκριβῶς ἐξηπίστασο

. — 337

τὰ Θυέστου... ἠγωνίζετο

(see on 6, 1450 b 18 ). In the sense of 'contend', as said of the dramatic poet, it would require an instrumental dative ( τραγῳδίαις) after it. The personification implied in Tyrwhitt's rendering, 'si centum tragoedias in theatro certare oporteret', is (I think) questionable in Aristotle. Goulston takes ἀγωνίζεσθαι as a passive (= agi) as it certainly sometimes is.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-317

πρὸς κλεψύδρας For the preposition comp. fr. 468 Teubn.

μέτρον τί ἐστιν ὕδατος πρὸς μεμετρημένον ἡμέρας διάστημα ῥέον ... πρὸς δὴ τοῦτο ἠγωνίζοντο οἱ μέγιστοι καὶ περὶ τῶν μεγίστων ἀγῶνες

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-318

1451a8-9 ὥσπερ ποτὲ καὶ ἄλλοτέ †φασιν† The idea of tragedies having been at some date or other timed by the clepsydra is to my mind highly improbable, and there is no hint of such a thing elsewhere. The language also here is not free from difficulties. Tyrwhitt translates it by 'quemadmodum aliquando alias etiam factum esse perhibent'; and Vahlen (Berlin Academy, Sitzungsberichte 1897 p. 639) by 'wie man sagt, dass sie auch sonst gespielt haben'. To get this out of the words, and make them relate to Tragedy, or rather the past history of Tragedy, it becomes necessary to supply (with Vahlen) an aorist infinitive, ἀγωνίσασθαι, from the preceding imperfect ἠγωνίζοντο, and also to make ποτὲ καὶ ἄλλοτε mean simply 'once' or 'formerly', though its natural meaning would be 'at a certain other time'. Two instances have been pointed out of ποτὲ καὶ ἄλλοτε: Xenophon Anab. 6. 4. 12

ὑμᾶς δεῖ παρασκευάζεσθαι ὡς μαχουμένους εἴ ποτε καὶ ἄλλοτε

[= 'si unquam alias']; Lucian Hermot. 24

ἤδη γάρ ποτε καὶ ἄλλοτε

[= 'alias quondam']

πρεσβύτου ἀνδρὸς ἤκουσα διεξιόντος

. These, however, are not enough to show that ποτὲ καὶ ἄλλοτε can only refer to an indefinite past or future; with a verb in the present it may very well refer to the indefinite present also, and have the sense of 'at certain other times', just in the same way as ποτέ, with a present, means 'at certain times' in Soph. el. 16, 175 a 27

συμβαίνει δέ ποτε καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς διαγράμμασιν

, and in the familiar antithesis of ποτέ and ἀεί. M. Schmidt's correction, εἰώθασιν (for φασιν), though perhaps too bold, yields an unimpeachable sense, 'as is regularly done at certain other times', i. e. by another class of ἀγωνισταί, the pleaders in the law-courts. As a variation on it, to make the sense clearer, I would suggest ὥσπερ ποτὲ καὶ ἄλλοι εἰώθασιν.

1451a10

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-319

ὁ δὲ ... ὅρος is appositional to what follows.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-320

ὁ μείζων scil. μῦθος; comp. Tyrwhitt's rendering 'quo maior est fabula'.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-321

σύνδηλος is explained in the reference to this passage in 24, 1459 b 18

τοῦ μὲν οὖν μήκους ὅρος ἱκανὸς ὁ εἰρημένος· δύνασθαι γὰρ δεῖ συνορᾶσθαι τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τὸ τέλος

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-322

1451a12 ἐν ὅσῳ μεγέθει κτέ. A reminiscence apparently of the language of Plato Rep. 423 B

Οὐκοῦν, ἦν δ᾿ ἐγώ, οὗτος ἂν εἴη καὶ κάλλιστος ὅρος τοῖς ἡμετέροις ἄρχουσιν, ὅσην δεῖ τὸ μέγεθος τὴν πόλιν ποιεῖσθαι... Τίς, ἔφη, ὅρος; Οἶμαι μέν, ἦν δ᾿ ἐγώ, τόνδε· μέχρι οὗ ἂν ἐθέλῃ αὐξανομένη εἶναι μία, μέχρι τούτου αὔξειν, πέρα δὲ μή.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-323

κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ἐφεξῆς γιγνομένων scil. τῶν πραγμάτων (see on 6, 1449 b 26 ). The consequents must be always the natural or necessary effect of the antecedents. A well-constructed μῦθος is a consecutive whole, not a mere series of incidents which happen to follow one after the other in actual order of time (comp. 10, 1452 a 19 ); and it is this that differentiates it from a history or a biography (comp. 9, 1451 a 36 ), which records everything that may have befallen a community or an individual, however loose and separate the various incidents were in themselves (comp. 23, 1459 a 23 ). The poetic story in fact must satisfy our sense of logic, incident following after incident as its necessary and inevitable, or as its probable and natural consequence. The technical meaning of the terms εἰκός and ἀναγκαῖον in Aristotle may be seen from An. post. 2. 27, 70 a 4

τὸ μὲν εἰκός ἐστι πρότασις ἔνδοξος· ὃ γὰρ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ ἴσασιν οὕτω γινόμενον ἢ μὴ γινόμενον, ἢ ὂν ἢ μὴ ὄν, τοῦτ᾿ ἐστὶν εἰκός, οἷον τὸ μισεῖν τοὺς φθονοῦντας ἢ τὸ φιλεῖν τοὺς ἐρωμένους

. — Rhet. 1. 2, 1357 a 34

τὸ μὲν γὰρ εἰκός ἐστιν [τὸ] ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ γινόμενον ... τὸ περὶ τὰ ἐνδεχόμενα ἄλλως ἔχειν

. — Metaph. Γ 5, 1010 b 28

τὸ ἀναγκαῖον οὐκ ἐνδέχεται ἄλλως καὶ ἄλλως ἔχειν

. — Δ 5, 1015 a 34

τὸ μὴ ἐνδεχόμενον ἄλλως ἔχειν ἀναγκαῖόν φαμεν οὕτως ἔχειν

. The distinction between the two terms had been already recognized by Plato: Theaet. 149 C

εἰκός τε καὶ ἀναγκαῖον

. — Tim. 40 E

ἄνευ τε εἰκότων καὶ ἀναγκαίων ἀποδείξεων λέγουσιν

. They were, it would seem, already established in the rhetorical terminology of the sophists (Stallbaum on Tim. 40 E).

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-324

1451a13 εἰς εὐτυχίαν κτἑ. This is obviously meant to apply only to the tragic hero, not to the secondary personages in the play, about whom Aristotle has very little to say. Though he acknowledges the legitimacy of a transition from misery to happiness as a dramatic motive — it will be remembered that it is the motive in the Iphigenia in Tauris (comp. 17, 1455 a 12

καὶ ἐντεῦθεν ἡ σωτηρία

) — he does not think it so distinctively tragic or so effective in Tragedy as the opposite kind of transition, that from happiness to misery ( 13, 1453 a 14 sqq. ).

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-325

1451a14 μεταβάλλειν The synonym for this in 13, 1453 a 2 is μεταπίπτειν. The implied subject of μεταβάλλειν is 'the tragic hero'; comp. 13, 1452 b 34

οὔτε τοὺς ἐπιεικεῖς ἄνδρας δεῖ μεταβάλλοντας φαίνεσθαι ἐξ εὐτυχίας εἰς δυστυχίαν

, and 14, 1453 a 1

οὐδ᾿ αὖ τὸν σφόδρα πονηρὸν ἐξ εὐτυχίας εἰς δυστυχίαν μεταπίπτειν

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-326

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-327

1451a16 μύθος δ᾽ ἐστὶν εἷς κτἑ. See Schoemann, Opusc. Acad. 3 p. 31 . ὥσπερ τινὲς οἴονται: i. e. certain post-Homeric poets, whose theory apparently is inferred from their practice (comp. a 21).

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-328

1451a17 πολλὰ γὰρ καὶ ἄπειρα De caelo 1. 9, 278 a 19

ὁρῶμεν ... πλείω καὶ ἄπειρα ὄντα τὰ ὁμοιοειδῆ

. Vahlen (Rh. Mus. 28 p. 184) quotes also Plato Theaet. 159 B

ἐλέγομεν ὡς πολλὰ μὲν εἴη τὰ ποιοῦντα καὶ ἄπειρα

. — Tim. 31 A

πότερον οὖν ὀρθῶς ἕνα οὐρανὸν προσειρήκαμεν, ἢ πολλοὺς καὶ ἀπείρους λέγειν ἦν ὀρθότερον;

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-329

τῷ ἑνὶ Phys. 2. 5, 196 b 28

τὸ δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἀόριστον· ἄπειρα γὰρ ἂν τῷ ἑνὶ συμβαίη

. On the strength of this parallel τῷ ἐνί in the present passage is taken as a neuter by Vahlen, who translates the clause accordingly by 'in unam rem innumera cadunt'. This interpretation, it seems to me, misses the point — the distinction Aristotle assumes between the many things that befall the individual ( πολλὰ τῷ ἑνὶ συμβαίνει), i. e. that he suffers or has done to him, and the many things that he does ( πράξεις ἑνὸς πολλαί εἰσιν a 18). That τῷ ἑνί is masculine here is shown not only by περὶ ἕνα (a 17), πράξεις ἑνός (a 18), and ὅσα αὐτῷ συνέβη (25) in the context, but also by the parallel in 23, 1459 a 23

ὅσα ἐν τούτῳ συνέβη περὶ ἕνα ἢ πλείους

. The version in the Paraphrase of Averroes, 'uni rei multa accidunt', implies the same interpretation.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-330

1451a18 ἐνίων which has been questioned by Spengel and others, is an understatement of a kind not so uncommon in Aristotle (see on 6, 1450 a 12 ). The sense is: In the infinite variety of things that befall the individual in the course of his life there are some [i. e. many] which it is impossible to bring into relation with the rest, as parts of one connected whole. The qualifying ἐνίων is like ἐνίοτε in 23, 1459 a 27

οὕτω καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐφεξῆς χρόνοις ἐνίοτε γίνεται θάτερον μετὰ θάτερον, ἐξ ὧν ἐν οὐδὲν γίνεται τέλος

. ἐξ ὧν ἐνίων has been rendered by 'ex quorum aliquibus' (Tyrwhitt), or 'quorum ex quibusdam' (Hermann). In the parallel, however, in Dem. 18. 12

περὶ ὧν ἐνίων

both Weil and Goodwin regard ἐνίων as appositional; and the same view has been taken of the word in Dem. 19. 260 (

τὰς ἀκροπόλεις αὐτῶν ἐνίων

), and in Xen. Anab. 6. 6. 34 (

περὶ ὑμῶν ἐνίων

). Another instance of this same ambiguity is in Meteor. 1. 3, 339 b 9

πολὺ καὶ τῶν ἄστρων ἐνίων ἐλάττων ἐστίν

(comp. L. Dindorf in HSt. s. v. ἔνιος). There is a clear instance of the appositional use of ἔνιοι, in a different case, in Poet. 9, 1451 b 19

ἐν ταῖς τραγῳδίαις ἐνíαις μὲν κτέ.

1451a19

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-331

πάντες ἐοίκασιν ἁμαρτάνειν comp. 23, 1459 a 29 , 37.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-332

1451a20 Ἡρακληίδα Several Ἡράκλειαι were known in antiquity ( Kinkel, EGF. 1 p. 212, 249, 254 ).

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-333

Θησηίδα Kinkel, 1 p. 217 .

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-334

1451a22 προσήκειν = 'must be', 'ought to be' according to the fitness of things, as in Meteor. 1. 3, 340 a 26 , De anima 1. 5, 411 b 15 , Rhet. 2. 2, 1379 b 3 , and Plato Rep. 362 C .

1451a24

Ὀδύσσειαν for the absence of the article see on 4, 1448 b 38 .

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-335

οὐκ ἐποίησεν ἅπαντα ὅσα αὐτῷ συνέβη i. e. his poem was not made to cover the whole ground of the life of Ulysses, but only a selected section of it, a limited group of incidents sufficiently coherent and connected to form a single action of the requisite kind ( μίαν πρᾶξιν οἷαν λέγομεν a 28 ). The unity in the story of the Odyssey, as Aristotle conceives it, may be seen from his survey of the poem in 17, 1455 b 17 . The sense of the οὐκ ἐποίησεν ἅπαντα in the text may be illustrated by the very similar expressions in 18, 1456 a 13

τὸν τῆς Ἰλιάδος ὅλον ποιεῖν μῦθον

, 16

πέρσιν Ἰλίου ὅλην ποιεῖν

, and 23, 1459 a 32

τὸν πόλεμον ποιεῖν ὅλον

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-336

1451a27 ὧν οὐδὲ θατέρου γενομένου ἀναγκαῖον ἢ εἰκὸς θάτερον γενέσθαι οἷον πληγῆναι μὲν, scil. αὐτῷ συνέβη. This and the second incident, μανῆναι δὲ προσποιήσασθαι ἐν τῷ ἀγερμῷ, are given as examples of two disconnected events in the life of Ulysses ( ὧν οὐδὲ θατέρου γενομένου ἀναγκαῖον ἢ εἰκὸς θάτερον γενέσθαι, a 27 ). The antithetic particles ( μέν, δέ) imply a difference between them; the one ( πληγῆναι) is a πάθος, and the other ( μανῆναι προσποιήσασθαι) a πρᾶξις — a distinction which the preceding context (see on a 17 ) shows to have been already present in Aristotle's mind. I have ventured to restore οὐδέ in place of οὐδέν for two reasons, partly because with οὐδέν the verb ( γενέσθαι) seems to have two subjects ( οὐδέν and θάτερον), and partly because the ὧν being followed by θατέρου and θάτερον naturally refers to the two incidents just mentioned. It has been urged, as one of the difficulties in this statement, that the wounding of Ulysses is actually part of the Odyssey, being described at considerable length in the story of the Discovery in Od. 19, 392-466 . The Discovery is certainly part of the action of the Odyssey (v. 17, 1455 b 21 ), but the incident on Parnassus is in a very different position; it comes in as an episode (v. 17, 1455 b 23 ), not as one of the series of incidents which form the action of the poem. The action in the Odyssey (summarized in 17, 1455 b 17 sqq. ) extends over a space of some six weeks; but the encounter of the boy Ulysses with the boar belonged to a period of his life not covered by the Odyssey. The second incident, his feigned madness, is said to have been part of the story in the Cypria ( Kinkel, EGF. p. 18 ). Bergk (Gr. Litt. I p. 711) thinks there may have been some epic in which both incidents were included. The superior unity of the Homeric Epic is emphatically reasserted in 23, 1459 a 30 .

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-337

ὧν = ἀλλὰ τούτων.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-338

1451a28 μίαν πρᾶξιν οἵαν λέγομεν 'a single action of the kind we are describing', i. e. one that forms a coherent and closely connected whole. The opposite of this is the μία πρᾶξις πολυμερής of the inferior epics ( 23, 1459 b 1 ). The reading of Ac, οἷαν λέγοιμεν, may have arisen through OIAN being misread, and taken to stand for οἷ᾽ἄν.

1451a34

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-339

διαφέρεσθαι καὶ κινεῖσθαι has been rendered in various ways— by

'diversum reddatur vel moveatur'

(Victorius) , by

'dissolvatur et luxetur'

(Heinsius) , and by

'differatur et moveatur'

(Tyrwhitt) . The general sense is clear: when a part in a whole is removed, by being transferred to another place or withdrawn altogether, the continuity of the whole is broken at that point. Both διαφέρεσθαι and κινεῖσθαι seem to be (as Heinsius must have seen) metaphors from surgery. διαφέρεσθαι may be regarded as a synonym for διίστασθαι, the term in use in medical Greek for the diastasis of a limb as distinct from a complete luxation ( ἐξίστασθαι or ὀλισθάνειν); comp. Hippocrates 3 p. 132 K.

ὁκόσα διίσταται καὶ ὁκόσα ὀλισθάνει

. If this view is correct, the κινεῖσθαι which follows will mean to be 'dislocated'. Hippocrates often has κινεῖσθαι and κίνημα in the sense of 'displacement' as an equivalent for diastasis (comp. 3 p. 81 K.

ἢν δέ τι κινηθῇ ἐκ τῆς χώρης

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-340

προσὸν ἢ μὴ προσόν comp. Metaph. M 10, 1076 a 2

οὐθὲν γὰρ ἡ ἑτέρα [scil. οὐσία] τῇ ἑτέρᾳ συμβάλλεται οὖσα ἢ μὴ οὖσα

, and Plato Rep. 449 D

μέγα γάρ τι οἰόμεθα φέρειν καὶ ὅλον εἰς πολιτείαν ὀρθῶς ἢ μὴ ὀρθῶς γιγνόμενον

. For this use of the participle see Goodwin, Syntax of Gk. moods and tenses § 829 (6) .

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-341

1451a35 οὐδὲν μόριον it is not a part of the whole, but an accident or addition to it; comp. De gen. an. 1. 4, 717 b 34

οὐθὲν γάρ εἰσι μόριον τῶν πόρων οἱ ὄρχεις, ἀλλὰ πρόσκεινται καθάπερ τὰς λαίας προσάπτουσιν αἱ ὑφαίνουσαι τοῖς ἱστοῖς

. In Metaph. Γ 5, 1010 a 30

οὗτος [scil. ὁ περὶ ἡμᾶς τόπος] οὐθὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν μόριον τοῦ παντός ἐστιν

, the phrase means practically 'is as nothing compared with', just like οὐδὲν μέρος in Isocrates 90 E

εἴ τις ἀθρήσειε καὶ σκέψαιτο τὰς τῶν Ἑλλήνων συμφοράς, οὐδὲν ἂν μέρος οὖσαι φανεῖεν τῶν ... ἡμῖν γεγενημένων

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-342

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-343

1451a36 φανερὸν δὲ κτέ. In Aristotle's view a history is a chronicle, or register, of events taken just as they came in order of time, however separate and disconnected they may have been in themselves ( 23, 1459 a 21 ). The present distinction between a history, in this sense of the term, and a poetic story is a corollary to what he lays down in chaps. 7-8 on the unity and logical coherence of the parts in a well-constructed story. The action in such a story is a πρᾶξις μία καὶ ὅλη ( 6, 1449 b 32 ), i. e. a whole with a beginning, middle, and end ( 7, 1450 b 26 ) ; each incident resulting from something that goes before it, and the entire series from the state of things presupposed, as the ἀρχή of the whole, at the opening. Given a personage of a certain character and in a certain position as the beginning of the story, all the rest must be the natural or necessary consequence of this initial situation. Hence it follows that the incidents in the poetic story are not only possible but also always possible, because they are such as may or must happen at any time, whenever the man and the circumstances are found together. Aristotle accordingly notes two great points of contrast between history and poetry: (1) whereas the former is a record of actual events ( τὰ γενόμενα), the latter describes rather possible incidents of another kind, τὰ δυνατὰ κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον (a 38); (2) whereas the one tells us what is true only of some particular person (or persons) at a particular time, the other tells us something universally true ( τὰ καθόλου b 7), something that will hold good at all times of all persons of the same type in a similar set of circumstances.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-344

1451a38 τὰ δυνατά scil. γενέσθαι (comp. b 32). The qualifying κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον excludes the third kind of δυνατά, viz. τὰ γενόμενα. These also are obviously possible (see b 17 and De interpr. 13, 23 a 7 ), but as mere γενόμενα they belong to history rather than poetry. A little further on, however (b 29), Aristotle explains that under certain conditions even historic incidents may be a legitimate subject for poetry.

1451b1

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-345

οὐ τῷ ἢ ἔμμετρα λέγειν κτέ. see 1, 1447 b 17 , where it is shown that metre is only one of the accidents of poetry.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-346

1451b4 διαφέρει scil. ὁ ἱστορικὸς τοῦ ποιητοῦ.

1451b5

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-347

σπουδαιότερον is the opposite of φαυλότερον. In Plato also σπουδαῖος (v. Ast, Lex. s.v.) is applied to things in the sense of axius spoudēs, 'of serious value or interest', as the opposite of either 'trivial' ( φαῦλος) or 'ludicrous' ( γελοῖος: see on 4, 1448 b 34 ). Poetry, as Aristotle conceives it, is 'more philosophic', because of the large and generalized view of human nature which it implies; it tells us in effect what all men of a certain character may or must do in a certain set of circumstances, whereas historic truth is limited to particular times and persons. A great master of rhetoric, Diderot, has enlarged on this text in a well-known passage in his Éloge de Richardson ( Œuvres t. 3 p. 18 ed. 1821 ):

'O Richardson! j'oserai dire que l'histoire la plus vraie est pleine de mensonges, et que ton roman est plein de vérités. L'histoire peint quelques individus; tu peins l'espèce humaine: l'histoire attribue à quelques individus ce qu'ils n'ont ni dit, ni fait; tout ce que tu attribues à l'homme, il l'a dit et fait l'histoire n'embrasse qu'une portion de la durée, qu'un point de la surface du globe; tu as embrassé tous les lieux et tous les temps. Le cœur humain, qui a été, est et sera toujours le même, est le modèle d'après lequel tu copies. Si l'on appliquait au meilleur historien une critique sévère, y en a-t-il aucun qui la soutînt comme toi? Sous ce point de vue, j'oserai dire que souvent l'histoire est un mauvais roman; et que le roman, comme tu l'as fait, est une bonne histoire. O peintre de la nature c'est toi qui ne mens jamais.'

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-348

μᾶλλον τὰ καθόλου μᾶλλον implies a qualification, which reappears in another form in b 9 οὗ στοχάζεται ἡ ποίησις ὀνόματα ἐπιτιθεμένη. Poetry deals with 'characters' rather than actual individuals, and with universal rather than particular truth. Its universality, however, is somewhat disguised by the proper names it attaches to its characters, which acquire in this way a certain resemblance to the real personages of history. A reason for the retention in Tragedy of traditional names is given further on, in b 15.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-349

1451b7 τὰ καθόλου... τὰ καθ᾿ ἕκαστον The present explanation of the terms may be compared with that in De interpr. 7, 17 a 39

λέγω δὲ καθόλου μὲν ὃ ἐπὶ πλειόνων πέφυκε κατηγορεῖσθαι, καθ᾿ ἕκαστον δὲ μὴ, οἷον ἄνθρωπος μὲν τῶν καθόλου, Καλλίας δὲ τῶν καθ᾿ ἕκαστον

; comp. also Rhet. 1. 2, 1356 b 28

οὐδεμία δὲ τέχνη σκοπεῖ τὸ καθ᾿ ἕκαστον, οἷον ἡ ἰατρικὴ (οὐ) τί Σωκράτει τὸ ὑγιεινόν ἐστιν ἢ Καλλίᾳ, ἀλλὰ τί τῷ τοιῷδε ἢ τοῖς τοιοῖσδε

. — 2. 4, 1382 a 4

ἡ μὲν ὁργὴ ἀεὶ περὶ τὰ καθ᾿ ἕκαστα, οἷον Καλλίᾳ ἢ Σωκράτει, τὸ δὲ μίσος καὶ πρὸς τὰ γένη

. For a similar use of καθόλου see 17, 1455 b 1 . The element of 'universality' in Greek Tragedy, as Aristotle understands it, means no more than is indicated in his present distinction between a poem and a history; and it is in no wise peculiar to Tragedy. Aristotle tells us it was to be seen in the Comedy of his time (b 11); and it is found in just the same way in the modern novel—even in the historical and in the so-called realistic novel. In all these forms of imaginative literature the personages are, as we say, 'characters', in other words, ideal personalities, made to act and speak in accordance with the law of character which the author has assumed for each. The novel, however (owing in some degree to its length), admits of characters of a subtlety and complexity which would have been simply impossible in the ancient Drama. The Greek dramatist was practically restricted to the larger and more obvious types of character, which did not require much explanation to make them intelligible to his public in the brief space of time allotted to his work.

1451b10

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-350

ὀνόματα ἐπιτιθεμένη = καίπερ ὀνόματα ἐπιτιθεμένη; comp. 25, 1461 a 30

οὐ πινόντων οἶνον

. The characters in the Drama are 'universals', i. e. types of character rather than actual individuals; that is what poetry really means them to be, notwithstanding the individualizing proper names it attaches to them. The alternative rendering of ὀνόματα ἐπιτιθεμένη, 'in giving names to its personages' (

'dum nomina imponit'

Heinsius ), would imply that the names were definitely chosen as significant of character. This would be true to some extent of those in Comedy (see infra on b 13 τὰ τυχόντα ὀνόματα), but not of those in Tragedy. As abstracts of character the personages ought to have general names, like those in Theophrastus, instead of the individualizing proper names given them in Drama. For the use of the middle verb in this connexion comp. 21, 1457 b 34 and Homer Od. 8. 552

οὐ μὲν γάρ τις πάμπαν ἀνώνυμός ἐστ᾿ ἀνθρώπων ... ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ πᾶσι τίθενται, ἐπεί κε τέκωσι, τοκῆες

1451b12

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-351

ἤδη i. e. now that the New Comedy has taken the place of the Old (see on 5, 1449 b 8 ), Comedy instead of satirizing individuals (like Cleon or Socrates) tells imaginary stories of imaginary personages labelled with imaginary names.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-352

1451b13 διὰ τῶν εἰκότων The same use of the preposition is found in 26, 1462 a 16

δι᾿ ἧς αἱ ἡδοναὶ συνίστανται

. It denotes the basis or chief ingredient in a compound, as it often does in later Greek, e. g. in expressions like τὸ δι᾿ ἀλόης, τὸ διὰ κολοκυνθίδος, etc. in the medical writers; comp. also Dionysius Hal. 5 p. 14 R.

διὰ γὰρ τῶν εὐτελεστάτων τε καὶ ταπεινοτάτων ὀνομάτων πέπλεκται πᾶσα ἡ λέξις

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-353

οὕτω the reading of Ac, is too idiomatic to be lightly surrendered (comp. Bon. Ind. 546 b 13 ). The Arabic version is said to imply not οὕτω but οὐ; the same Arabic word, however, which Dr. Margoliouth renders by nequaquam, would seem to occur also in the Arabic text in 6, 1450 a 30 , where it may be taken to represent οὔπω. One may suspect, therefore, that the Greek reading before the Syriac translator in the present passage was οὔπω, a mere corruption of οὕτω.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-354

τὰ τυχόντα ὀνόματα Ritter has a note here on the names of the characters in the New Comedy. Aristotle's point is this. In the Old Comedy the names of the chief characters were already fixed and prescribed for the poet, because actually borne by the persons whom he wished to satirize. Socrates, Cleon, Agathon, Euripides are instances of such names in Aristophanes. But in the New Comedy the names were not thus fixed. In calling a soldier Thraso or Pyrgopolinices, for instance, the poet did not mean to satirize some actual person of that name; the name was a matter of choice or accident—invented it may be by the poet himself, or borrowed by him from his predecessors or from life. Such names may no doubt be stock-names, or have a certain conventional or etymological appropriateness as suggestive of certain types of character (comp. Dieterich, Pulcinella p. 45 ); but they obviously stand on quite a different footing from the real names in Aristophanes. Names also like Phormio, Chremes, Menedemus, etc., were in Comedy fictitious names, though outside Comedy they may have been borne by real persons (comp. on 21 ).

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-355

1451b14 ὑποτιθέασιν 'lay down as a foundation,' so that the story may look like one founded on fact (comp. 17, 1455 b 12 ).

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-356

ἰαμβοποιοί see on 4, 1448 b 27 and 5, 1449 b 8 .

1451b15

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-357

τῶν γενομένων ὀνομάτων ἀντέχονται comp. Evanthius De Comoedia 4, 2 (Kaibel, CGF. 1 p. 66)

omnis comoedia de fictis est argumentis; tragoedia saepe ab historica fide petitur

. The reading γενομένων has been questioned, but (as it seems to me) without sufficient reason. τὰ γενόμενα ὀνόματα are the already existing names, as fixed in history or legend ( γνώριμα b 20), in contradistinction to a newly-invented name (comp. τὰ ὀνόματα πεποίηται b 22 ), or one which, whether new or not, is arbitrarily assigned to a character by the poet ( τὰ τυχόντα ὀνόματα b 13 ) at the time of writing.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-358

1451b16 πιθανόν (comp. πιστεύομεν in the next line) is the Greek equivalent of our modern term 'convincing', and practically synonymous with εἰκός (comp. 24, 1460 a 27 ) and ἔνδοξον ( Bon. Ind. 593 a 35 ). The word was sufficiently established to be applied even by Xenophon to a work of art which has a look of life and reality: Mem. 3. 10, 7

ὁμοιότερά τε τοῖς ἀληθινοῖς καὶ πιθανώτερα ποιεῖς φαίνεσθαι

. In 17, 1455 a 30

πιθανός

is said of a person, the poet who writes 'convincingly'. The adv. πιθανῶς has the same sense in Aristophanes Thesm. 266

ἁνὴρ μὲν ἡμῖν οὗτοσὶ καὶ δὴ γυνὴ τὸ γ᾿ εἶδος· ἢν λαλῇς δ᾿, ὅπως τῷ φθέγματι γυναικιεῖς εὖ καὶ πιθανῶς

('play the woman well and convincingly').

1451b18

ἐνίαις see on 8, 1451 a 18 for this appositional use of the word.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-359

1451b19 Ἀνθεῖ was first suggested, somewhat tentatively, by Welcker in his Gr. Tragödien p. 995 . 'The Flower' would certainly be a very strange title for a Greek tragedy. The play being on a purely fictitious story, the names also of the characters, instead of being taken over from legend or history, were fictions, and due to the choice of the poet himself. But they need not be supposed to have been new or newly-coined names. Ἀνθεύς, for instance, seems to have been known already in mythical history as the name of certain legendary personages; and not so very long after Agathon's time it was actually borne by an Athenian citizen ( Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica 953 ). In this respect, therefore, it was in just the same position as so many of the names in Comedy, Chremes, Menedemus, Phormio, and the like.

1451b23

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-360

εὐφραίνει an incidental recognition of pleasure as the immediate end of Tragedy (see 14, 1453 b 12 , and Döring, Kunstlehre des Aristoteles p. 104 ). εὐφραίνειν serves as a transitive to χαίρειν: Top. 2. 6, 112 b 21

ἔτι καὶ εἰ αὐτὸ αὐτῷ συμβεβηκὸς ἔθηκεν ὡς ἕτερον διὰ τὸ ἕτερον εἶναι ὄνομα, καθάπερ Πρόδικος διῃρεῖτο τὰς ἡδονὰς εἰς χαρὰν καὶ τέρψιν καὶ εὐφροσύνην· ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα τοῦ αὐτοῦ, τῆς ἡδονῆς, ὀνόματά ἐστιν

εἰ οὖν τις τὸ χαίρειν τῷ εὐφραίνεσθαι φήσει συμβεβηκέναι, αὐτὸ ἂν αὐτῷ φαίη συμβεβηκέναι

. — Eth. E. 3. 2, 1231 a 6

τῶν ὀσμῶν ταύταις χαίρουσιν ὅσαι κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς εὐφραίνουσιν

. The word may describe the pleasurable effect of anything, e. g. that of a painting ( Poet. 6, 1450 a 2 ), of music ( Pol. 8. 5, 1339 b 24 ), and of odours ( Eth. E. l. c. ; Rhet. 3. 4, 1407 a 10 ).

ὥστ᾿ οὐ πάντως ἂν εἴη ζητητέον Spengel suggested that the εἶναι of the MS. should be bracketed. In these negative statements of result with ὥστε οὐ, which are so common in Aristotle, the verb is usually either in the indicative, (1) expressed or (2) understood, or (3) in the potential optative, as the following passages from the Organon may suffice to show: (1) An. pr. 1. 36, 48 a 36

ὥστε οὐκ ἔσται μέσον τοῦ ΑΒ

. — Top. 8. 11, 151 b 30

ὥστε οὐ τῷ ταῦτ᾿ εἶναι γίνεται ὁ συλλογισμός

(comp. Poet. 22, 1458 a 5 ). (2) An. pr. 1. 32, 47 a 35

ὥστ᾿ οὐκ εἴ τι συμβαίνει τεθέντων τινῶν, πειρατέον ἀνάγειν εὐθύς

. — Top. 6. 5, 142 a 4

ὥστ᾿ οὐδὲ πρὸς τὸν αὐτὸν ἀεὶ ὁ αὐτὸς ὁρισμὸς ἀποδοτέος

(comp. Metaph. Z 12, 1038 a 12 ). (3) An. post. 1. 12, 77 b 12

ὥστ᾿ οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἐν ἀγεωμετρήτοις περὶ γεωμετρίας διαλεκτέον

. — An. pr. 1. 16, 36 a 14

ὥστε οὐδενὶ ἢ οὐ παντὶ τῷ Γ τὸ Β ἐνδέχοιτ᾿ ἂν ὑπάρχειν

. — Top. 6. 12, 149 b 2

ὥστ᾿ οὐκ ἂν εἴη χρῶμα πυρὶ μεμιγμένον

. — Soph. el. 6, 168 b 4

ὥστ᾿ εἰ ὁ ἔλεγχος συλλογισμός τις, οὐκ ἂν εἴη ὁ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἔλεγχος

. Two instances of εἶναι for ἂν εἴη are to be found in MSS. of great antiquity and value, one in Par. A of Plato ( Tim. 17 B ), and the other in Kb of the Nicomachean Ethics ( 8. 2, 1155 b 20 ). The error may have arisen either from the omission of an, a word very apt to be lost in MSS., or through ὥστ᾿ οὐ being misread and turned into ὡς τοῦ (as it has been in fact in Ac).

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-361

δῆλον οὖν ἐκ τούτων refers back to the distinction drawn in the earlier part of the chap. 1451 b 1-5 between a poetic story and a history; a history was said to be still a history even if put into a metrical form. From this Aristotle once more ( V. I. 1447 b 11 ) draws the conclusion that the story is a more essential part of a poem than the language or versification.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-362

ὅσῳ ποιητὴς κτέ. is added as a further reason for regarding the story (rather than the verse) as the great and essential thing in a poem. The argument, which might have been more clearly stated, tacitly assumes what we have been told of the μῦθος and its pre-eminent importance in chap. 6 . The poet's function, says Aristotle, is to imitate ( ποιητὴς κατὰ τὴν μίμησιν), and it is actions that he imitates ( μιμεῖται δὲ τὰς πράξεις): but the μῦθος in a poem is what represents the action ( τῆς μὲν πράξεως ὁ μύθος ἡ μίμησις, 6, 1450 a 4 ); the μύθος therefore is the poet's first business, and he must be accordingly a ποιητὴς τῶν μύθων, μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν μέτρων.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-363

ποιητὴς κατὰ τὴν μίμησιν: 1, 1447 b 15

οὐχ ὡς κατὰ τὴν μίμησιν ποιητὰς ἀλλὰ κοινῇ κατὰ τὸ μέτρον προσαγορεύοντες

. Vahlen, in the discussion on this chapter in his Beiträge, maintains that μίμησις may involve the idea of a poetic reconstruction of the traditional materials: ' Also die nach dem Gesetz der Wahrscheinlichkeit und Nothwendigkeit vollzogene dichterische Umbildung (μίμησις) des gegebenen, von Sage oder Geschichte überlieferten Stoffes macht den dramatischen Dichter aus' ( Beitr. 1 p. 29). Such a meaning can hardly be ascribed to μίμησις (see on 1, 1447 a 16 ); it is rather part of the general idea of ποίησις (see on 1, 1447 b 23 ), which in the case of a traditional story implies a certain free handling of the materials to adapt them to the purposes of poetry ( comp. 14, 1453 b 25 ).

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-364

κἂν ἄρα συμβῇ γενόμενα ποιεῖν, Up to this point the subject of a poem has been assumed to be always a μύθος, a fictitious story (see on 5, 1449 b 9 ), either invented by the poet himself ( b 12, b 21 ) or adapted from legend. Aristotle, however, now remembers that there may be such a thing as an historical play, one with incidents taken from actual history ( γενόμενα). Such incidents, he explains, are legitimate subjects for poetry, if they admit of being exhibited as probable and natural, as well as actual occurrences. It is only in this aspect, and on this condition, that they are admissible in poetry; as so many mere facts they belong to the domain of history.

κἂν ἄρα = καὶ ἐὰν ἄρα, the ἄpa implying that the supposition is not very probable ( Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 2 p. 324).

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-365

τῶν δὲ ἁπλῶν μύθων κτέ. An episodic story, as here defined, offends against the rule of unity and consecutiveness of incident laid down in chap. 8 . Aristotle's theory is that in a well-constructed story every incident is wanted ( 8, 1451 a 32 ); so that a plot with irrelevant incidents violates a fundamental principle of dramatic construction. Plots of this faulty kind, he adds, are sometimes produced even by good poets through the practical exigencies of the theatre; as a play is expected to be of a certain length, if the story proves too short, it may have to be artificially lengthened out by the insertion of superfluous episodes. Tyrwhitt points to the Prometheus as an instance of this: ' Fabulae ἐπεισοδιώδους luculentum satis exemplum habemus Promethea Aeschyli. Episodia enim Oceani, 284-396. et Iûs, 563-885. nec inter se, neque cum fabula principali ullam habent connexionem aut necessariam aut verisimilem Satis manifestum est et Io et Oceanum, et ipsas etiam Oceanidas, quae chorum constituunt, in id tantum sine ulla verisimilitudine induci, ut argumentum tenue in iustam Tragoediae magnitudinem extendant.' The episodic plot is mentioned here because of its resemblance to a history, since its incidents have no more necessary interconnexion than those in a chronicle. The paragraph, therefore, is a very natural sequel to the preceding discussion ( b 1-32 ); and it is in its right place where it stands. Those who wish to find another place for it do so mainly on the ground that the text presupposes the distinction between the ἁπλοῦς and the πεπλεγμένος μῦθος explained in the next chapter. This anticipatory use of a technical term, however, is not so uncommon in Aristotle. Thus—to say nothing of his use of κάθαρσις in 6, 1449 b 28- we find him talking of περιπέτεια and ἀναγνώρισις or ἀναγνωρισμός in 6, 1450 a 34 and 10, 1452 a 16 , and giving an explanation of them afterwards in chap. 11 . Besides this it has to be remembered that the expression ἁπλοῦς μύθος need not be assumed to have been an invention of Aristotle's; for it may very well have been merely adopted by him as one of the already existing terms of dramatic criticism (see infra on ἐπεισοδιώδεις, and on 6, 1449 b 33, 1450 a 34 ). Another difficulty was found in the text by Tyrwhitt, who proposed to remove it by reading τῶν δὲ ἄλλων μύθων, a suggestion which the Arabic Version is believed to confirm. The traditional reading τῶν δὲ ἁπλῶν μύθων is supposed to restrict the fault in question to the ἁπλοῦς μύθος, whereas the same fault was no doubt quite possible in the πεπλεγμένος μύθος also. No such restriction, however, is involved in the text. All that Aristotle implies here is a distinction between the worst form of the ἁπλοῦς μύθος and the worst form of the πεπλεγμένος μύθος. The worst fault in the one is the irrelevant episode. That in the other is no doubt the ἀναγνώρισις διὰ σημείων, which is so emphatically condemned in 16, 1454 b 20 as the least artistic of Discoveries.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-366

ἐπεισοδιώδεις. An ἐπεισοδιώδης μύθος is a plot in which the continuity of the action is not maintained. That the term was fairly established in this sense is shown by the metaphorical use of it in Metaph.Λ 10, 1076 a 1

ἐπεισοδιώδη τὴν τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίαν ποιοῦσιν οὐθὲν γὰρ ἡ ἑτέρα τῇ ἑτέρᾳ συμβάλλεται οὖσα ἢ μὴ οὖσα

. — Ν 3, 1090 b 19

οὐκ ἔοικε δ᾽ ἡ φύσις ἐπεισοδιώδης οὖσα ... ὥσπερ μοχθηρὰ τραγῳδία

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-367

τὰ ἐπεισόδια for the origin of the term see on 12, 1452 b 20 . In this definition of the ἐπεισοδιώδης μύθος, as also in 4, 1449 a 28 and 18, 1456 a 33,

ἐπεισόδιον

has the technical sense given it in 12, 1452 b 20

ἐπεισόδιον δὲ μέρος ὅλον τραγῳδίας τὸ μεταξὺ ὅλων χορικῶν μελῶν

, 'an episode is all that comes in in the interspace between two entire choral songs'. In other words the ἐπεισόδια together with the πρόλογος and ἔξοδος are the acted parts of the play, the 'acts', as we should say. The term, however, often has the more general meaning of an 'insertion'; a sense which takes us back to the early days of the Drama, when Tragedy was still essentially choral, and the episode, or acted part, was only a sort of interlude in the singing. There are several instances even in the Poetics of this sense of the word. In 17, 1455 b 13 the accessories worked into the story are termed 'episodes'—the process of working them in being ἐπεισοδιοῦν ( v. 17, 1455 b 1; 24, 1459 b 30 ); and in 23, 1459 a 36 the Catalogue of the Ships is said to be one of the 'episodes' in the Iliad. The adj. ἐπεισοδιώδης in the present context involves the same notion; the ἐπεισοδιώδης μύθος is one with acts or incidents inserted into it, i. e. only loosely connected with the main course of the story.

11b. mvp-aristotle-comment-368

ὑποκριτάς, κριτάς, the reading of certain of the apographs, has an air of plausibility, but it is difficult to see how the judges, whatever their weaknesses, could be responsible for the particular fault under consideration, the undue lengthening out of the story through the insertion of irrelevant episodes. The statement in the text has to be read in the light of that in 7, 1451 a 6 , where Aristotle draws a distinction between the theoretical and the practical limit of length, and explains that the latter depends on conditions imposed by the public performances ( πρὸς τοὺς ἀγῶνας καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν). As every play, as an acting play ( comp. ἀγωνίσματα in the context), has by custom to be of a certain length, the poet, if his story proves too short, may have to spin it out ( παρὰ τὴν δύναμιν παρατείναντες) by the insertion of additional incidents, which will break the sequence of the story ( διαστρέφειν τὸ ἐφεξῆς, 1452 a 1).

11b. mvp-aristotle-comment-369

διὰ τοὺς ὑποκριτάς, 'with a view to the actors,' may be taken as equivalent to διὰ τὴν ὑπόκρισιν, 'because the play has to be acted' ( comp. Ueberweg ad loc.); the more concrete form of expression makes an antithesis to the δι' αὐτούς in 36 . A much less probable interpretation of these words is that the actors are assumed to put pressure on the poet to make him provide them with parts of sufficient importance.

11b. mvp-aristotle-comment-370

ἀγωνίσματα: see on 6, 1450 b 18 ; comp. Schol. Eurip. Phoen. 88 ὦ κλεινὸν οἶκοις : ἡ τοῦ δράματος διάθεσις ἐνταῦθα ἀγωνιστικωτέρα γίνεται τὰ γὰρ τῆς Ἰοκάστης παρελκόμενά εἰσι καὶ ἕνεκα τοῦ θεάτρου ἐκτέταται ( v. Trendelenburg, Gramm. gr. de arte tragica iudiciorum rel. p. 91).

11b. mvp-aristotle-comment-371

παρατείναντες. The story being too short, they stretch it out, as it were, to make it fill up the time. This can only be done in two ways, either by a diffuse treatment of the incidents ( comp. 26, 1462 b 2-7 ), or by the insertion of additional incidents not wanted for the main purpose of the story. A similar combination of a present and an aorist participle is found in 16, 1455 a 2

ἀκούων ... καὶ μνησθείς

, and in 22, 1458 b 19

ποιήσαντος... μετατιθέντος

1452a

11b. mvp-aristotle-comment-372

1452a1 διαστρέφειν ... τὸ ἐφεξῆς: comp. Aeschylus Suppl. 1017 ἴχνος τὸ πρόσθεν οὐ διαστρέψω φρενός. The sense is that a side incident is introduced, one not in the natural course of the story—not in line with the rest.

11b. mvp-aristotle-comment-373

ἀναγκάζονται. They do so because they cannot help it, not like the inferior order of poets, through their own fault ( δι' αὐτούς). For another instance of ἀναγκάζεσθαι see 14, 1454 a 12 .

11c. mvp-aristotle-comment-374

καὶ μάλιστα. The καί emphasizes μάλιστα ( comp. De sensu 3, 440 b 12 ; De part. an. 1. 5, 643 a 24 ; also Riddell, Digest of Idioms § 133). At this point Aristotle recognizes a new element of interest in Tragedy, the element of surprise, but only incidentally, in order to bring it under the canon of construction laid down in chap. 7. The φοβερὰ καὶ ἐλεεινά of Tragedy, he says, have the very greatest effect on the mind, when they come in unexpectedly, but at the same time as the natural or necessary consequence of incidents within the play itself ( δι' ἄλληλα).

τὸ ... θαυμαστόν, the element of the marvellous, is recognized as a legitimate source of interest in Tragedy in 24, 1460 a 12 . Teichmüller has a lengthy discussion on it ( Aristotelische Forschungen 2 p. 282 sqq.).

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-375

οὕτως, i. e. if they come about δι' ἄλληλα, through incidents in the preceding part of the play.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-376

ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτομάτου καὶ τῆς τύχης. Aristotle treats the two terms here as synonymous, though a distinction is drawn between them in Phys.2. 4-6 , ( Bon. Ind. 780 b 33; comp. Torstrik, Hermes 9 p. 425).

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-377

ὥσπερ ἐπίτηδες: De caelo 2. 8, 290 a 33

ἡ φύσις... ἔοικεν ὥσπερ ἐπίτηδες ἀφελεῖν πάντα δι᾽ ὧν ἐνεδέχετο προϊέναι καθ αὐτά.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-378

ἀνδριὰς ὁ τοῦ Μίτυος κτέ. Excerpted by the compiler of the De mirab. ausc.156, 846 a 22 . The same story is told, apparently from another source, by Plutarch, De sera num. vind. 553 D καὶ τὸ Μίτυος τοῦ Ἀργείου κατὰ στάσιν ἀναιρεθέντος ἀνδριάντα χαλκοῦν ἐν ἀγορᾷ θέας οὖσης ἐμπεσεῖν τῷ κτείναντι τὸν Μίτυν καὶ ἀνελεῖν. A certain Mitys of Argos is mentioned in [ Demosthenes] 59, 33 in connexion with an occurrence which took place in B.C. 374.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-379

θεωροῦντι is usually understood to mean 'when he was looking at it' (' spectanti incidens,' Tyrwhitt; comp. Bon. Ind. 328 b 5). But as the parallel in Plutarch has θέας οὖσης, Dacier would seem to be right in translating it by ' au milieu d' une grande fête', taking it in the sense of 'being present at a θεωρία, or public spectacle'.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-380

ὥστε see on 7, 1451 a 3 .

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-381

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-382

1452a12 εἰσὶ δὲ τῶν μύθων κτέ. Chap. 10 is a sequel to 9. 1452 a 1-11 , and an application of its results. The real point is not in the formalistic distinction between the two kinds of μύθοι, with which it opens ( 12-18 ), but in the assertion that follows, viz. that even the complex story comes under the general canon of construction laid down in chap. 7 , and that the element of surprise (the ἀναγνώρισις and περιπέτεια) must be, like everything else in a play, part of the unity of the whole, the natural or necessary consequence of something before it ( ἐκ τῶν προγεγενημένων 19).

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-383

εὐθὺς: see on 5, 1449 a 36.

ὥσπερ ὥρισται

, i. e. in chaps. 7-8 .

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-384

περιπετείας ἢ ἀναγνωρισμοῦ: see on 6, 1450 a 34 . Both terms are explained in the next chapter.

1452a17

δὲ λέξις. The editors generally acquiesce in the corrected reading δὲ ἐξ ἧς, in lieu of which Vahlen has δέ ἐστιν ἐξ ἧς, and Susemihl δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἧς. I have suggested that Aristotle may possibly have written πεπλεγμένην δὲ λέγω ἧς, on the supposition that λέξις may be taken to represent λεγω ἧς.

ταῦτα, i. e. ἀναγνωρισμὸς and περιπέτεια.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-385

ταῦτα. If any correction is wanted, αὐτά or τὰ μετ᾽ αὐτά is perhaps simpler than either τὰ ὕστερα ( Gomperz) or τἀναντία ( Bonitz) though this last has certainly the great advantage of supplying an easy explanation of the καθάπερ εἴρηται in 11, 1452 a 23 . The objection to ταῦτα is its supposed inelegance and superfluity. It is not more inelegant, however, than the γίγνεσθαι that immediately precedes it ( ταῦτα δὲ δεῖ γίνεσθαι ... ὥστε ... γίγνεσθαι ταῦτα); and its apparent superfluity is a common phenomenon with demonstratives in Greek ( v. Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 1 p. 660).

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-386

1452a22 διαφέρει γὰρ πολὺ τὸ γίγνεσθαι τάδε διὰ τάδε ἢ μετὰ τάδε. Aristotle's construction after διαφέρει is not always quite the same as that in the present passage. (1) The disjunctive is sometimes doubled: Rhet.1. 15, 1375 b 20

οὐδὲν διαφέρει ἢ μὴ κεῖσθαι ἢ μὴ χρῆσθαι

[ comp. Poet. 9, 1451 b 1; 18, 1456 a 30 ]. (2) It may be replaced by a καί: An. post.1. 11, 77 a 13

τὸ δὲ μέσον οὐδὲν διαφέρει εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι λαβεῖν

—or by τε καί: Soph. el.18, 177 a 6

διαφέρει δὲ πλεῖστον ἐρωτώμενόν τε καὶ μὴ λύειν λόγον

. (3) A clause also with εἰ may take the place of one with the infinitive: De interpr.9, 18 a 36

οὐδὲ τοῦτο διαφέρει εἴ τινες εἶπον τὴν ἀντίφασιν ἢ μὴ εἶπον

.— Soph. el.17, 176 a 6

οὐδὲν γὰρ τοῦτο διαφέρει ἢ εἰ ἤρετο κτέ.

[ comp. Poet. 18, 1456 a 30 ].

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-387

περιπέτεια, as a stage-term, seems to mean a complete change or reversal of situation within the limits of a single scene or act [ v. Festschrift Theodor Gomperz dargebracht p. 168]. Apart from the stage it has the sense of a sudden change of fortune in Rhet.1. 11, 1371 b 10,

καὶ αἱ περιπέτειαι

[ repentinae mutationes, Goulston] καὶ τὸ παρὰ μικρὸν σῴζεσθαι ἐκ τῶν κινδύνων [ scil. ἡδύ]. πάντα γὰρ θαυμαστά ταῦτα; and that of a reversal of the natural order of things in H. A.8. 2, 590 b 13 . This same idea of an unforeseen reversal of fortune is implied also in the adj. περιπετής in Herod. 8. 20

περιπετέα τε ἐποιήσαντο σφίσι αὐτοῖσι τὰ πρήγματα

, and in Eurip. Andr.982

περιπετεῖς ἔχεις τύχας, καὶ ξυμφορὰν τήνδ᾽ ἐσπεσοῦσ᾽ ἀμηχανεῖς

. Every tragedy, according to Aristotle ( 7, 1451 a 13 ), describes a transition from happiness to misery or vice versa; but in the 'complex story' the change, however gradual it may be, seems to the hero to come upon him all at once, by a sudden reversal of the state of things; he thinks himself a happy man (let us say) at the beginning of an act, and a miserable man at the end of it. It has been argued, however, by Vahlen ( Beitr. ii p. 6), and more recently by Dr. Lock ( Class. Rev. 9, 251), that a περιπέτεια in Aristotle's sense of the term is something different from this—that it is conceived as arising when a man's actions ( τῶν πραττομένων) are found to have consequences the direct opposite of what the agent meant or expected. The language in a 22-25 ( v. ad loc.) hardly justifies such a very artificial interpretation of a word like περιπέτεια, which must be presumed to have been already an established and well-understood term of dramatic technique (see on 6, 1450 a 34 and comp. 10, 1452 a 15 ). If we refrain from putting pressure on isolated points, the general sense and connexion of ideas in Aristotle's statement is sufficiently clear. He begins by assuming (1) a working definition of περιπέτεια ( ἡ εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον τῶν πραττομένων μεταβολὴ καθάπερ εἴρηται), with an addition to remind us (2) that even an incident like this ( καὶ τοῦτο δὲ) is in a well-constructed play κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, i. e. the natural or necessary consequence of antecedents in the story ( 10, 1452 a 18-20 ), as it is for instance (3) in the Oedipus Tyrannus ( a 24-26 ), and (4) in the Lynceus ( a 27-29 ). In the O. T. the sudden fall of Oedipus is the consequence of the revelation of his parentage ( δηλώσας ὃς ἦν a 26 ), and the revelation of his parentage the consequence of the presence of the messenger from Corinth ( ἐλθών a 25 ). Similarly in the Lynceus the sudden change of situation—the salvation of Lynceus and death of his enemy ( a 29 ) is the consequence of certain incidents in a previous act ( συνέβη ἐκ τῶν πεπραγμένων a 28 ). This second instance—which seems to be added as a reminder that the περιπέτεια may be a turn for good ( comp. τὸν δὲ σωθῆναι a 29 ) as well as a turn for evil—is too clearly described to leave any opening for any subtleties of interpretation. Aristotle's language puts before us an act or scene, which begins with Lynceus being led off for execution ( ὡς ἀποθανούμενος a 27 ) and ends with his salvation ( σωθῆναι a 29 ). This was the περιπέτεια—the εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον τῶν πραττομένων μεταβολή ( a 22 )—of the Lynceus; and as it came about according to Aristotle through incidents in the preceding portion of the play ( συνέβη ἐκ τῶν πεπραγμένων a 28 ), it was in conformity with the great law of construction laid down in the preceding chapter and elsewhere.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-388

καθάπερ εἴρηται may be taken (with Vahlen) as = κατὰ τοὺς εἰρημένους τρόπους, i. e. εἰς εὐτυχίαν ἢ εἰς δυστυχίαν, as was said in 7, 1451 a 13 , and tacitly assumed in 6, 1450 a 3, 17 . If we accept Bonitz's correction in 10, 1452 a 20 , the reference will be to that passage.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-389

καὶ τοῦτο δὲ κτέ. By omitting the stop before these words Vahlen makes them part of the definition of περιπέτεια. But it is much more natural to take them as an additional clause, like that in 10, 1452 a 18

ταῦτα δὲ δεῖ γίνεσθαι κτέ.

—in which case the illustrations from the O. T. and Lynceus are given as instances not of περιπέτεια in general, but of the kind of περιπέτεια which accords with Aristotelian principles of construction.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-390

ὥσπερ λέγομεν: 'in the way we are saying', what follows being the explanation of this. The reference is to the formula at the end of chap. 10,

ἢ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἢ κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς γίγνεσθαι ταῦτα

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-391

τῷ Οἰδίποδι: Soph. O. T. 924. The Oedipus Coloneus is never mentioned in the Poetics or elsewhere in Aristotle.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-392

ἐλθὼν κτέ. ' Bene factum est quod ipsam tragoediam adhuc superstitem habemus, nam alioqui ex Aristotelis verbis credere deberemus Nuntium eo consilio venisse ut Oedipum a metu circa matrem liberaret' ( Tyrwhitt). It is to be remembered that the Messenger in the O. T. arrives in the scene (911-1085) preceding the peripety (1110-1185). Even after the announcement of the death of Polybus Oedipus is not quite freed from his old anxieties, as Merope, his supposed mother, is still living; all further disquietude on that account the Messenger seeks to allay by his assurance that Oedipus was no son of Merope but a foundling, whom he had himself received from one of the servants of Laius. This disclosure is enough for Iocasta (1056); but neither Oedipus nor the chorus has as yet any suspicion of its import. It is only in the next scene (1110-1185) that he learns the whole truth, and thus falls, all at once as it were, from happiness into misery. This is in brief the peripety in the O. T.; and it is, as Aristotle says, the natural result of the arrival of the Messenger and his disclosure in the preceding scene. Vahlen and others point to this passage, ἐλθὼν ὡς εὐφρανῶν ... τοὐναντίον ἐποίησεν, as evidence for their contention, that a peripety is said to take place when something done by a man with a certain end in view has consequences of a directly opposite kind. If that were the meaning, the peripety in the O. T. would surely be a fact in the life of the Messenger, not the turning-point in that of Oedipus.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-393

εὐφρανῶν: O.T. 934 sqq.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-394

ἀπαλλάξων κτέ.: O.T. 989 sqq.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-395

δηλώσας ὃς ἦν: O.T. 1016 sqq. It is this that leads to the examination of the Servant in the following scene, which is the immediate cause of the catastrophe.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-396

τοὐναντίον: not the opposite of what the man intended, but the changed situation. The meaning is sufficiently shown by the use of τὸ ἐναντίον in the first line of the chapter.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-397

Λυγκεῖ: the Lynceus of Theodectes; comp. 18, 1455 b 29 and Nauck, TGF. p. 801. It is clear from Aristotle's account that it must have been a play with a 'double plot' ( v. 13, 1453 a 30 ).

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-398

τὸν μὲν συνέβη κτέ. The construction is changed in order to show that the new situation was the result of something that had gone before it, some incident in a preceding scene ( συνέβη ἐκ τῶν πεπραγμένων).

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-399

τῶν πεπραγμένων: comp. 10, 1452 a 19

ὥστε ἐκ τῶν προγεγενημένων συμβαίνειν κτέ.

, and 18, 1455 b 30

δέσις μὲν τά τε προπεπραγμένα καὶ ἡ τοῦ παιδίου λῆψις

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-400

ἀναγνώρισις. Aristotle has already laid it down in 10, 1452 a 18-20 that the Discovery should arise ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συστάσεως τοῦ μύθου, and he does not repeat his rule in the present chapter. He assumes that in a 37 ( ἡ μάλιστα τοῦ μύθου), and also later on, in chap. 16, which is a sort of appendix to this discussion (see esp. 16, 1455 a 16 ).

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-401

πρὸς εὐτυχίαν ... ὡρισμένων: comp. Eurip. fr. 218 ed. Nauck ( TGF. p. 424) φεῦ φεῦ, τὸ δοῦλον ὡς ἁπανταχῇ γένος πρὸς τὴν ἐλάσσω μοῖραν ὥρισεν θεός.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-402

περιπέτειαι. The plural is used, just as in 6, 1450 a 34 , 18, 1456 a 19 , 24, 1459 b 10 , to denote the concrete instances of περιπέτεια, as actual incidents in plays. The formal incongruity of number in the juxtaposition of ἀναγνώρισις and περιπέτειαι in the present passage is certainly not greater than that in 9, 1451 a 3

μετὰ μέτρου ἢ ἄνευ μέτρων

, or Thuc. 2. 4. 2

λίθοις τε καὶ κεράμῳ βαλλόντων

. See also the instances quoted on 19, 1456 b 1 ( μέγεθος καὶ μικρότητα).

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-403

οἵαν. Bon. Ind. 507 b 26 would restore οἵαν for οἷον in Magna mor.2. 8, 1207 b 18 .

οἷον ( i. e. e.g.), it becomes necessary to understand περιπέτειαν after ἔχει.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-404

ἡ ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι, scil. ἀναγνώρισις.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-405

πρὸς ἄψυχα καὶ τὰ τυχόντα. The καί here means 'even', not 'and', as is often assumed by the interpreters. Aristotle distinguishes between three possible forms of Discovery, according as it relates to (1) persons, (2) things, or (3) acts or deeds. In dealing with the second form he adds that the things recognized may be even of a very casual kind, καὶ τὰ τυχόντα—thinking perhaps of objects like certain of the σημεῖα mentioned in 16, 1454 b 21 sqq.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-406

ἔστιν ὡς ὅπερ εἴρηται συμβαίνει. If we adopt Vahlen's suggestion, ἔστιν, ὅσ᾽ ὥσπερ εἴρηται συμβαίνει, we have to dissever τὰ τυχόντα from ἄψυχα, and take ὅσ' ὥσπερ εἴρηται συμβαίνει as an explanation of it. It is not easy to see how τὰ τυχόντα, i.e. concrete things of some sort or other, can be said to 'happen' or 'come about' ( συμβαίνει) in a particular way. Spengel's reading ὅπερ εἴρηται aptly recalls the idea of ἀναγνώρισις as defined at the beginning of this paragraph, ἐξ ἀγνοίας εἰς γνῶσιν μεταβολή, ἢ εἰς φιλίαν ἢ εἰς ἔχθραν. As this recognition of 'things' however is not a μεταβολὴ εἰς φιλίαν ἢ εἰς ἔχθραν, but at best only a means to that, Aristotle throws in the qualifying ἔστιν ὡς ('in a way', 'in a sense')—an expression that always implies some reserve or limitation; comp. Phys.2. 5, 197 a 10

ἔστιν ὡς οὐδὲν ἀπὸ τύχης δόξειεν ἂν γίγνεσθαι

.— De anima3. 2, 425 b 22

καὶ τὸ ὁρῶν ἔστιν ὡς κεχρωμάτισται

.— De mem.1. 450 a 20

ἢ ἔστιν ὡς ἐνδέχεται καὶ συμβαίνει τοῦτο

?— Eth. N.5. 12, 1136 b 30

καὶ ἔστιν ὡς τὰ ἄψυχα κτείνει

. The construction πρὸς ἄψυχα συμβαίνει is sufficiently assured by the parallel in Pol.7. 17, 1336 a 31

συμβαίνει δὲ ταὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ πρὸς τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὁμιλίας καὶ πρὸς τὰς τῶν πραγμάτων

—where ταὐτὸ τοῦτο recalls a previous statement just in the same way as the ὅπερ εἴρηται in the amended text of the present passage ( comp. J. of Phil. 14 p. 45).

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-407

πέπραγε is transitive, as often in Aristotle, if our existing texts are to be trusted ( comp. Bon. Ind. 632 a 17).

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-408

ἀναγνωρίσαι: see on b 5 .

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-409

μάλιστα τοῦ μύθου: comp. 10, 1452 a 18

γίνεσθαι ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συστάσεως τοῦ μύθου

. As the relationship between the parties is presupposed, the discovery of it in the course of the play is a very natural kind of incident.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-410

μάλιστα τῆς πράξεως is explained by what follows, ἡ γὰρ τοιαύτη ἀναγνώρισις κτέ.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-411

ἢ ἔλεον ἕξει ἢ φόβον. The grammatical subject is ἀναγνώρισις, καὶ περιπέτεια being overlooked (see on 26, 1462 a 16 ). The Discovery will produce pity, when it synchronizes with the πάθος or anguish of the hero, as it does in the O. T.; but may also only suggest the coming of evil, in which case it will arouse fear. It is to be remembered that pity arises through the spectacle of suffering actually present and before us; whereas fear is apprehension of evil still to come (see on 13, 1453 a 2 ).

1452b2

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-412

1452b ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀτυχεῖν καὶ τὸ εὐτυχεῖν κτέ. is a further reason for saying that the discovery of relationships is ἡ μάλιστα τῆς πράξεως ( a 37 ). If the play has a happy ending, like the Lynceus ( a 27 ) or the Iphigenia in Tauris for instance, such a Discovery will be a very natural way of bringing that about; and it is equally natural in the O. T. and other plays with an unhappy ending.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-413

τινῶν ἐστιν ἀναγνώρισις. For the emphatic position of the indefinite pronoun comp. Soph. el.13, 173 b 3

ἥ τε ὄρεξις τινὸς ὄρεξις καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία τινὸς ἐπιθυμία καὶ τὸ διπλάσιον τινὸς διπλάσιον

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-414

ἀναγνωρίσαι, scil. τίνες εἰσίν (to be supplied from the preceding δῆλος ἅτερος τίς ἐστιν), 'to reveal who they are', 'to make themselves known'—not as Tyrwhitt renders it, ' se invicem agnoscere'. The simple verb γνωρίζειν has (just like our English 'discover') two meanings, that of 'to learn' (= γιγνώσκειν) and that of 'to make known' (= γνώριμον ποιεῖν ἢ δηλοῦν). The first sense reappears in certain of the compounds ( προγνωρίζειν, συγγνωρίζειν), and the second in others ( διαγνωρίζειν, ἐπιγνωρίζειν). ἀναγνωρίζειν recalls both senses of γνωρίζειν, sometimes meaning 'to recognize', and sometimes 'to reveal'. (1) It means to 'recognize' in 14, 1453 b 31

ἀναγνωρίσαι τὴν φιλίαν

, and (with φιλίαν or some such word understood) in 14, 1453 b 35; 1454 a 3, 6, 8 . This is the sense of ἀναγνωριοῦντος also in 16, 1455 a 15 —where τὸ τόξον is understood, as the context ( τὸ τόξον γνώσεσθαι) will show; and of ἀναγνωρίσαι in 11, 1452 a 35

εἰ πέπραγέ τις ἢ μὴ πέπραγεν ἀναγνωρίσαι

, ' utrum fecerit aliquis an non fecerit agnoscere' ( Ritter). Another instance is in the passive, ἀνεγνωρίσθη ὑπὸ τῆς τροφοῦ, in 16, 1454 b 27 . (2) On the other hand the word must mean 'reveal' in 16, 1454 b 32

ἀνεγνώρισεν ὅτι Ὀρέστης

, ' manifestum fecit se esse Orestem' ( Ritter), and in the parallel in 17, 1455 a 9 , where ὅτι Ὀρέστης or some equivalent has to be understood after ἀνεγνώρισεν ( comp. 17, 1455 b 21 ). The same sense is found in the passive in the present context (b 6), τῷ Ὀρέστῃ ἀνεγνωρίσθη, which means 'was revealed to Orestes', rather than 'was recognized' by him; and also (if I am not mistaken) in ἀνεγνωρίσθησαν in 16, 1455 a 3 . A third sense has been found for ἀναγνωρίσας in 17, 1455 b 21 , on which see note.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-415

Ἰφιγένεια: comp. 16, 1454 b 32 . The reference is to Eurip. Iph. Taur. 727 sqq.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-416

τῷ Ὀρέστῃ is probably not a dative of the agent but equivalent to πρὸς τὸν Ὀρέστην.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-417

ἐκείνου is to be taken as a genitive after the ἀναγνωρίσεως that follows in b 8 ( comp. τινῶν b 3 , and θατέρου a 4 ). For a genitive depending on a following genitive compare ἑκάστου in 18, 1456 a 6 ( v. ad loc.), and Plato Rep.534 B

λόγον ἑκάστου τῆς οὐσίας

[ comp. Campbell, Rep. of Plato 2 p. 185].

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-418

περὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐστί. There is no reason to delete the preposition. The μύθος being a μίμησις πράξεως ( comp. esp. 10, 1452 a 13 ), two parts of the μύθος (the περιπέτεια and ἀναγνώρισις) are said to relate to certain portions of the πρᾶξις, i. e. to the kind of incidents already considered in the preceding statement ( 10, 1452 a 12-11, 1452 b 8 ). The μύθος in fact has a περιπέτεια and ἀναγνώρισις because the πρᾶξις which it represents is conceived as having them. It will be observed that the 'simple plot' of 10, 1452 a 12 is now tacitly set aside, no doubt on account of its inferior dramatic value ( v. 13, 1452 b 31 ).

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-419

εἴρηται, 'has been already described, or explained'; comp. 25, 1460 b 24

τὸ γὰρ τέλος εἴρηται

.— De anima2. 8, 420 b 21

τὸ δ᾽ αἴτιον ἐν ἑτέροις εἴρησεται

.— Eth. N.4. 7, 1127 a 18

οἱ μὲν πρὸς ἡδονὴν καὶ λύπην ὁμιλοῦντες εἴρηνται

πάθος δέ ἐστὶ πρᾶξις κτέ. The term πάθος requires definition because of the variety of senses attaching to it. In ordinary language it often involves the idea of great suffering, and has the concrete sense of a great trouble or affliction of body or mind: Metaph.Δ 21, 1022 b 19

πάθος λέγεται ... αἱ βλαβεραὶ ἀλλοιώσεις καὶ κινήσεις, καὶ μάλιστα αἱ λυπηραὶ βλάβαι

. ἔτι τὰ μεγέθη τῶν συμφορῶν καὶ λυπηρῶν πάθη λέγεται ( comp. Bon. Ind. 557 a 26). The sense the present definition gives the word was probably one already established in theatrical usage (see on 6, 1450 a 34 ). The πάθος is, just like the ἀναγνώρισις and the περιπέτεια, one of the incidents of the play and as such part of the πρᾶξις or action. Aristotle defines it accordingly as a πρᾶξις of a certain kind, a πρᾶξις φθαρτικὴ ἢ ὀδυνηρά. Apart from the theatre the terms πάθος and πρᾶξις are natural opposites ( comp. 1, 1447 a 28 and Eth. N.5. 7, 1132 a 9 ).

1452b11

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-420

πρᾶξις φθαρτικὴ ἢ ὀδυνηρά κτέ.: compare the enumeration of 'things piteous' ( ἐλεεινά) in Rhet. 2. 8, 1386 a 4

ὅσα τε γὰρ τῶν λυπηρῶν καὶ ὀδυνηρῶν φθαρτικά, πάντα ἐλεεινά, καὶ ὅσα ἀναιρετικά, καὶ ὅσων ἡ τύχη αἰτία κακῶν μέγεθος ἐχόντων

. ἔστι δ᾽ ὀδυνηρὰ μὲν καὶ φθαρτικὰ θάνατοι καὶ αἰκίαι σωμάτων καὶ κακώσεις καὶ γῆρας καὶ νόσοι καὶ τροφῆς ἔνδεια κτέ,

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-421

ἐν τῷ φανερῷ θάνατοι: i.e. violent deaths on the stage, before the eyes of the spectators, such as Horace condemns in A. P. 185 ( comp. Tumlirz, Die tragischen Affecte Mitleid und Furcht nach Aristoteles, p. 16).

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-422

περιωδυνίαι signifies bodily agonies, as the context shows; comp. Eth. E. 1. 5, 1215 b 18

πολλὰ γάρ ἐστι ταιαῦτα τῶν ἀποβαινόντων, δι' προΐενται τὸ ζῆν, οἷον νόσους περιωδυνίας χειμῶνας

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-423

ὅσα τοιαῦτα serves to include the less physical forms of pain. In the Oedipus Tyrannus, which Aristotle so constantly holds up as the perfect model of a tragedy, the πάθος is the mental anguish of Oedipus ( O. T. 1317 sqq. ) much more than the physical horror of his self-inflicted blindness.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-424

1452b14 Bernays ( Zwei Abhandl. p. 167) and Bernhardy ( Gr. Litt. 2. 2 a p. 236), as well as most of the recent editors of the Poetics, agree with Ritter in rejecting chapter 12 as an interpolation. The reasons advanced by Ritter against it are threefold:—(1) that it breaks the continuity of the main discussion; (2) that it gives us a string of names and definitions of the external accidents of Tragedy, which it was not at all necessary for Aristotle's purposes to consider—' non nisi nuda nomina exhibentur, quorum descriptio non ex fine tragoediae proposito, non ex interna eius forma et constitutione, id quod deceret philosophum, sed ex habitu illius externo petitur'; (3) that the form of the conclusion, a mere repetition of the opening sentence, betrays the hand of an interpolator. These arguments, however, which are hardly so conclusive as has been supposed, ignore a good many points which have to be taken into account in the general balance of probabilities. (1) There is the mark of style; the terminology in κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν καὶ εἰς ἃ διαιρεῖται κεχωρισμένα is Aristotelian, and the brevity of these clear-cut definitions can hardly be said to be un- Aristotelian. (2) Aristotle may very well be conceived to have felt that the parts κατὰ τὸ ποσόν were not only of great technical importance but also too obvious arid too recognized to be passed over in silence; and further that, as certain of them ( πρόλογος and ἐπεισόδιον) had been already mentioned in the book, a short note explaining what they were might be expected. (3) Besides this, it has to be borne in mind that the very term 'parts', in the present sense of the word, had actually appeared in the definition of Tragedy in 6, 1449 b 25

ἡδυσμένῳ λόγῳ χωρὶς ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰδῶν ἐν τοῖς μορίοις

. In the analysis also of Tragedy in 6, 1450 a 7

ἀνάγκη οὖν πάσης τραγῳδίας μέρη εἶναι ἕξ, καθ᾽ ἃ ποιά τις ἐστὶν ἡ τραγῳδία

, the only motive for the qualifying clause καθ᾽ ἃ ποιά τις ἐστὶν ἡ τραγῳδία is to distinguish the parts under consideration from another series of parts of a different kind—the μέρη κατὰ τὸ ποσόν of the present chapter. It is clear that Aristotle was already thinking of these latter; and the clause added prepares us, as it were, for a more formal recognition of them. The doubt as to the genuineness of this chapter is often supposed to be confirmed by the difficulty of reconciling one or two of its definitions with the known facts of the Drama as seen in the works of the three great tragedians. If we look at the structure of our surviving Greek tragedies, certain of these definitions are either inadequate or untrue, 'It is not true to say that the stasimon is distinguished from the parodus by the absence of anapaests and trochaics. Anapaests are far from being universal in the parodus, while they occur not uncommonly at the beginning of stasima... and in the Medea one of the stasima (1081-1115) is anapaestic throughout. Again, the ordinary trochaic metre is frequently found in stasima, while trochaic tetrameters are equally unknown both to the stasima and the parodi of tragedy' ( Haigh, Tragic Drama of the Greeks p. 356; comp. Westphal, Prolegomena zu Aeschylus Tragödien p. 57). The question, however, on which so much ingenuity has been expended, admits of another answer if one remembers Aristotle's purpose in writing. His work is, in intention at any rate, a practical treatise, an Art of Poetry, not a record of learned research; and it was written for the benefit of the men of his own day, and with reference to the theatrical conditions of the time. Although he thinks that in certain particulars the existing practice of the stage should be reformed by a return to that of the older dramatists, the general assumption in the Poetics is the theatre as it was in the middle of the Fourth Century. One of the chief difficulties a student of the older Drama finds in this chapter is in a point relating to the Chorus. We do not know much of the economy of the later Tragedy; but one thing is fairly ascertained, that the chorus was no longer what it had been in the age of Sophocles and Euripides. Aristotle himself tells us ( 18, 1456 a 25 ) that its songs, instead of forming a more or less integral part of the play, had degenerated into mere lyrical intermezzi ( ἐμβόλιμα). This, however, can hardly have been the only change it had undergone. The probability is that the dramatic dance also had been curtailed, and that, when once in its place in the orchestra, the chorus simply sang its pieces without any accompanying dance. What the comic poet Plato ( fr. 130 Kock) said of the choruses of his day: ὥστ᾽ εἴ τις ὀρχοῖτ᾽ εὖ, θέαμ᾽ ἦν· νῦν δὲ δρῶσιν οὐδέν, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἀπόπληκτοι στάδην ἑστῶτες ὠρύονται, was presumably as true of those of Tragedy as of the rest in Aristotle's age. If it was true of Tragedy, however, the new state of things would naturally imply a new technique in the treatment of the χορικά; the so-called στάσιμα would be what their name in fact suggests, stationary songs, as opposed to the πάροδοι or entrance-songs; and there would accordingly be no place in them for verses in a metre of movement. The definition of the στάσιμον, therefore, as a μέλος ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου may not be quite so paradoxical as it seems at first sight ( comp. Westphal l. c. p. 64). The difficulty we find in this instance seems to be really due to the grammarians having transferred the word στάσιμον from the later to the earlier Tragedy, where the position of the 'sung parts' (as Aristotle calls them) was the same, though their structure and dramatic importance were not the same. This conclusion is confirmed by the way in which the ancients dealt with this chapter. The explanations of πάροδος, στάσιμον, etc., in the grammarians (to be seen in Westphal l. c. and elsewhere) reproduce the definitions in the text, but with modifications manifestly due to a desire to re-shape them into conformity with the actual facts of the great Drama, that of Sophocles and Euripides. ' Duodecimi capitis circumscriptio cum haud quaquam ad omnes tragoedias quadraret, pars eorum qui postea id genus tractarunt eam additis aliis notionibus amplificare, pars eam vocibus accuratius terminatis emendare, pars eam aliquo modo varietati rerum quae apud poetas obversatur adaptare studuerunt, unde haud paucae dissensiones manarunt' ( L. Schmidt, De parodi et stasimi nominibus p. viii). This may perhaps be taken as evidence not only for the antiquity of the definitions in this chapter ( comp. Consbruch, Comm. in honorem Gu. Studemund p. 223), but also for their having made their appearance in a work of considerable authority at the time.

1452b15

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-425

πρότερον: in chap. 6.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-426

εἰς ἃ διαιρεῖται: Metaph. Δ 25, 1023b 12 μέρος λέγεται ἕνα μὲν τρόπον εἰς ὃ διαιρεθείη ἂν τὸ ποσὸν ὁπωσοῦν.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-427

ἁπάντων. The sense of this sentence seems to be rightly understood by Tyrwhitt (who is here only following Goulston): 'Atque hae quidem communes sunt tragoediarum omnium; propriae vero quarundam sunt e scena cantus et κόμμοι, sive planctus.' For the neuter ἁπάντων comp. πᾶν in 6, 1450b 13 and ἐξ ἄλλου εἰς ἄλλο in 18, 1456b 31. Hermann with less probability supposes χορευτῶν to be understood (comp. Haigh, Tragic Drama of the Greeks p. 361 ). Others, understanding δραμάτων, imagine Comedy as well as Tragedy to be meant.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-428

ταῦτα. It is not clear whether this refers to all the parts mentioned, or only to the two chorica, the πάροδος and στάσιμον. I incline to the second alternative, notwithstanding the arguments that have been urged against it ( Klein, De partibus formisque quibus tragoediam constare voluerit Aristoteles p. 5 ). Aristotle is thinking primarily of the parts sung; and by a very natural association of ideas he passes from the parts sung by the chorus first to the lyrical passages sung by an actor (or actors), and then to the dirges sung by an actor (or actors) and the chorus in conjunction.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-429

τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς, the solos ( μονῳδίαι), duets, and trios sung by the characters on the stage. These dramatic lyrics are recognized in Probl. 19. 15, 918b 26 , and contrasted with the songs of the chorus: τὰ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς οὐκ ἀντίστροφα, τὰ δὲ τοῦ χοροῦ ἀντίστροφα· ὁ μὲν γὰρ ὑποκριτὴς ἀγωνιστὴς καὶ μιμητής, ὁ δὲ χορὸς ἧττον μιμεῖται (see also Probl. 19. 30, 920b 8-18, 922b 16 ). Comp. Suidas Μονῳδία· ἡ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς ᾠδὴ ἐν τοῖς δράμασι. καὶ μονῳδεῖν τὸ θρηνεῖν, μονῳδία λέγεται ὅταν εἷς μόνος λέγῃ τὴν ᾠδὴν καὶ οὐχ ὁμοῦ ὁ χορός.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-430

πρόλογος. The term, which appears several times in Aristophanes, is used in the sense the present definition gives it in 5, 1449b 4, and in Rhet. 3. 14, 1415 a 8 τὰ τοῦ δικανικοῦ προοίμια δεῖ λαβεῖν ὅτι ταὐτὸ δύναται ὅπερ τῶν δραμάτων οἱ πρόλογοι καὶ τῶν ἐπῶν τὰ προοίμια .... (b18) καὶ οἱ τραγικοὶ δηλοῦσι περὶ (οὗ) τὸ δρᾶμα, κἂν μὴ εὐθὺς ὥσπερ Εὐριπίδης, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ προλόγῳ γέ που.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-431

ἐπεισόδιον may be compared with ἐξόδιον (from ἔξοδος); it seems to be derived from ἐπείσοδος, in the sense the word has in Sophocles, O. C. 729 ὁρῶ τιν᾿ ὑμᾶς ὀμμάτων εἰληφότας φόβον νεώρη τῆς ἐμῆς ἐπεισόδου ('my coming in upon you'). This seems to me a more 1452b20 probable explanation than those noted by Haigh, Tragic Drama of the Greeks p. 353 .

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-432

πάροδος. For the definitions of it in the grammarians see J. Aschauer, Ueber die Parodos und Epiparodos in der griechischen Tragödie p. 5 . As the negative part of the definition of στάσιμον,

ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου

, must be supposed to differentiate it from the parodus, it seems clear that in the view of the writer of this chapter anapaestic and trochaic passages were not out of place in the parodus. In the existing Greek tragedies, however, trochaic passages are all but unknown in the parodi, though they are common enough in Comedy: there is no instance of them in Sophocles or Euripides, and apparently only one in Aeschylus ( Persae 155) . All this points to the conclusion ( comp. Westphal l. c. p. 64 ) that it is a later form of Tragedy that Aristotle is thinking of, and that the practice of the tragedians in this matter had changed since the time of Euripides. For the actual use of trochaics in the tragic parodi there is some faint evidence in Schol. Aristoph. Ach. 204

γέγραπται δὲ τὸ μέτρον τροχαϊκὸν πρόσφορον τῇ τῶν διωκόντων σπουδῇ. ταῦτα δὲ ποιεῖν εἰώθασιν οἱ τῶν δραμάτων ποιηταὶ κωμικοὶ καὶ τραγικοί, ἐπειδὰν δρομαίως εἰσάγωσι τοὺς χορούς, ἵνα ὁ λόγος συντρέχῃ τῷ δράματι

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-433

λέξις ὅλη. Ever since Twining's time there has been a tendency to press the meaning of λέξις, and distinguish it from μέλος ( comp. K. O. Müller, Kleine deutsche Schriften 1 p. 510 ); it is supposed to stand for recitative, or to be a general term including recitative and song. This interpretation is hardly reconcileable with the language of the adjacent definitions. (1) The definition of the στάσιμον, as a

μέλος ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου

, presupposes the possibility of a μέλος with anapaests and trochaics; (2) the definition also of ἐπεισόδιον, as that which is

μεταξὺ ὅλων χορικῶν μελῶν

, will not apply to the first ἐπεισόδιον, if the parodus which precedes it is not to be regarded as a μέλος ( comp. Westphal l. c. p. 58 ). λέξις ὅλη is to be compared with the

μέρος ὅλον

in the preceding definitions of πρόλογος, ἐπεισόδιον and ἔξοδος. The traditional reading λέξις ὅλου χοροῦ involves a distinction between the entire chorus and individual χορευταί, which would probably have had very little meaning in Aristotle's day, when the chorus had practically ceased to take a serious part in the action of the play.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-434

στάσιμον. For the origin of this technical sense of the word it is usual to refer to Aristophanes Vesp. 270

ἀλλά μοι δοκεῖ στάντας ἐνθάδ' , ώνδρες, ᾄδοντας αὐτὸν ἐκκαλεῖν

, as showing that στάσιμον meant the song sung when the chorus had taken up its position in the orchestra; and to Ran. 1280

μή, πρίν γ'᾽ ἂν ἀκούσῃς χἀτέραν στάσιν μελῶν

—where the Scholiast explains

στάσιν μελῶν

στάσιμον μέλος ἄδουσιν ἱστάμενοι οἱ χορευταί

. The interpretation, however, of this second passage is by no means clear, as στάσις μελῶν may very well mean a

set of songs

, σύστημα μελῶν. The general sense of the adj. στάσιμος is

without movement or action

(= ἀκίνητος), and hence

steady

stable

quiet

. The στάσιμον, accordingly, should be the

stationary song

, as distinct from the πάροδος, a song of movement. This is exactly what Plato Comicus implies in his description of the chorus of his time (see above); and it is in accordance with the statements of the grammarians, e. g. that in Schol. Eurip. Phoen. 202

τοῦτο τὸ μέλος στάσιμον λέγεται ὅταν γὰρ ὁ χορὸς μετὰ τὴν πάροδον λέγῃ τι μέλος πρὸς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν ἀνῆκον ἀκίνητος μένων, στάσιμον λέγεται τὸ ᾄσμα

, and that in Schol. Soph. Trach. 216

τὸ μελιδάριον οὐκ ἔστι στάσιμον ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τὴς ἡδονῆς ὀρχοῦνται

. If we may suppose that in Aristotle's time the chorus after the πάροδος stood motionless in its place in the orchestra, the songs in this part of a tragedy would be rightly termed στάσιμα; and the absence of anapaests and trochaics would be a good formal mark of distinction between them and the πάροδοι.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-435

ἀναπαίστου: not the foot itself, but the verse or verses made up of it.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-436

τροχαίου: trochaic verse or verses, in the same way as

ἴαμβος

often means an iambic verse. The reason for the exclusion of the trochaic tetrameter is that, as one of the κινητικὰ μέτρα, it has a special fitness for the dance (see on Poet. 4, 1449 a 21 ).

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-437

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-438

1452b30 τοῖς νῦν εἰρημένοις, i. e. in the discussion in chaps. 7-11 , which dealt with the μύθος in general and its unity of structure. Aristotle now turns to the question of the particular form of μύθος required to produce the emotional effect of Tragedy (pity and fear).

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-439

μὴ ἁπλῆν ἀλλὰ πεπλεγμένην: see the explanation of these terms in 10, 1452 a 12-18 . The finest kind of tragedy involves a complex plot, because the element of surprise ( comp. 9, 1452 a 4 and 14, 1454 a 4 ) in the complex plot accentuates the tragic impression ( comp. 6, 1450 a 33 and 9, 1452 a 4 ). It may be observed, as an instance of Aristotle's inconsistency in matters of language, that in 13, 1453 a 13 the ἁπλοῦς μύθος is the opposite of the διπλοῦς, not (as here) of the πεπλεγμένος μύθος.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-440

φοβερῶν καὶ ἐλεεινῶν εἶναι μιμητικήν: as was assumed in the definition of Tragedy ( 6, 1449 b 27 ), and again in 9, 1452 a 2 and 11, 1452 a 38.

φοβερὰ καὶ ἐλεεινά

( scil. πράγματα) is a comprehensive designation for the incidents distinctive of Tragedy, just as γελοῖα describes those of Comedy. A tragic scene may be either

φοβερόν

, alarming, suggestive of coming evil or danger to the hero, or

ἐλεεινόν

, piteous, a representation of his anguish and suffering. Fear (the opposite of hope) relates to the future; pity to evil or suffering actually present and before us. In Aristotle's time the definition of fear was expectation of coming evil,

προσδοκία κακοῦ

( Eth. N. 3. 9, 1115 a 9 ), or

προσδοκία μέλλοντος κακοῦ

( Plato Laches 198 B ); or, as he puts it in Rhet. 2. 5, 1382 a 21 ,

λύπη τις ἢ ταραχὴ ἐκ φαντασίας μέλλοντος κακοῦ φθαρτικοῦ ἢ λυπηροῦ

. In pity on the other hand the evil or suffering, instead of being possible and prospective, is actual and before our eyes as it were: Rhet. 2. 8, 1385 b 13

ἔστω δὴ ἔλεος λύπη τις ἐπὶ φαινομένῳ κακῷ φθαρτικῷ ἢ λυπηρῷ

( comp. Tumlirz, Die tragischen Affecte Mitleid und Furcht nach Aristoteles p. 15 ). The distinction between the φοβερά and ἐλεεινά in a play may be seen in the Oedipus Tyrannus, in which we are gradually prepared for the piteous incidents of the catastrophe by a series of premonitions of coming evil in the earlier scenes. The sympathetic interest we are thus made to take in the fortunes of the tragic hero depends, according to Aristotle, on one condition, his being more or less like ourselves ( ὅμοιος), i. e. neither exceptionally good nor exceptionally wicked. This ethical similarity is what renders fear for another possible with us, as we are told in the context, 13, 1453 a 5

φόβος περὶ τὸν ὅμοιον

; and in the Rhetoric the same is said of pity: Rhet. 2. 8, 1386 b 24

τοὺς ὁμοίους ἐλεοῦσι ... κατὰ ἤθη

. It would be easy, if it were worth while, to amplify the present statement by further illustrations from the corresponding chapters of the Rhetoric ( 2. 5 and 2. 8 ). The general point of view, however, in the two discussions is not the same. The pity and fear of the Rhetoric are the pity and fear of the judges whom the rhetor is addressing; it is part of his art to work, it may be, on their fears, and deter them from an adverse decision by showing how injurious its consequences may be to them and theirs. But the apprehension the tragic poet arouses in us is not of this personal description; it is a disinterested fear for another, the danger that arouses it being that of the hero, not that of the audience in the theatre. The point being so obvious, it is strange to see a diametrically opposite view taken by a critic of such distinction as Lessing.

Aristotle's fear (he tells us) is not the fear which the impending evil of another arouses in us for that other; it is the fear that arises for ourselves from our likeness to the sufferer; it is the fear that the misfortunes, which we see hanging over him, may befall ourselves; it is the fear that we may ourselves become the pitied object

( Hamb. Dram. St. 75 ). The rhetoric of Lessing's statement may perhaps conceal the underlying confusion of thought: he has confused our fear that something will happen with our recognition of the possibility that something may happen to us. This latter is the general condition of all sensibility to pity and fear; but it is not a πάθος, and cannot, therefore, be identical with either of these emotions ( comp. Tumlirz l. c. p. 7 ; Zeller, Phil. d. Gr. 2. 2 p. 783 ). Lessing has an equally paradoxical view of the Aristotelian ἔλεος—one inspired, if I am not mistaken, by Hobbes rather than by Aristotle himself. He thinks that according to Aristotle

the feeling of pity is impossible without fear for ourselves... fear is a necessary ingredient in pity

( Hamb. Dram. St. 77 ); one of his modern followers even goes so far as to assert that the Aristotelian pity is only

a disguised fear

(

eine verkappte Furcht

, Döring, Kunstlehre des Aristoteles p. 310 ). This rapprochement of the two feelings is not warranted by the texts in the Rhetoric². A distinction between them is implied not only in the present, but also in other passages of the Poetics; comp.

ἔλεος καὶ φόβος

( 6, 1449 b 27; 14, 1453 b 12 ),

ἔλεον ἕξει ἢ φόβον

( 11, 1452 a 38 ),

οὔτε ἔλεον οὔτε φόβον

( scil.

ἔχοι ἄν

, 13, 1453 a 3 ),

φοβερὸν καὶ ἐλεεινόν

( 9, 1452 a 2; 13, 1452 b 2; 14, 1453 b 1 ),

οὔτε ἐλεεινὸν οὔτε φοβερόν

( 13, 1453 a 1 , 6). It will be seen from the instances just quoted that in the formula

pity and fear

, pity comes first, whereas in the corresponding formula φοβερά often precedes ἐλεεινά. The explanation may perhaps be this, that Aristotle ( like Plato) assumes a tragedy to be a picture of human suffering ( πάθος); so that the excitement of pity is its primary and essential purpose, the element of fear coming in as a sort of secondary matter, to quicken our sympathy with the tragic hero, and prepare us for a catastrophe. In a play like the Oedipus Tyrannus, for instance, which Aristotle has so constantly in mind, the φοβερά precede the έλεεινά and lead up to them; but the great tragic interest is in the later scenes, in which Oedipus becomes an object of pity.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-441

πρῶτον μὲν is answered by

οὐδ᾽ αὐ

in 1453 a 1 ( comp. Plato Symp. 219 E ; Laws 935 A ). The connexion between the main points in the discussion in this and the next chapter is as follows. After laying down (1) the general rule that, if a tragedy is to arouse pity and fear in us, the tragic hero must be a man of a certain type of character ( 13, 1452 b 34 ), Aristotle adds (2) that the tragic effect is enhanced by the play having an unhappy ending ( 13, 1453 a 12 ), and (3) weakened by a

double plot

, in which the unhappiness of certain of the personages is balanced by the happiness of others ( 13, 1453 a 30 ); and (4) that stories of horror in which kinsmen are involved have an especial tragic interest and value ( 14, 1453 b 14 ). This last leads him off (5) into a discussion on Discovery and its place in a play ( 14, 1453 b 26 ); the conclusion being (6) that, where kinsmen are concerned, the best form of tragedy is one in which a timely Discovery prevents the actual perpetration of the contemplated deed of horror ( 14, 1454 a 4 ).

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-442

ἐπιεικεῖς, the opposite of μοχθηρούς in 36; in ordinary usage ἐπιεικής is often synonymous with σπουδαῖος ἢ χρηστός ( comp. 15, 1454 b 13 ), and opposed to φαῦλος ( comp. 26, 1462 a 18 ) and similar terms ( Bon. Ind. 271 b 36 ). The sense we are to attach to the term in this passage is shown by the equivalent that replaces it in 13, 1453 a 8

ἀρετῇ διαφέρων καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ

. Aristotle tells us that a man of great worth and virtue is not sufficiently like ourselves (

ὅμοιος

) for the purposes of Tragedy, because his sufferings will create an overpowering feeling of indignation or disgust instead of pity. It is difficult to reconcile his present view with what he tells us elsewhere of the tragic hero (see on 13, 1453 a 16 ), or his present use of the term ἐπιεικής with that in 15, 1454 b 13 . Besides this, according to the Rhetoric it is quite possible for one who is ἐπιεικής to be an object of pity: Rhet. 2. 8, 1385 b 34

κἂν οἴωνταί τινας εἶναι τῶν ἐπιεικῶν

( scil. ἐλεοῦσιν). All this may perhaps show that strict consistency of language is not always to be expected even in Aristotle.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-443

μιαρόν: as an offence to our moral or religious feelings; comp. 14, 1453 b 39 , 1454 a 3 .

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-444

φιλάνθρωπον. The situation having no πάθος, actual or prospective, does not arouse any kind of tragic emotion; it does not appeal to our

philanthropy

, or our pity, or our fears. It is assumed here that

τὸ φιλάνθρωπον

has some sort of tragic value, but not the same as

τὸ ἐλεεινόν

τὸ φοβερόν

τὸ φιλάνθρωπον

is that which appeals to the φιλάνθρωποι. The φιλάνθρωπος, or tender-hearted man, is able to feel a certain commiseration even for the wicked in misfortune; this feeling, however, is not pity proper, since it lacks the moral basis of all pity, the belief that the misfortune is not deserved. This interpretation of

τὸ φιλάνθρωπον

accords with the use of the term in the context ( 1453 a 3 ; comp. 18, 1456 a 21 ), as well as with the ordinary Greek conception of

φιλανθρωπία

fellow-feeling

kindliness

tender-heartedness

( comp. L. Schmidt, Ethik der Gr. 2 p. 277 ). A certain affinity between φιλανθρωπία and pity is recognized in Rhet. 2. 13, 1390 a 19 , where the tender-heartedness of the young is said to make them easily moved to pity:

ἐλεητικοὶ δὲ καὶ οἱ γέροντές εἰσιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ δια ταὐτὸ τοῖς νέοις· οἱ μὲν γὰρ διὰ φιλανθρωπίαν, οἱ δὲ δι' ἀσθένειαν

( comp. Tumlirz l. c. p. 13 ). A very different sense has been attached to the word by Twining and others, who suppose that the situation described as φιλάνθρωπον is one that satisfies our sense of poetical justice, a true lover of mankind being bound to rejoice at the punishment of evil-doers. Any one who remembers what φιλανθρωπία meant to a Greek, will at once see the improbability of this somewhat artificial rendering of

τὸ φιλάνθρωπον

in Aristotle.

1453a2

1453a

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-445

μεταπίπτειν: comp. the use of μεταβάλλειν in 7, 1451 a 14 (and passim), and that of μεταβαίνειν in 18, 1455 b 27 .

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-446

περὶ τὸν ἀνάξιον.

περί

= in the case of, i. e. as we say,

for

; the preposition enables Aristotle to join φόβος and ἔλεος in the same construction. For this use of

περί

comp. Eth. N. 3. 9, 1115 a 22

εἴ τις ὕβριν περὶ παῖδας ἢ γυναῖκα φοβεῖται

.— Plato Rep. 539 C

ἵνα μὴ γίγνηται ὁ ἔλεος οὗτος περὶ τοὺς τριακοντούτας σοι

.— Lysias 108, 39

περὶ τοὺς οὐδὲν ἔχοντας κακὸν ἐλεημονέστατοι δοκοῦντες εἶναι

1452b 34

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-447

ἀνάξιον: Rhet. 2. 8, 1385 a 13

ἔστω δὴ ἔλεος λύπη τις ἐπὶ φαινομένῳ κακῷ φθαρτικῷ ἢ λυπηρῷ τοῦ ἀναξίου τυγχάνειν, κἂν αὐτὸς προσδοκήσειεν ἂν παθεῖν ἢ τῶν αὐτοῦ τινά, καὶ τοῦτο ὅταν πλησίον φαίνηται.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-448

δυστυχοῦντα: for the participle see Goodwin, Synt. of Gr. Moods and Tenses 829 (a). Another instance of the construction will be found in 14, 1453 b 23.

1453a 5

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-449

1453a περὶ τὸν ὅμοιον. This disinterested fear, which rests, just like pity, on a basis of sympathy, is not recognized in the Rhetoric, where the point of view from which the emotions are considered is different (see on 13, 1452 b 32). The antithesis in the text, ὁ μὲν περὶ τὸν ἀνάξιόν ἐστιν ὁ δὲ περὶ τὸν ὅμοιον, is too strongly put, since pity also is περὶ τὸν ὅμοιον, as one may see from Rhet. 2. 8, 1386 a 24

καὶ τοὺς ὁμοίους ἐλεοῦσι κατὰ ἡλικίας, κατὰ ἤθη, κατὰ ἕξεις, κατὰ ἀξιώματα, κατὰ γένη.

1453a 10

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-450

δι᾽ ἁμαρτίαν τινά: a16

δι᾽ ἁμαρτίαν μεγάλην

. ἁμαρτία in the Aristotelian sense of the term is a mistake or error of judgement ( error in Lat.), and the deed done in consequence of it is an ἁμάρτημα ( erratum). In the Ethics an ἁμάρτημα is said to originate not in vice or depravity but in ignorance of some material fact or circumstance: Eth. N. 5. 10, 1135 b 12

τὰ μὲν μετ᾿ ἀγνοίας ἁμαρτήματά ἐστιν ὅταν μήτε ὃν μήτε ὃ μήτε ᾧ μήτε οὗ ἕνεκα ὑπέλαβε πράξῃ· ἢ γὰρ οὐ βάλλειν ἢ οὐ τούτῳ ἢ οὐ τοῦτον ἢ οὐ τούτου ἕνεκα ᾠήθη... ὅταν μὲν οὖν παραλόγως ἡ βλάβη γένηται, ἀτύχημα, ὅταν δὲ μὴ παραλόγως ἄνευ δὲ κακίας, ἁμάρτημα

(comp. Rhet. 1. 13, 1374 b 6 ). This ignorance, we are told in another passage, takes the deed out of the class of voluntary acts, and enables one to forgive or even pity the doer: Eth. N. 3. 2, 1110 b 31

οὐ γὰρ ἡ ἐν τῇ προαιρέσει ἄγνοια αἰτία τοῦ ἀκουσίου ἀλλὰ τῆς μοχθηρίας, οὐδ᾽ ἡ καθόλου (ψέγονται γὰρ διά γε ταύτην), ἀλλ᾽ ἡ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα, ἐν οἷς καὶ περὶ ἃ ἡ πρᾶξις· ἐν τούτοις γὰρ καὶ ἔλεος καὶ συγγνώμη

(comp. Thuc. 1. 32. 5 ). In thus making the tragic story turn on an ἁμαρτία Aristotle is probably thinking more immediately of the Oedipus Tyrannus (comp. 14, 1453 b 29). It is strange that the ἁμαρτία or ἁμαρτία μεγάλη, of which Aristotle is speaking, should have been taken by Tumlirz (l. c. p. 25) and others to mean not an error of judgement, but some ethical fault or infirmity of character, like those indicated in 15, 1454 b 12. The Sophoclean Oedipus is a man of hasty temper (comp. O. T. 807), but his ἁμαρτία was not in that, but in the 'great mistake' he made, when he became unwittingly the slayer of his own father.

1453a 12

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-451

ἀνάγκη ἄρα κτέ. is a corollary to what has just been said on the construction of the καλλίστη τραγῳδία; two other forms of Tragedy, which had often been adopted by poets, are pronounced to be of inferior tragic quality and value.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-452

1453a 13 τὸν καλῶς ἔχοντα μῦθον: comp. the expressions in the context, τὴν σύνθεσιν τῆς καλλίστης τραγῳδίας (13, 1452 b 31), and ἡ κατὰ τὴν τέχνην καλλίστη τραγῳδία (13, 1453 a 22).

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-453

ἁπλοῦν... διπλοῦν: see on 13, 1452 b 31. The meaning of διπλοῦς in this connexion is explained later on, in * 31.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-454

1453a 16 βελτίονος μᾶλλον ἢ χείρονος. No reason is given for this significant addition, but the intention of it is clear enough; it is an attempt to bring the present conception of the tragic hero as being ὅμοιος, like ourselves, of only average character and virtue, into line with that in certain other statements about him. Apart from this chapter, in fact, the general assumption in the Poetics is that the tragic hero should be not like the average man, but better than that— βελτίων ἢ καθ' ἡμᾶς (2, 1448 a 4, 18; 15, 1454 b 9; comp. 25, 1460 b 34). For the purposes of the present chapter, however, which deals with the emotional effect of Tragedy and its conditions another and a somewhat different conception of the tragic hero is required; if we are to pity him and fear for him, he must be, like Oedipus and the pathetic characters in Euripides, a personage of a very human type, one like what we are ourselves. It would take some discussion to reconcile the two views, and explain away the inconsistency of language into which Aristotle has drifted.

1453a 17

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-455

τὸ γιγνόμενον: Meteor. 1. 14, 352 b 19

δηλοῖ δὲ τὸ γιγνόμενον

. — 2. 8, 367 a 11

τεκμήριον δ᾽ ἐστὶ . . . καὶ τὸ γιγνόμενον περὶ ταύτας τὰς νήσους

. — De resp. 21, 480 a 26

μαρτυρεῖ τὸ γινόμενον

. — Pol. 7. 14, 1334 a 5

μαρτυρεῖ τὰ γιγνόμενα τοῖς λόγοις

. — Xenophon Hiero 9. 3

ὡς δὲ ταῦτα καλῶς ἔχει, μαρτυρεῖ τὰ γιγνόμενα

(=' quod vere fit, die Erfahrung': Sauppe, Lexil. Xenoph. p. 25).

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-456

1453a 18 ἀπηρίθμουν: perhaps a metaphor from the counting of money, in which each coin has to be accepted and allowed to pass as good. ' ἀπαριθμεῖν nova significatione dicit... est ergo ἀπαριθμεῖν recevoir, mettre en conte, et approuver'. ( Casaubon, in Musei Oxon. litt. conspectus 1 p. 28.) In HSt. it is rendered by ' narrare', and in Liddell and Scott by 'recount'.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-457

1453a 20 Ἀλκμέωνα. On this (the Attic) form of the name see HSt. s. v. and Meisterhans, Gr. p. 35. It survives in A c in Rhet. 2. 23, 1397 b 3 and it is implied in Ἀλκμεωνίδης, the form the patronymic always has in the Ath. Pol.

1453a 24

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-458

Εὐριπίδῃ. Aristotle's conclusion as to the best form of Tragedy enables him to say a good word for Euripides, who had been blamed by critics for the unhappy ending of many of his plays. He insists that the procedure of Euripides is right, and points in confirmation to the eminent success of his plays on the stage, where in spite of all his faults Euripides is acknowledged to be the most moving and the most tragic of the tragedians. With this we may compare the estimate of Euripides in Quintilian 10. 1. 68

in adfectibus vero cum omnibus mirus, tum in iis qui in miseratione constant facile praecipuus

. There is a long discussion of this passage by Neidhardt, Diss. Halenses 3 p. 279.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-459

1453a 25 αὐτὸ: the object after ἐγκαλοῦντες, and preparative to ὅτι τοῦτο δρᾷ. For the construction comp. Eth. N. 4. 1, 1120 b 17

ἐγκαλεῖται τῇ τύχῃ ὅτι οἱ μάλιστα ἄξιοι ὄντες ἥκιστα πλουτοῦσιν

. — 9. 8, 1168 b 32

ἐγκαλοῦσι δὴ αὐτῷ οἷον ὅτι οὐδὲν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ πράττει

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-460

1453a 27 τοῦτο δρᾷ: comp. 23, 1459 a 29 and Bon. Ind. 205 a 42.

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-461

ἀγώνων: see on 6, 1450 b 18.

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-462

1453a 28 τραγικώταται: i.e. as arousing most directly the two distinctively tragic emotions of pity and fear (comp. 13, 1452 b 33 τοῦτο γὰρ ἴδιον τῆς τοιαύτης μιμήσεώς ἐστιν). Similarly in the context (a 29) Euripides is termed τραγικώτατος τῶν ποιητῶν, because he is the greatest master of the art of arousing these same emotions (comp. Neidhardt l. c. p. 281).

αἱ τοιαῦται = αἱ εἰς δυστυχίαν τελευτῶσαι.

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-463

ἂν κατορθωθῶσιν. The proper management Aristotle has in mind is often supposed to be that of the actors, stage-managers, etc., responsible for the execution of the piece. This interpretation, as was long ago pointed out by Düntzer ( Rettung d. aristot. Poetik p. 159), makes the clause a superfluity, since it is obvious that, to succeed on the stage, every play requires fairly good acting and an adequate presentation. After ἂν κατορθωθῶσιν we have to supply ὑπὸ τοῦ ποιητοῦ (comp. εὖ οἰκονομεῖ, scil. Euripides, in the next line); the sense is that the poet, having chosen a good tragic subject, must handle it with all due skill and care to secure a satisfactory result (comp. 14, 1453 b 25). κατορθοῦν is practically synonymous with εὖ οἰκονομεῖν, the term which replaces it in the context (a 29).

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-464

1453a 29 τὰ ἄλλα. An admission that Euripides, though a master of emotional effect ( τραγικώτατος), is not always equally admirable in his treatment of the other points in a tragedy. His artistic shortcomings are often noted in the Poetics. His plots are directly or indirectly criticized in 14, 1453 b 28, in 15, 1454 b 1, and in 16, 1454 b 31; his characters in 15, 1454 a 28-32, and in 25, 1461 b 20; and his choruses in 18, 1456 a 27.

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-465

οἰκονομεῖ. This seems to be the first instance of the use of the word in literary criticism. In the grammarians and writers on style οἰκονομία ( οἰκονομεῖν, οἰκονομικός, etc.) is the regular technical word for the disposition of the materials and management of the various points in an oration or a poem (v. HSt. s. v., and Trendelenburg, Gramm. gr. de arte poetica iudiciorum rel. p. 91 and p. 149).

1453a 31

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-466

ὑπὸ τινῶν. A reference perhaps to the critics who are said to have disapproved of the sad ending of so many of the tragedies of Euripides (supra a 24).

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-467

σύστασις, ἡ διπλῆν τε τὴν σύστασιν ἔχουσα. Aristotle has to use the periphrasis σύστασιν ἔχουσα instead of the simple συνεστῶσα, since διπλῇ συνεστῶσα would not have conveyed the sense required. Though there is a certain inelegance in this juxtaposition of σύστασις and σύστασιν, the reading is sufficiently certified by the very similar repetition of φύσις in several Aristotelian passages: De part. an. 2. 8, 653 b 33

ἡ τῶν ὀστῶν φύσις ... σκληρὰ τὴν φύσιν οὖσα

. De gen. an. 5. 5, 785 a 23

φύσει λευκοτέραν αὐτῶν εἶναι τὴν τῶν πτερῶν φύσιν

. — Eth. N. 7. 15, 1154 b 20

φύσει δ᾽ ἡδέα, ... ποιεῖ πρᾶξιν τῆς τοιᾶσδε φύσεως

, and in the Platonic Epinomis 990 d οὐκ ἂν ῥᾳδίως ποτὲ πᾶσα φύσις ἱκανὴ γένοιτο θεωρῆσαι μὴ θαυμαστῆς μετέχουσα φύσεως (comp. Lobeck on Sophocles Aj. 277, cited by Vahlen).

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-468

1453a 32 καθάπερ ἡ Ὀδύσσεια: see the synopsis of the Odyssey in 17, 1455 b 16–23.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-469

καὶ τελευτῶσα κτέ. explains διπλὴν τὴν σύστασιν ἔχουσα, as is sometimes the case with the second of two words or clauses coupled by τε καί (v. Ast, Lex. Plat. 3 p. 365, and Torstrik on De anima 1. 2, 405 a 27).

1453a 34

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-470

θεάτρων: comp. 4, 1449 a 9 πρὸς τὰ θέατρα. — Plato Laws 700 E

τὰ θέατρα ἐξ ἀφώνων φωνήεντ᾽ ἐγένοντο

. — Aristoxenus ap. Ath. 632 B

τὰ θέατρα ἐκβεβαρβάρωται

. θέατρον, in the sense of 'the audience', is common enough, but the above quoted passages show that the word may be used in the plural also, in the sense of 'the audiences'. The audiences in these days, says Aristotle, are too weak to like the strong situations of the great Tragedy.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-471

1453a 35 κατ᾿ εὐχὴν ποιοῦντες τοῖς θεαταῖς: Plato Gorg. 502 B

χαρίζεσθαι τοῖς θεαταῖς

1453a 35

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-472

ἔστιν δὲ οὐχ αὕτη. The οὐχ here negatives the proposition, and not the proximate word, αὕτη. Bäumlein, Gr. Partikeln p. 308 (followed by Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 2 p. 179), quotes a very similar passage from Isocrates 4, 130

ἔστι δ᾽ οὐχ οἷόν τ᾿ ἀποτρέπειν

, and explains the position of the negative as due to a desire to avoid the collocation οὐδ᾽ ἔστι ( . . οὐ δέ ἐστι). αὕτη (=τοῦτο) is the subject with its gender assimilated to that of the predicate (v. on 6, 1450 a 4).

1453b 1

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-473

1453b ἀπὸ τραγῳδίας ἡδονὴ: 'the pleasure of Tragedy', as we should say (comp. Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 1 p. 336). For this use of the preposition comp. Top. 1. 15, 106 a 37

τῇ ἀπὸ τοῦ πίνειν ἡδονῇ

. — Eth. N. 10. 2, 1173 a 28

αἱ ἀπὸ τῶν καλῶν ἡδοναί

. — Plato Rep. 582 B

τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ εἰδέναι ἡδονῆς

. For the absence of the article see Bon. Ind. 54 b 51.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-474

1453b 4 κωμῳδίας οἰκεία. The conclusions of the Orestes and Alcestis of Euripides were said to verge on Comedy (v. Trendelenburg, Gramm. gr. de arte poetica iudiciorum rel. p. 36).

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-475

ἐκεῖ γὰρ κτὲ. The reference is probably to the Orestes of Alexis or some other comedy on the same subject (comp. Kock, CAF. 2 p. 358).

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-476

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-477

1453b 7 Ἔστιν μὲν οὖν κτὲ. Aristotle now passes on to the second of the two points announced at the beginning of chap. 13, πόθεν ἔσται τὸ τῆς τραγῳδίας ἔργον (13, 1452 b 29).

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-478

ὄψεως: see on 6, 1449 b 33. We may suppose him to be thinking of such theatrical artifices as the fearful appearance of the Furies in the Eumenides, and the rags and tatters of certain of the heroes of Euripides.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-479

1453b 8 πρότερον, 'naturally prior', i. e. better, as in Aristoph. Ran. 763 and Plato Lach. 183 B . This sense of πρότερον is recognized in Cat. 12, 14 b 6

εἰώθασι δὲ καὶ οἱ πολλοὶ τοὺς ἐντιμοτέρους καὶ μᾶλλον ἀγαπωμένους ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν προτέρους φάσκειν παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς εἶναι.

Compare also the use of πρώτη in b 30 and 33.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-480

1453b 9 ποιητοῦ ἀμείνονος. As the poet is an imitative artist in language, μιμητὴς ἐν λόγῳ (v. on 1, 1447 a 28), it follows that the poetic effect has to be produced by language, and not by means other than language.

1453b 10

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-481

ὁρᾶν: i. e. ὁρᾶν τὰ πράγματα γινόμενα.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-482

1453b 11 φρίττειν denotes the cold shudder ( φρίκη: v. W. H. Thompson on Plato Phaedr. 251 A) experienced in moments of intense fear or horror. This may arise even from the mere thought of something horrible: De motu an. 7, 701 b 22

διὸ καὶ φρίττουσι καὶ φοβοῦνται

. νοήσαντες μόνον. And it is often said to arise from what one hears: Aeschylus Ag. 1242

τὴν μὲν Θυέστου δαῖτα παιδείων κρεῶν ξυνήκα καὶ πέφρικα.

— Sophocles El. 1408

ἤκουσ᾽ ἀνήκουστα δύστανος ὥστε φρίξαι.

— Trach. 1044

κλύουσ᾽ ἔφριξα.

— Plato Rep. 387 C

τὰ περὶ ταῦτα ὀνόματα πάντα τὰ δεινά τε καὶ φοβερὰ ἀποβλητέα, Κωκυτούς τε καὶ Στύγας καὶ ἐνέρους καὶ ἀλίβαντας καὶ ἄλλα ὅσα τούτου τοῦ τύπου ὀνομαζόμενα φρίττειν δὴ ποιεῖ ὡς οἴεται πάντας τοὺς ἀκούοντας.

1453b 13

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-483

ἀτεχνότερον: see on 6, 1450 b 17. In such instances the effect depends too much on the σκευοποιός (or costumier), and too little on the poet himself.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-484

χορηγίας. The word has been taken to mean 'adminiculum' ( Valla), 'impendium' ( Paccius), 'choragi opera et sumptus' ( Heinsius), 'suppeditatio aliena' ( Tyrwhitt), 'expensive apparatus' ( Twining, Hermann), 'apparatus' ( L. and S.), and 'Unterstützung durch äussere Mittel' ( Ueberweg, after Vahlen, Beitr. 2 p. 20). This last rendering, which is practically the same as Tyrwhitt's, is probably right. It aptly points the contrast between the means supplied by the poet himself, and those which are outside his art and have to be furnished by others; and it is also in accordance with Aristotle's use of χορηγία and χορηγεῖν in the Ethics and Politics (v. Bon. Ind. 852 b 52 and 60). Thus in Eth. N. 10. 8, 1178 b 24 he says

τῆς ἐκτὸς χορηγίας ἐπὶ μικρὸν ἢ ἐπ᾿ ἔλαττον δεῖται

(scil. ἡ τοῦ νοῦ ἀρετή), and in 1. 11, 1101 a 15 (comp. 10. 9, 1179 a 11 )

τὸν κατ᾿ ἀρετὴν τελείαν ἐνεργοῦντα καὶ τοῖς ἐκτὸς ἀγαθοῖς ἱκανῶς κεχορηγημένον.

. More than one, however, of the recent interpreters of the Poetics seem to have assumed (with Heinsius) that in a discussion on matters theatrical χορηγία must be supposed to retain its original theatrical sense, that of the service of a choregus. The answer to this is that we constantly find Aristotle even in the Poetics using the technical terms of the theatre in the more general sense they had or had acquired in ordinary language. Instances of this are ἀγωνίζεσθαι (24, 1460 a 9), συναγωνίζεσθαι (18, 1456 a 26), πρωταγωνιστής (4, 1449 a 18), ἐπεισόδιον (17, 1455 a 23), ἐπεισοδιοῦν (17, 1455 b 1), ἐπεισοδιώδης (9, 1451 b 34), ἀπὸ μηχανῆς (15, 1454 b 2), ἐκ περιπετείας (16, 1454 b 29), ὑποκριτικά (20, 1457 a 21). It seems to be agreed too that the duties of the choregus were mainly, if not entirely, with the chorus, and that he had nothing to do with the make-up of the actors ( A. Müller, Gr. Bühnenalterthümer p. 336).

1453b 14

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-485

τὸ τερατῶδες. The reference here is to the appearance of certain of the more monstrous creations of Greek mythology. Such abnormal personages required on the stage a peculiar make-up and special masks: Pollux 4. 141

τὰ δὲ ἔκσκευα πρόσωπα Ἀκταίων ἐστὶ κερασφόρος .. ἢ Ἄργος πολυόφθαλμος, Εὐίππη ἡ Χείρωνος ὑπαλλαττομένη εἰς ἵππον παρ᾿ Εὐριπίδη

(comp. Sommerbrodt, Scaenica p. 204). In existing plays we have a clear instance of a personage of this kind in the βούκερως παρθένος, Io, in Prom. 588 (comp. 674), and in the Furies in the Eumenides, who are said to look more like Gorgons than women ( Eum. 48 ). The prominence of such figures in the dramas of Aeschylus was noted by the ancients: Vita Aeschyli (p. 2 Dind.)

ταῖς τε γὰρ ὄψεσι καὶ τοῖς μύθοις πρὸς ἔκπληξιν τερατώδη μᾶλλον ἢ πρὸς ἀπάτην κέχρηται.

. τὸ τερατώδες on the stage may be φοβερόν, and thus a means—though an illegitimate one (supra b 7)—of producing a tragic effect ( φόβος). When it does not serve this dramatic purpose ( τὸ τερατῶδες μόνον), however, it is out of place in Tragedy, since the pleasure it gives us is not the true tragic pleasure, which depends on the excitement of pity and fear ( τὴν ἀπ᾿ ἐλέου καὶ φόβου ἡδονήν b 12), and on that alone. Aristotle does not stop to explain our pleasure in τὸ τερατώδες, but it is easy to supply the omission, if one remembers that anything of the nature of a τέρας is marvellous ( θαυμαστόν; comp. Herodotus 4. 28 and Plato Hipp. mai. 283 c ), and that the marvellous is recognized by Aristotle ( τὸ θαυμαστὸν ἡδύ, 24, 1460 a 17) as one of the great causes of human pleasure (see on 9, 1452 a 4).

κοινωνοῦσιν = κοινὸν ἔχουσιν ( Bon. Ind. 400 a 39).

1453b 18

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-486

φανερόν. The argument here may be thus restated: A play is essentially a μίμησις πράξεως (6, 1449 b 36 and passim); if it is to arouse pity and fear, therefore, it must do that through the ἐλεεινὰ καὶ φοβερά in its πρᾶξις (ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν), not through merely material accessories supplied ab extra by others (comp. supra b 7).

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-487

τοῦτο: i. e. τὸ ἐλεεινὸν καὶ φοβερόν. For similar instances of this allusive use of the neuter of the demonstrative, which is so common in all Greek ( Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 1 p. 35), see 13, 1453 a 24; 17, 1455 a 26; 24, 1460 a 38.

1453b 19

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-488

ποῖα οὖν δεινὰ ἢ ποῖα οἰκτρά. Aristotle amends his question ποῖα δεινά by the alternative ποῖα οἰκτρά. The tragic poet is not concerned with δεινά in general, but only with those calculated to arouse pity ( οἰκτρά).

ἢ = vel potius, as in De anima 2. 5, 417 a 5

ὧν ἐστὶν ἡ αἴσθησις καθ αὐτὰ ἢ τὰ συμβεβηκότα τούτοις

(v. Pacius ad loc. and Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 2 p. 297). As Aristotle proceeds to show, the deed of horror ( τὸ δεινόν) may be either actual or only contemplated; and if actual, it may be either within the play itself, and identical with the πάθος (v. 11, 1452 b 11), or anterior to the action of the play, and distinct from the πάθος. In the Oedipus Tyrannus, for instance, the deed of horror, the slaying of Laius, takes place before the opening of the play, the action of which is made up (1) of a series of φοβερά (alarming incidents) leading up to the catastrophe, and (2) a πάθος, which consists in the agony and remorse of Oedipus (see on 11, 1452 b 13).

1453b 21

τὰς τοιαύτας πράξεις = τὰς δεινὰς πράξεις. With such actions there are three possibilities: the parties concerned (the slayer and the slain, for instance) may be either (1) friends, or (2) enemies, or (3) indifferent to each other; in all three situations there is something δεινόν, but it is only the first that is felt to be especially piteous; it is therefore at once δεινόν and οἰκτρόν, and thus eminently adapted for the purposes of Tragedy ( ταῦτα ζητητέον a 22).

1453b 22

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-489

ἂν μὲν οὖν ἐχθρὸς ἐχθρόν, scil. τοιαῦτα ποιῇ, understood from the preceding εἶναι τὰς τοιαύτας πράξεις. In many instances the ellipse is not so easily supplied, e. g. in Rhet. 1. 6, 1363 a 27

(ἀγαθά ἐστι) καὶ τὰ ἴδια καὶ ἃ μηδείς, καὶ τὰ περιττά.

— Rhet. 2. 23, 1397 a 20

καὶ ὅτι εἰ μηδὲ Θησεὺς ἠδίκησεν, οὐδ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρος, καὶ εἰ μηδ᾽ οἱ Τυνδαρίδαι, οὐδ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρος, καὶ εἰ Πάτροκλον Ἕκτωρ, καὶ Ἀχιλλέα Ἀλέξανδρος

(comp. Vahlen on the present passage).

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-490

1453b 23 οὐδὲν ἐλεεινὸν, scil. ποιεῖ. There is nothing in the deed then to call forth pity either for the doer or the sufferer. That the doer of the deed may sometimes claim our pity, is not distinctly said, but it is clear from the instances which follow, Orestes, Medea, Oedipus, etc.; it is incidentally recognized also in the analysis of 'the involuntary' in Eth. N. 3. 1, 1109 b 31

ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖς ἑκουσίοις ἐπαίνων καὶ ψόγων γινομένων, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖς ἀκουσίοις συγγνώμης, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ ἐλέου

(comp. 3. 2, 1111 a 1).

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-491

μέλλων, scil. ποιεῖν, just as in b 21 μέλλῃ = μέλλῃ ἀποκτείνειν. The alternative οὔτε μέλλων is added because pity may be aroused by the spectacle of impending, as well as by that of actually present anguish: Rhet. 2. 8, 1386 a 1

τὰ γεγονότα ἄρτι ἢ μέλλοντα διὰ ταχέων ἐλεεινότερα

(comp. 2. 5, 1382 b 26).

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-492

πλὴν κατ᾿ αὐτὸ τὸ πάθος: i. e. in this, as also in the following case ( οὐδ᾽ ἂν μηδετέρως ἔχοντες), the spectacle of suffering humanity may arouse a certain human feeling (akin to pity) for the sufferer (see on 13, 1452 b 38), but it is not, in the proper sense of the term, 'piteous', since the moral condition of pity is wanting; we cannot say that the man ought not to suffer (comp. 13, 1453 a 4). When the parties, however, are related to one another (

ὅταν δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς φιλίαις ἐγγένηται τὰ πάθη

), the evil comes from a quarter from which it was not to be expected, and the situation is 'piteous' as well as horrible; comp. Rhet. 2. 8, 1386 a 11

(ἐλεεινόν ἐστι) τὸ ὅθεν προσῆκεν ἀγαθόν τι πρᾶξαι [ὑπάρξαι Vahlen] κακόν τι συμβῆναι.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-493

ἐν ταῖς φιλίαις. φιλία here practically means 'cognatio' (comp. Bon. Ind. 818 b 10).

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-494

1453b 21 ἤ τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτον. As defined in 11, 1452 b 11 πάθος includes other forms of suffering besides violent deaths.

1453b 23

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-495

τὴν Κλυταιμνήστραν ἀποθανοῦσαν, 'the slaying of Clytaemnestra.' For this use of the participle see on 13, 1453 a 4 ( δυστυχούντα). On the alternative spelling Κλυταιμήστρα see Roscher's Lex. s. v. and Vitelli, Studi Italiani 1 p. 239. There is hardly a trace of it in the MSS. of Homer ( Ludwich, Homerica I-V p. 5; comp. Wilamowitz, Commentariolum grammaticum IV p. 11).

1453b 25

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-496

αὐτὸν: emphatic as in 9, 1451 b 36; 21, 1457 a 34; 24, 1460 a 6.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-497

εὑρίσκειν is followed by an infinitive in 14, 1454 a 11

εὗρον ... παρασκευάζειν

, and (in the middle) in Eurip. Med. 195

οὐδεὶς λύπας ηύρετο μούσῃ καὶ πολυχόρδοις ᾠδαῖς παύειν.

1453b 29

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-498

εἰδότας καὶ γιγνώσκοντας, scil. πράττοντας. Instead of saying ἔστι γίνεσθαι τὴν πρᾶξιν ὑπ᾽ εἰδότων καὶ γιγνωσκόντων, Aristotle introduces the qualification in the clause with ὥσπερ, which thus becomes a substantive part of the statement (comp. 11, 1452 a 23; 18, 1456 a 27; 21, 1457 b 24). γιγνώσκοντας: Rhet. 2. 1, 1378 a 14

ἐνδέχεται μὴ τὰ βέλτιστα συμβουλεύειν γιγνώσκοντας.

— Demosth. 10. 17

ταῦτα τοίνυν ἕκαστον εἰδότα καὶ γιγνώσκοντα παρ᾿ αὐτῷ κτέ.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-499

Εὐριπίδης: see on 6, 1450 a 25.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-500

Μήδειαν: Eurip. Med. 1236 .

1453b 31

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-501

ὁ Σοφοκλέους Οἰδίπους: comp. 15, 1454 b 8. Sophocles is named because there were others who had dramatized the Oedipus story ( Nauck, TGF. p. 967) as well as Sophocles.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-502

μὲν οὖν: see on 22, 1458 a 25.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-503

ἔξω τοῦ δράματος: 15, 1454 b 7 ἔξω τῆς τραγῳδίας. — 17, 1455 b 8 ἔξω τοῦ μύθου. — 24, 1460 a 29 ἔξω τοῦ μυθεύματος. There is a reference to this form of dramatic construction in Eth. N. 1. 11, 1101 a 32

τὰ παράνομα καὶ δεινὰ προϋπάρχειν ἐν ταῖς τραγῳδίαις.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-504

1453b 33 ὁ Ἀλκμέων ὁ Ἀστυδάμαντος: Nauck, TGF. p. 777 and 964.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-505

τῷ τραυματίᾳ Ὀδυσσεῖ: another name perhaps for the Ὀδυσσεὺς ἀκανθοπλήξ of Sophocles ( Nauck l. c. p. 230).

1453b 35

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-506

ἀναγνωρίσαι, scil. τὴν φιλίαν, as in b 31 (see on 16, 1454 b 32).

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-507

τό τε γὰρ μιαρὸν κτέ.: i. e. it offends our moral sensibilities (see on 13, 1452 b 36 ) as a sin against the laws of natural affection; and it is untragic also, through the absence of the element of suffering.

1454a2

1454a

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-508

ποιεῖ ὁμοίως, said of a dramatic personage, recalls the idea of γινώσκοντα μελλῆσαι καὶ μὴ πρᾶξαι in 1453 b 38 .

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-509

ἐν Ἀντιγόνῃ: Soph. Ant. 1231.

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-510

τὸν Κρέοντα ὁ Αἵμων, scil. τοῦτο ποιεῖ, . . μέλλει ἀποκτείνειν · ἀποκτείνει δὲ οὔ (comp. a 6 ), as is implied in Goulston's paraphrase,

'Creontem patrem Haemon sciens perimere conatus est, nec perfecit tamen.'

The ellipse is not unlike that in ἂν μὲν οὖν ἐχθρὸς ἐχθρόν in 1453 b 17 .

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-511

βέλτιον, scil. τοῦ γινώσκοντα πρᾶξαι.

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-512

4 ἐκπληκτικόν. ἔκπληξις is a very general term for the loss of self-possession that may result from a mental shock. In use, however, it often has the more special sense of extreme surprise; the definition of it in fact in Top. 4. 5, 126 b 17 is θαυμασιότης ὑπερβάλλουσα,

'admiratio exsuperans'

( Pacius). The Discovery is said both here and in 16, 1455 a 17 to be 'astounding', just in the same way as a περιπέτεια—which in a play is so intimately connected with the Discovery—is said in Rhet. 1. 11, 1371 b 10 to be θαυμαστόν. The affinity of sense between ἐκπληκτικόν and θαυμαστόν is indirectly shown by the fact that Aristotle describes the 'pursuit of Hector' in the Iliad in one place as θαυμαστόν ( 24, 1460 a 14 ), and in another as ἐκπληκτικόν ( 25, 1460 b 25 ). I cannot agree with Tumlirz ( Die tragischen Affecte Mitleid und Furcht nach Aristoteles p. 34), who supposes that, as used in the Poetics, the terms ἔκπληξις and ἐκπληκτικόν denote the excitement or tension with which the audience awaits the Discovery.

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-513

κράτιστον = potissimum. Aristotle's view of the construction exemplified in the Iphigenia in Tauris is presumably this, that the full effect of Tragedy is attained in the most artistic way, without the adjunct of physical suffering, and with the minimum of offence to our moral sensibilities. His ultimate preference for this construction is intelligible enough in itself; and we have been prepared for it to some extent by his recognition throughout this chapter of the legitimacy of a situation like that in the Iphigenia, in which the deed of horror, though contemplated, is not actually carried out (comp. μέλλων 1453 b 18,

μέλλῃ

b 21,

μέλλοντα

b 34 ). The criterion which now determines the relative value of these possible situations in Tragedy is a moral one, their effect not on the emotions, but on the moral sensibility of the audience. The first of the four situations is set aside as μιαρόν, 'morally offensive' ( 1453 b 38 ); the second ( τὸ γινώσκοντα πρᾶξαι; see on a 2 ) also is μιαρόν; the third just avoids being that ( 1454 a 3 ), because the unholy deed is done in ignorance; the fourth, however, in which a timely Discovery saves us from the rude shock to our moral feelings which is inevitable even with the third kind of plot, is pronounced to be κράτιστον. This seems to be the rationale of the present classification, and the explanation of the discrepancy between the statement in the text and that in 13, 1453 a 24 . In chap. 13 Aristotle was thinking only of the emotional effect of tragedy as produced by the most obvious means; here he comes to see that the same effect may be produced in a finer form without their aid. It is his somewhat tardy recognition of the necessity of avoiding τὸ μιαρόν that has caused this change of view.

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-514

5 ἐν τῷ Κρεσφόντῃ: a play of Euripides ( Nauck, TGF. p. 497). It is referred to in Eth. N. 3. 2, 1111 a 11

οἰηθείη δ᾽ ἄν τις καὶ τὸν υἱὸν πολέμιον εἶναι ὥσπερ ἡ Μερόπη

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-515

ἐν τῇ Ἰφιγενείᾳ: comp. 17, 1455 b 9 .

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-516

a 8 ἐν τῇ Ἕλλῃ. Nothing more seems to be known of the play ( Nauck p. 837).

a 9

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-517

διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο reverts to what was said as far back as 1453 b 19-22 ; the whole of the intervening statement ( 1453 b 22

τοὺς μὲν οὖν

— 1454 a 8

ἀνεγνώρισεν

) is a digression. Other digressions of considerable length are found in chap. 1 (see on 1, 1447 b 11 ), in chap. 9 (see on 9, 1451 b 27 ), in chap. 15 (see on 15, 1454 b 8 ), and in chap. 22 (see on 22, 1459 a 31 ).

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-518

πάλαι: in 13, 1453 a 19 . Aristotelian instances of πάλαι in a back-reference may be seen in An. post. 2. 19, 100 a 14 (comp. 1. 3, 97 b 7 ), in Phys. 8. 3, 254 a 16 (comp. 253 a 32 and b 10 ), in Pol. 2. 4, 1262 b 29 (comp. 1262 a 26 ), and 3. 11, 1282 a 15 (comp. 1281 a 42 ).

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-519

a 10 ζητοῦντες: comp. Metaph. 6, 1048 a 30

διὸ ζητοῦντες καὶ περὶ τούτων διήλθομεν

. — Xenophanes Fr. 18 ( Diels) οὗτοι ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν, ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητοῦντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. Quintilian (5. 10. 120) has a very similar observation on the discovery of the various forms of argument in oratory:

Neque enim artibus editis factum est ut argumenta inveniremus, sed dicta sunt omnia antequam praeciperentur, mox ea scriptores observata et collecta ediderunt.

1454 a 12 ἀναγκάζονται: comp. 9, 1451 b 21 . They are obliged to keep to these well-known stories (comp. 9, 1451 b 23 ), because they have not the art to discover or invent new ones equally fitted for the purposes of Tragedy.

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-520

a 13 τὰ τοιαῦτα . . πάθη: see 14, 1453 b 19-22 .

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-521

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-522

1454a17 χρηστά. χρηστός, which, as Aristotle tells us in the context (20), may be applied to anything good of its kind, is replaced in b 13 by ἐπιεικής ; it is equivalent to σπουδαῖος as used in 2, 1448 a 2 , the common opposite of both being φαῦλος οι πονηρός.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-523

18 ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη: in 6, 1450 b 8 .

a 21

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-524

τὸ μὲν χεῖρον: Pol. 1. 5, 1254 b 13

τὸ ἄρρεν πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ φύσει τὸ μὲν κρεῖττον τὸ δὲ χεῖρον

. — H. A. 9. 1, 608 b 8

διόπερ γυνὴ ἀνδρὸς ἐλεημονέστερον καὶ ἀρίδακρυ μᾶλλον, ἔτι δὲ φθονερώτερον καὶ μεμψιμοιρότερον καὶ φιλολοίδορον μᾶλλον καὶ πληκτικώτερον· ἔστι δὲ καὶ δύσθυμον μᾶλλον τὸ θῆλυ τοῦ ἄρρενος καὶ δύσελπι καὶ ἀναιδέστερον καὶ ψευδέστερον κτέ.

In the Politics we are told that owing to the weakness of the rational faculty in them, the virtue of which women are capable is not so high as that of a man ( Pol. 1. 13, 1260 a 20 ). Rhet. 1. 5, 1361 b 26 summarizes the Greek idea on this point: θηλειῶν ἀρετὴ σώματος μὲν κάλλος καὶ μέγεθος, ψυχῆς δὲ σωφροσύνη καὶ φιλεργία ἄνευ ἀνελευθερίας.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-525

ὅλως φαῦλον. In the Politics, where the slave is viewed as a being of the very lowest intellectual and moral capacity, Aristotle allows him only the bare modicum of virtue required to enable him to do his work : ἀρετῆς δεῖται μικρᾶς καὶ τοσαύτης ὅπως μήτε δι' ἀκολασίαν μήτε διὰ δειλίαν ἐλλείψῃ τῶν ἔργων ( Pol. 1. 13, 1260 b 35 ).

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-526

τὸ ἁρμόττοντα, scil. τὰ ἤθη ποιῆσαι (see on a 24 τρίτον τὸ ὅμοιον ). In the individual character there must be nothing at variance with that of the class to which the individual belongs; in a woman, for instance, there should be nothing 'unwomanly'. The opposite of ἁρμόττον in 30 is ἀπρεπὲς καὶ μὴ ἁρμόττον. This same use of the term is occasionally found in later criticism, e. g. in Schol. Soph. El. 126

τὸ ῾εἴ μοι θέμις τάδ᾽ αὐδᾶν᾿ λίαν ἠθικὸν καὶ ἁρμόζον γυναιξίν

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-527

a 23 γυναικείῳ, scil. ἤθει; comp. Plato Laws 790 C γυναικεῖά τε καὶ δούλεια ἤθη. ἦθος in this connexion practically means a 'character', i. e. one of the personages, just as it does again further on in 24, 1460 a 11 . An approximation to this sense is found in Plato, who uses the word now and then for a man or other creature possessing character: Phaed. 81 E ἐνδοῦνται δέ [scil. αἱ ψυχαί], ὥσπερ εἰκός, εἰς τοιαῦτα ἤθη, ὁποῖ᾽ ἄττ᾿ ἂν καὶ μεμελετηκυῖαι τύχωσιν ἐν τῷ βίῳ, οἷον τοὺς μὲν γαστριμαργίας... μεμελετηκότας... εἰς τὰ τῶν ὄνων γένη καὶ τῶν τοιούτων θηρίων εἰκὸς ἐνδύεσθαι [v. Stallb. ad loc.]. — Rep. 6, 496 A γενναῖον καὶ εὖ τεθραμμένον ἦθος. — 503 C τὰ βέβαια ταῦτα ἤθη (comp. Festschrift Th. Gomperz dargebracht p. 165).

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-528

ἀνδρείαν. On the ἀνδρεία of women see Pol. 1. 13, 1260 a 22 and 3. 4, 1277 b 21 . In the present passage, however., Aristotle finds a certain incongruity in the idea of an ἀνδρεία γυνή, as though the affinity of ἀνδρεῖος with ἄνδρες were still felt.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-529

24 δεινὴν has been rightly explained by Günther ( Grundzüge der trag. Kunst p. 280) as meaning 'clever', i. e. 'clever in speech and argument' ('tüchtig im Reden', 'beredt') a quality which according to Greek notions was quite out of place in a woman ( Pol. 1. 13, 1260 a 30 ; 3. 4, 1277 b 23 ). That this rather than 'terrible' is the meaning of δεινὴν here is shown by the illustration in 31,

ἡ τῆς Μελανίππης ῥῆσις

, where the reference is to the δεινότης or 'rhetorical cleverness' of the speech put into the mouth of Melanippe by Euripides.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-530

τὸ ὅμοιον, scil. τὸ ἦθος ποιῆσαι, as is implied in the clause of in-terpretation, τοῦτο γὰρ ἕτερον τοῦ χρηστὸν τὸ ἦθος καὶ ἁρμόττον ποιῆσαι. Instead of saying ὅμοια, to correspond with ἁρμόττοντα in 22, Aristotle lapses into the singular ὅμοιον, through the influence, as it would seem, of the singular in ἀνδρεῖον μὲν τὸ ἦθος in the context. In the absence of an example in 28 sqq. to illus-trate the neglect of this canon, the meaning of ὅμοιον is not very clear; but a hint of it may be gathered from the language in the analogy in 1454 b 9

ὁμοίους ποιοῦντες καλλίους γράφουσιν

, where ὁμοίους (said of a portrait) means 'like the original'. This may very well be the sense of ὅμοιον in the present passage; the literary portrait produced by the poet should be 'like the original', i. e. like what the personage in question is in history or legend (comp. 1454 b 12 ). The fact of ὅμοιος being used in a somewhat different sense in 2, 1448 a 6, 12 and 13, 1453 a 5 only shows how inattentive Aristotle is at times to uniformity of language.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-531

25 ὥσπερ εἴρηται, ' in the present sense of this term ( ἁρμόττον)'.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-532

ὁμαλόν: i.e. the character should always remain the same, with-out change or modification in the course of the play. The canon reappears in Horace A.P. 126

servetur ad imum [scil. persona] qualis ab incepto processerit, et sibi constet.

The logical scheme of these four canons of character may be presented thus: the ἦθος of the dramatic personage should be (1) χρηστόν, not inconsistent with goodness of disposition; (2) ἁρμόττον, not inconsistent with the ἦθος of the class to which the personage belongs; (3) ὅμοιον, not inconsistent with the received idea of the particular personage; (4) ὁμαλόν, not inconsistent with itself.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-533

ἀνώμαλός τις. Aristotle is perhaps thinking of Achilles, as a character subject to sudden changes of mood; comp. fr. 168 (Teubn.)

Ἀριστοτέλης φησὶν ἀνώμαλον εἶναι τὸ Ἀχιλλέως ἦθος

, and Eustathius on Il. 24, 569 (v. Roemer, Bavarian Academy, Sitzungsb. 1884 p. 297).

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-534

ὁ τὴν μίμησιν παρέχων, as the explanatory καὶ τοιοῦτον ἦθος ὑποτι-θείς shows, means the original of the dramatic portrait, the person-age as known from history or legend.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-535

μὴ ἀναγκαίου: 'not required for the purposes of the story'. The gratuitous πονηρία of Menelaus in the Orestes is noted again in 25, 1461 b 20 ; the Scholiast also on the Orestes more than once draws attention to the evil nature Euripides has given him ( τὸ κακόηθες τῆς γνώμης). On the reading ἀναγκαίου see J. of Phil. 14 p. 46 . I am not able to quote an Aristotelian instance of ἀναγκαῖος as a feminine, but it is certainly good Attic, and common enough in Plato. Though Aristotle's tendency was to treat such adjectives as of three terminations, his practice varied in the case of several (e. g. βέβαιος, ἑκούσιος, ἐλευθέριος, ἴδιος, τέλειος), if our existing texts are to be trusted.

ὁ τοῦ: comp. τῆς Μελανίππης in the next line. The article has to be restored in like manner before Ὀδυσσέως in 16, 1454 b 26 and Ὀρέστης in 16, 1454 b 31 . In all other passages in the Poetics—and they are very numerous—the rule laid down by Fitzgerald ( Selections from the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, p. 163) as to the use of the article in Aristotle with the names of dramatis personae is duly observed. The same is true of the Nicomachean Ethics (see my Textual criticism of the Nic. Ethics p. 52), and Politics. In the Politics ὁ Σωκράτης is regularly used for the Socrates in Plato's dialogues, and in 2. 4, 1262 b 11

ὁ Ἀριστοφάνης

means the Aristophanes in Plato's Symposium. The rule in fact is observed in twenty passages in the Politics, and ignored in two only, in 8. 3, 1338 a 28 —where we may restore (ὁ) Ὀδυσσεύς, and in 8. 7, 1342 b 23 —where the true reading is probably (τῷ) Σωκράτει. Similarly in the Rhetoric there are at least eighteen instances of the observance of the rule and but two exceptions, viz. 2. 23, 1400 a 27 —where we may restore (ὁ) Ὀδυσσεύς (comp. 3. 15, 1416 b 1 and b 12 ), and 3. 14, 1415 b 30 —where the correction (ὁ) Σωκράτης is confirmed by the parallel in 1. 9, 1367 b 8 .

1454a31

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-536

1454a ἐν τῇ Σκύλλῃ: comp. 26, 1461 b 32 . The Scylla Aristotle has in mind has been often supposed to be a tragedy of Euripides. But there is apparently no mention elsewhere of a tragedy with this title by Euripides (comp. Wilamowitz, Analecta Eurip. p. 159), and the language in 26, 1461 b 32 seems to point rather to a dithyramb. All discussion has been set at rest by Gomperz's recovery among the Vienna papyri of a fragment of some ancient critical treatise, which mentions the θρῆνος of Ulysses (i. e. a portion of the Scylla) as the work of the dithyrambic poet Timotheus:

εἰσὶν δὲ τινὲς οἱ ὃν μὲν προτίθενται οὐ μειμοῦνται [δὲ], ἄλλον δὲ καὶ τοῦτον καλῶς, εἰ τυγχάνοιεν ἐνέχοντες ἔννοιαν καὶ παράδειγμα παρ᾿ ἡμεῖν αὐτοῖς, ὥσπερ καὶ Τειμόθεος ἐν τῷ θρήνῳ τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως εἰ μέν τινα μειμεῖται καὶ τὸ ὅμοιόν τινι οἶδεν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τῷ Ὀδυσσεῖ

(v. Gomperz, Vienna Academy, Anz. der phil. hist. Classe 1886, v; comp. Wilamowitz, Timotheos p. 111). To this Aristotle appends a second instance, one from a tragedy, as though conscious of the first being not quite to the point.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-537

1454a32 ἡ τῆς Μελανίππης ῥῆσις, in the Μελανίππη ἡ σοφή of Euripides ( Nauck, TGF. p. 509 ). The rationalistic argument put into her mouth against the popular idea of monsters ( τέρατα) was in Aristotle's view (see on δεινὴν 24 ) an exhibition of cleverness out of place in a woman.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-538

1454a32_2 ἡ ἐν Αὐλίδι Ἰφιγένεια: Iph. Aul.1211 sqq. and 1368 sqq.

1454a33

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-539

χρὴ δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἤθεσιν κτέ. There should be a unity of 33 character just as there should be a unity of action in every play. This incidental reference to the action reminds Aristotle of a point (the use of the μηχανή) which had not been considered in his general theory of the plot in chaps. 8-11 .

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-540

1454a34 τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ τὸ εἰκός: comp. especially 9, 1451 38 and 10, 1452 24 .

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-541

1454a35 ἢ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ εἰκὸς, scil. εἶναι ( Bon. Ind. 239a22 ; see on 24, 1459b9 ).

10b. mvp-aristotle-comment-542

1454a37 λύσεις: see 18, 1455b24 , 1456a9 , where the λύσις (the un- ravelling, or dénouement) is distinguished from the δέσις or πλοκή (the knotting, or intrigue). This is the first appearance of these terms in this sense, though they may be presumed to have been already well established in the technical language of the theatre (see on 10, 1452a15 ).

10b. mvp-aristotle-comment-543

1454a37_2 ἐν τῇ Μηδείᾳ: Eurip. Med.1317 .

1454b1

10b. mvp-aristotle-comment-544

1454b μηχανῆς. On the mechanical contrivance, whereby a god or other personage was suddenly brought on, or removed from the stage, see Haigh, Attic Theatre p. 209 . Aristotle regards a dénouement effected by such means as an inartistic way out of the difficulty, or else allowable only in certain exceptional cases (3-6). A similar view of the μηχανή is implied in Plato Crat. 425 D

οἱ τραγῳδοποιοί, ἐπειδάν τι ἀπορῶσιν, ἐπὶ τὰς μηχανὰς κατα- φεύγουσι θεοὺς αἴροντες.

From this theatrical use the term is sometimes metaphorically extended to matters apart from the stage, when a difficulty is solved by means which savour too much of artifice or miracle. Thus even in the present context ( b2) the sudden appearance of Athene in Il. 2. 166 is said to be ἀπὸ μηχανῆς; and in Metaph. A 5, 985 b 18 reason is said to come in as a deus ex machina in the cosmogony of Anaxagoras :

Ἀναξα- γόρας τε γὰρ μηχανῇ χρῆται τῷ νῷ πρὸς τὴν κοσμοποιίαν, καὶ ὅταν ἀπορήσῃ διὰ τίν᾿ αἰτίαν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐστί, τότε παρέλκει αὐτόν.

10b. mvp-aristotle-comment-545

1454b2 τὰ περὶ τὸν ἀπόπλουν: Il. 2. 155 ; comp. Porphyry on Il. 2. 144, p. 26 Schrader :

ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ παραγίνεται ἀπὸ μηχανῆς [so cod. Townl.] ὥσπερ καθεύδοντα τὸν Ὀδυσσέα ἐγείρουσα.

His note on Il. 2. 73 (where Agamemnon tries the feeling of his army) is worth quoting as a typical attempt to reconcile Homeric practice and Aristotelian theory:

δια τί ὁ Ἀγαμέμνων ἀπεπειρᾶτο τῶν ᾿Ἀχαιῶν, καὶ οὕτως ἔπραξεν ὥστε ὀλίγου τὰ ἐναντία συμβῆναι ἢ ἐβουλεύετο; καὶ τὸ κώλυμα ἀπὸ μηχανῆς· ἡ γὰρ Ἀθηνᾶ ἐκώλυσεν· ἔστι δὲ ἀποίητον τὸ μηχάνημα λύειν ἄλλως εἰ μὴ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ μύθου. φησὶ δὲ ὁ Ἀριστο- τέλης (Fr. 142 Teubn.) ποιητικὸν μὲν εἶναι τὸ μιμεῖσθαι τὰ εἰωθότα γίνεσθαι καὶ ποιητῶν μᾶλλον τὸ κινδύνους παρεισάγειν· εἰκὸς δὲ καὶ ἐκ λοιμοῦ πεπονημένους καὶ τῷ μήκει τοῦ χρόνου ἀπαυδήσαντας ... μὴ εὐθὺς παρακαλεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν ἔξοδον ἀλλὰ πειραθῆναι ἡγήσασθαι δεῖν εἰ οὕτως ἔχουσιν . . ἡ δὲ λύσις οὐκ ἀπὸ μηχανῆς· ὅταν γὰρ διὰ τῶν εἰκότων γίγνηται, οὐ μηχανὴ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ἅμ᾽ [? ἀλλ᾽] ὅτε πρόσκειται θεός· ἀλλὰ τοῦτ᾽ εἰπὼν εἱκὸς ἦν αὐτοῖς γίνεσθαι εἰς θεὸν ἀνέθηκε τὸν Ὀδυσσέα διανοηθῆναι ταῦτα δρᾶν ἃ πρᾶξαι ἂν εἰκός ἐστιν

(p. 24-25 Schrader). ³

1454b2_2

10c. mvp-aristotle-comment-546

ἀλλὰ μηχανῇ κτέ.: μηχανῇ breviter dicit pro theώ ἀπὸ μηχανῆς (Ritter). This clause (which ends apparently with θεοῖς ὁρᾶν in b 6) is a digression within a digression; Aristotle remembers 15. 14541-9 231 that the appearance of a god on the stage may be necessary for a certain purpose, to reveal matters of interest which lie outside the play itself as being either anterior or subsequent to the action of the piece. This may be taken as a tacit apology for the proce- dure of Euripides, who opens several of his plays with a prologue delivered by a god to explain the historical antecedents of the situation, and concludes others with a sort of epilogue, in which a god announces the future fortunes of the personages (see Haigh, Tragic Drama p. 246-7 ). A distorted reminiscence of this state- ment may be recognized in the Horatian precept, A. P. 191

nec deus intersit nisi dignus vindice nodus inciderit

10d. mvp-aristotle-comment-547

1454b6 ἄλογον is a general term for that which cannot be seen to be either necessary or probable (see above 1454 a 36

ἀναγκαῖον ἢ εἰκός

), in other words for that which does not admit of explanation, that which we find unaccountable. It is of frequent occurrence in the later chapters of the Poetics (see esp. 24, 1460 a 28 and 25, 1461 b 14 ). The clause continues the statement in 1454 a 37 - b 2 . No improbability can be allowed within the story ( ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν) of the play, unless it happens to be in the part only pre- supposed and not actually presented on the stage ( ἔξω τῆς τραγῳδίας). Bonitz ( Ind. 343 a 32 ) seems to take a different view of the clause, connecting it with that which immediately precedes it, μηχανῇ χρηστέον κτέ. The rule in the text is repeated in very similar terms in 24, 1460 27 .

10d. mvp-aristotle-comment-548

1454b6_2 μηδὲν εἶναι, scil. δεῖ, understood from 37.

10d. mvp-aristotle-comment-549

1454b6_3 ἔξω τῆς τραγῳδίας: see on 14, 1453 b 32 .

10d. mvp-aristotle-comment-550

1454b6_4 τὸ ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι: see 24, 1400 a 29

1454b8

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-551

ἐπεὶ δὲ κτἑ. At this point Aristotle returns to the subject of the ἤθη, which according to his theory (1454 a 17-26) should be at once χρηστά, ἁρμόττοντα, ὅμοια, and ὁμαλά, in order to meet any doubt that may arise as to the possibility of an ἦθος being at once χρηστόν and ὅμοιον. He shows that the corresponding difficulty has been solved in a sister art, that of the portrait-painter, who without sacrificing the likeness makes a man look handsomer than he is ( ὁμοίους ποιοῦντες καλλίους γράφουσιν); so that, if the painter can do this, there is no reason why the literary artist also should not be able to represent a tragic personage truthfully, with any infirmities of character which form part of the received idea of him ( ὀργίλους καὶ ῥᾳθύμους καὶ τάλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν b12), and at the same time as a good man (ἐπιεικεῖς b13).

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-552

1454b8_2 βελτιόνων: see 2, 1448 4 , 11 , 18 .

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-553

1454b9 ἡμᾶς, 232 COMMENTARY 1454 b 9 'we poets', as is shown by what follows in οὕτω καὶ τὸν ποιητήν. Aristotle speaks as though his hearers were poets, and studying the art of poetry for practical purposes. The Poetics in fact, whatever else they may be, are a practical treatise on Poetry; and the assumption throughout is that one is to learn from them how to write a good poem. Similarly in Rhet. 1. 8, 1366 a 12

ἡμᾶς

means 'we orators' (

δέοι ἂν τὰ ἤθη τῶν πολιτειῶν ἑκάστης ἔχειν ἡμᾶς

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-554

1454b10 καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι. Aristotle might no doubt have said ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι. Vahlen illustrates the construction from Soph. el. 16, 175 a 27

συμβαίνει δέ ποτε καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς διαγράμμασιν· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ ἀναλύσαντες ἐνίοτε συνθεῖναι πάλιν ἀδυνατοῦμεν· οὕτω καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐλέγχοις εἰδότες παρ᾿ ὃ ὁ λόγος συμβαίνει συνεῖραι διαλύσαι τὸν λόγον ἀποροῦμεν

, and other parallels in Aristotle (v. Bon. Ind. 546 ).

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-555

1454b12 ὀργίλους καὶ ῥᾳθύμους, 'too quick or too slow to anger'; the contrast is like that between ὀξύς and ῥάθυμος in Eth. E. 8. 5, 1240 a 1

ἀνομοίοις χαίρουσιν, οἷον αὐστηροὶ εὐτραπέλοις καὶ ὀξεῖς ῥᾳθύμις

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-556

1454b12_2 καὶ τἆλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας is added in order to include all similar defects of character, i. e. defects which are not incompatible with a general goodness of disposition.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-557

1454b14 παράδειγμα σκληρότητος. For the reason for bracketing the two words see J. of Phil. 14 p. 47 . If they are not an ordinary 'adscript', they may possibly represent a marginal note by Aristotle himself to indicate that a second instance, one of σκληρότης [obstinacy?], was to be added. According to Galen (t. 18. 2 p. 879-80 K.) notes of a very similar description were to be found embedded in the text of Hippocrates.

1454b14_2

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-558

Ἀγάθων: perhaps, as Tyrwhitt suggests, in his Telephus ( Nauck, TGF. p. 764 ).

1454b15

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-559

διατηρεῖν. This quasi-imperatival use of the infinitive (without δεῖ οι χρή) is common enough in Aristotle ( Bon. Ind. 343 a 22 ). For the compound διατηρεῖν comp. Eth. N. 10. 8, 1178 a 13

διατηροῦντες τὸ πρέπον ἑκάστῳ

. — Aeschines in Ctes. 6

ὅταν διατηρηθῶσιν οἱ νόμοι

. — Philemon 94. 6 Kock

ὃς γε ταῦτα πάντα διατηρεῖ

. At this point Aristotle sums up by saying that the rules laid down for the μῦθος and ἤθη in a play must be observed throughout by the poet. But besides these general principles of construction, it is necessary in practice to consider the spectators (comp. Teichmüller, Aristot. Forsch. 2 p. 204) and the impression (αἰσθήσεις) the work is likely to make on them when presented on the stage, as it is easy to produce a bad impression through some fault of practical stage-craft. This seems to be the sense of the present 15. 14549-16. 1454 20 233 passage; Aristotle, however, avoids details, and refers to another writing of his for a fuller explanation of his precept. The incident mentioned in 17, 1455 b 26 may perhaps be taken as an instance of the kind of fault he has in mind.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-560

1454b15_2 τὰ παρὰ τὰς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀκολουθούσας αἰσθήσεις. For παρά in a sense approximating to that of διά see Bon. Ind. 562 a 10 and Bernays, Dialoge des Aristot. p. 138. αἰσθήσεις means the impression produced on the spectators, i. e. as we should say, the stage-effect of a play. The qualification, however, τὰς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀκολουθούσας τῇ ποιητικῇ, limits the responsibility of the poet to that part of the stage-effect which directly depends on his own art ( ἀκολουθούσας τῇ ποιητικῇ); so far as it depends on that of others — actors, costumiers, and the like — it is not within his province ( 6, 1450b17 ). This interpretation, which is as old as Victorius, is much more probable than that of Bernays and others, who suppose the reference in the text to be to the business of the costumier and stage-manager. Throughout the Poetics Aristotle resolutely ignores all such matters as outside the art of poetry proper; and it is inconceivable that he should have given them any special attention in a work like the dialogue περὶ ποιητῶν ( ἐν τοῖς ἐκδεδομένοις λόγοις). For the plural αἰσθήσεις comp. ὄψεις in 6, 1450 a 13, b 20 , and Kühner, Gr. Gr.³ 2. 1 p. 17 .

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-561

1454b18 ἐν τοῖς ἐκδεδομένοις λόγοις: i. e. in the now lost dialogue περὶ ποιητῶν, as Bernays following Victorius has shown (Dialoge des Aristot. p. 27; comp. Bon. Ind. 226b35 ). The reference must be to a work (1) by Aristotle himself, (2) published and written for publication, and (3) on a kindred subject.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-562

1454b19 This and the next two chapters form a sort of Appendix; they discuss a series of special points and rules of construction which had been omitted in the sketch of the general theory of the μῦθος. If these afterthoughts seem out of place here, it is to be remembered that there is an even stronger instance of matter out of place in 15, 1454 a 37 An excursus on the different forms of Discovery is justified not only by the great dramatic interest of the Discovery ( 6, 1450 a 33 ), but also by the important part it plays in 14, 1453 b 30 .

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-563

εἴρηται πρότερον: 11, 1452 b 29 .

1454b20

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-564

πλείστῃ χρῶνται: Pol. 7.11, 1330 611

οἷς γὰρ πλείστοις χρώ- μεθα πρὸς τὸ σῶμα καὶ πλειστάκις, ταῦτα πλεῖστον συμβάλλεται πρὸς τὴν ὑγίειαν.

— Hippocrates 1 p. 40 Κ.

οἷς εἴθισται ὁ ἄνθρωπος πλεί- στοισί τε καὶ αἰεὶ χρῆσθαι.

1454b22

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-565

σύμφυτα: comp. H. A. 7. 5, 585 b 31 .

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-566

λόγχην κτέ. From some unknown play ( Nauck, TGF. p. 855 ); the allusion is to the mark said to have been visible on the Σπαρτοί of Thebes. The accusative λόγχην Aristotle seems to regard as an instance of attractio inversa, since he continues the construction by saying ἀστέρας instead of ἀστέρες.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-567

23 Καρκίνος: Nauck, TGF. p. 797 . For the ellipse of the verb ( ἐποίησε) see on 14, 1453 b 17 .

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-568

ἐπίκτητα: De gen. an. 1. 17. 721 b 29

οὐ γὰρ μόνον τὰ σύμφυτα προσεοικότες γίνονται τοῖς γονεῦσιν οἱ παῖδες ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἐπίκτητα· οὐλάς τε γὰρ ἐχόντων τῶν γεννησάντων ἤδη τινὲς ἔσχον ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς τόποις τῶν ἐκγόνων τὸν τύπον τῆς οὐλῆς, καὶ στίγμα ἔχοντος ἐν τῷ βραχίονι τοῦ πατρὸς ἐπεσήμηνεν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι τῷ τέκνῳ ... τὸ γράμμα

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-569

24 οὐλαί: as in Od. 19. 392 and Eurip. El. 573 .

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-570

τὰ δὲ ἐκτός. The term in the New Comedy for tokens of this kind was γνωρίσματα (see on 17, 1455 a 20 ).

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-571

25 ἐν τῇ Τυροῖ: a play of Sophocles ( Nauck, TGF. p. 272 ). With olov we have to understand ἡ ἀναγνώρισις γίνεται—the construction changing, as sometimes happens when a second instance of not quite the same order is introduced by olov; comp. De anima 2. 10, 422 b 5

σημεῖον δὲ τὸ μήτε κατάξηρον οὖσαν τὴν γλῶτταν αἰσθάνεσθαι μήτε λίαν ὑγράν· αὕτη γὰρ ἁφὴ γίνεται τοῦ πρώτου ὑγροῦ, ὥσπερ ὅταν προγευματίσας τις ἰσχυροῦ χυμοῦ γεύηται ἑτέρου, καὶ οἷον τοῖς κάμνουσι πικρὰ πάντα φαίνεται διὰ τὸ τῇ γλώττῃ πλήρει τοιαύτης ὑγρότητος αἰσθάνεσθαι

. — Rhet. 3. 2, 1404 b 18

διὸ δεῖ λανθάνειν ποιοῦντας, καὶ μὴ δοκεῖν λέγειν πεπλασμένως ἀλλὰ πεφυκότως· τοῦτο γὰρ πιθανόν, ἐκεῖνο δὲ τοὐναντίον· ὡς γὰρ πρὸς ἐπιβουλεύοντα διαβάλλονται, καθάπερ πρὸς τοὺς οἶνους τοὺς μεμιγμένους, καὶ οἷον ἡ Θεοδώρου φωνὴ πέπονθε πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ὑποκριτῶν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ λέγοντος ἔοικεν εἶναι, αἱ δ᾽ ἀλλότριαι

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-572

ὑπὸ τῆς τροφοῦ: Od. 19. 386-475 .

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-573

ὑπὸ τῶν συβοτῶν: Od. 21. 205-225 . The distinction Aristotle finds between the two instances is this: whereas the scar is seen by Euryclia by accident and in the natural course of things, with the herdsmen Ulysses directly points to it πίστεως ἕνεκα, in order to convince them of the truth of his disclosure: Od. 21. 217

καὶ σῆμα ἀριφραδὲς ἄλλο τι δείξω, ὄφρα μ᾿ ἐὺ γνῶτον πιστωθῆτόν τ᾽ ἐνὶ θυμῷ, οὐλήν, τήν ποτέ με σὓς ἤλασε λευκῷ ὀδόντι

. In one of his lost writings, perhaps the Ἀπορήματα Ομηρικά, Aristotle criticized this Discovery as resting on an error of logic :

Ἀριστοτέλης δέ, φασίν, ἐπιλαμβάνεται τοῦ τοιούτου ἀναγνωρισμοῦ, λέγων ὡς ἄρα κατὰ τὸν ποιητὴν τῷ τοιούτῳ λόγῳ πᾶς οὐλὴν ἔχων Ὀδυσσεύς ἐστιν

( fr. 208 Heitz ; Porph. in Od. p. 126 Schrader ).

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-574

πίστεως ἕνεκα, scil. χρώμεναι τοῖς σημείοις.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-575

29 ἐκ περιπετείας:

'repentino quodam casu'

( Victorius), Polyb. 32, 22

οὐ τύχῃ τὸ πλεῖον συνεργῷ χρώμενος οὐδ᾽ ἐκ περιπετείας, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς ἀγχινοίας καὶ φιλοπονίας

. The ordinary interpretation of αἱ ἐκ περιπετείας,

'quae ex peripetia oriuntur'

( Tyrwhitt), makes it refer to the περιπέτεια or turn in the story, and assumes the Discovery in the Odyssey to be consequent on the Peripety, whereas it is rather one of the means to it. It is to be remembered (1) that περιπέτεια is not always a term of the theatre in Aristotle (see on 11, 1451 b 22 ); and (2) that even in the Poetics he is very apt to use such terms in the sense they bore in ordinary speech (see on 14, 1453 b 8 χορηγίας ).

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-576

30 ἐν τοῖς Νίπτροις: Od. 19, 392 (comp. 26, 1460 b 26 ). On this, the earliest mode of citing Homer, see Bergk, Gr. Litteraturgeschichte 1 p. 496 .

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-577

ἀνεγνώρισεν ὅτι Ὀρέστης:

'manifestum fecit se esse Orestem'

( Ritter), as the context shows, ἐκείνη μὲν γὰρ διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, ἐκεῖνος δὲ αὐτὸς λέγει κτέ. ; comp. the parallel in 17, 1455 a 9

θύεσθαι μέλλων ἀνεγνώρισεν ... εἰπὼν ὅτι κτέ

. For the senses of ἀἀναγνωρίζειν in the Poetics see on 11, 1452 b 5 .

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-578

διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, scil. ἀνεγνώρισεν ὅτι Ἰφιγένεια. The reference is to Iph. Taur. 727 sqq.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-579

34 αὐτὸς λέγει: Iph. Taur. 800 sqq. In Aristotle's view this latter Discovery is very like that in Od. 21. 205 : just as Ulysses points to his scar to convince the herdsmen, so Orestes, to convince his sister (comp. 808

ἔχεις τι τῶνδέ μοι τεκμήριον;

), makes a statement showing his familiarity with their family history and the old home in Argos (comp. 822 ἃ δ᾽ εἶδον αὐτός, τάδε φράσω τεκμήρια ).

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-580

35 διό τι ἐγγὺς. Vahlen restores διὸ ἐγγύς τι, which is no doubt the more usual order when τι is connected with an adverb. But there are certainly some instances of the order in the text, e. g. Thuc. 7. 57. 1

οὐ κατὰ δίκην τι μᾶλλον

. — Xen. Hiero 1. 21

οὖν ὁρᾷς τι τοὺς τυράννους ἥδιον ... ἰόντας;

— Cyr. 1. 6. 11

οἴει τι, ἔφη, ἧττον τοῦτο εἶναι αἰσχρόν ;

— Plato Prot. 327 B

οἴει ἂν τι, ἔφη, μᾶλλον κτέ.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-581

Τηρεῖ: Nauck, TGF. p. 257 .

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-582

37 ἡ τῆς κερκίδος φωνή, the actual expression of Sophocles (as it would seem) is to be compared with the Euripidean ἱστότονα πηνίσματα, κερκίδος ἀοιδοῦ μελέτας in Aristophanes Ran. 1315 where the allusion is to the humming-sound of the shuttle in its passage to and fro (comp. Dict. of Antiq. 2 p. 767 ). In κερκίδος φωνή, however, there is a suggestion that the shuttle told Philomela's story for her; comp. Achilles Tatius 5. 5

ἡ γὰρ Φιλομήλας τέχνη σιωπῶσαν εὕρηκε φωνήν· ὑφαίνει γὰρ πέπλον καὶ πρὸς αὐτὴν [scil. Πρόκνην] πέπονθε τῇ κερκίδι λαλεῖ

. In Aristotle's view a disclosure by such means as these is quite as inartistic as that of Orestes in the Iphigenia (800).

1455a1

1455a

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-583

διὰ μνήμης, τῷ αἰσθέσθαι τι ἰδόντα. Vahlen (omitting the comma) supposes this to be the same as τῷ διὰ μνήμης αἰσθέσθαι τι ἰδόντα, and explains it thus :

'τῷ αἰσθέσθαι non tam percipiendo significat quam offerendo obiiciendo quod sensibus percipi possit, ut quae in exemplis dicuntur κλαῦσαι, δακρύσαι.'

τῷ αἰσθέσθαι τι ἰδόντα accordingly has been taken to mean 'when the sight of some object awakens a feeling' ( Butcher), or 'indem ein Anblick schmerzliche Empfindungen wachruft' ( Gomperz). It is more natural, however, to take τῷ αἰσθέσθαι in the sense of 'by becoming conscious of' (comp. Bon. Ind. 754 a 43 for the aorist), and as an equivalent for τῷ μνησθῆναι. The connexion between the two terms may be seen from De mem. 1, 450 b 18

ὁ γὰρ ἐνεργῶν τῇ μνήμῃ θεωρεῖ τὸ πάθος τοῦτο [i. e. the impression left by experience] καὶ αἰσθάνεται τούτου

. In default of a word corresponding to our 'consciousness', Aristotle has to use αἴσθησις and αἰσθάνεσθαι in lieu of it ( Bon. Ind. 211 ; comp. my Textual Criticism of the Nic. Ethics p. 65). In the illustrations which follow the emphasis is on the participles ἰδών and ἀκούων ... καὶ μνησθείς, not on ἔκλαυσεν and ἐδάκρυσεν; the actual manifestations of the awakened memories ( ἔκλαυσεν, ἐδάκρυσεν) are only the accidents, which happen to be found in the instances under consideration. ἰδόντα is a circumstantial participle (comp. μεταβαλοῦσα in 4, 1449 a 14 ). It is loosely put for 'seeing or hearing' (comp. Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 2. p. 570 ).

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-584

1 ἐν Κυπρίοις: Nauck, TGF. p. 775 . Nothing more is known of the play.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-585

ἐν Ἀλκίνου ἀπολόγῳ: Od. 8. 521 sqq. (comp. 8. 83 sqq. ). In Rhet. 3. 16, 1417 a 13 the designation covers the ground of Od. 9-12 . See on 1454 b 30 for this mode of citing Homer.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-586

ἐν Χοηφόροις: Aesch. Choeph. 168-234 (comp. Eurip. El. 520 ). Electra reflects on what she sees, and concludes that it is her brother Orestes who has come home. It will be observed that in the other instances of ἀναγνώρισις ἐκ συλλογισμοῦ the discovery is made by the party who overhears the reflexion of the other.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-587

5 ὁ Ὀρέστης. For the article compare Herod. 1. 68

συνεβάλλετο τὸν Ὀρέστεα ... τοῦτον εἶναι

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-588

6 Πολυίδου. It is agreed that this was the Attic form of the name ( Kock, CAF. 1 p. 508 ; Schulze, Qu. Epicae p. 111 ). As literary criticism was part of the business of a sophist, the probability is that this suggestion of 'the Sophist Polyidus' was propounded in some critical discussion on the technique of the dramatists; it is quite unnecessary to suppose him to have been also a dramatic poet (with Welcker, Gr. Trag. 1043), or to identify him with a certain dithyrambic poet of the same name (with Bernhardy, Gr. Litt. 2 p. 756). Aristotle reverts to this suggestion in 17, 1455 b 10 .

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-589

9 Τυδεῖ: Nauck, TGF. p. 803 . Nothing more is known either of this or of the other two plays mentioned, the Φινεῖδαι ( Nauck p. 841 ) and Ὀδυσσεὺς ψευδάγγελος ( Nauck p. 839 ). It is impossible to say who the personage here referred to was (comp. Tyrwhitt on 11, 1452 a 27 ).

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-590

ἐκ παραλογισμοῦ: comp. 4 ἐκ συλλογισμοῦ. Vahlen, who connects this directly with συνθετή, supposes the two factors in the Discovery to be a συλλογισμός on the side of the one, and a παραλογισμός on the side of the other of the two parties:

'quae [scil. ἀναγνώρισις] ut ex simplici unius ratiocinatione prodire, ita composita esse potest alterius ex syllogismo, paralogismo alterius'

(comp. also the discussion in his Zur Kritik Aristotelischer Schriften p. 16). The illustration, however, from the Ὀδυσσεὺς ψευδάγγελος does not seem to imply anything more than an erroneous inference by one party ( παραλογισμὸς ὁ θατέρου) from some statement made by the other. The reasoning in this instance Aristotle appears to regard as the illogical parallel to that in the Choephoroe: just as the recognition of Orestes by Electra came about through συλλογισμός on her part, so that of A by B, the two personages in the Ὀδυσσεὺς ψευδάγγελος, is supposed to come about through a παραλογισμός on the part of the latter. The fallacy to be found there may have arisen from the ambiguity of the word 'know'. A having said 'I shall know the bow', B may have taken this to mean that he would know it again ( ἀναγνωριοῦντος)—which was not true (comp. οὐχ ἑωράκει). In our ignorance of the play and its plot it is idle to speculate further as to the way in which the actual Discovery may have been worked out in it. The present is one of many passages showing Aristotle's affection for the forms of logic even when dealing with matters of poetry (see on 16, 1454 b 28 ).

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-591

θατέρου: comp. 11, 1452 b 4 . The error in the text of A c ( θεάτρου) is the converse of that in the inferior MSS. of Plato's Laws 659 A ( θατέρου for θεάτρου).

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-592

15 ὡς δὴ κτέ. Both text and interpretation here are in the highest degree doubtful. ὡς δὴ ἐκείνου ἀναγνωριοῦντος seems to be practically an object-clause after ποιῆσαι; for this use of the gen. absol. with ὡς see Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 2 p. 93 , or Goodwin, Synt. of Gk. Moods and Tenses § 917 (comp. Lobeck on Soph. Aj. 281 ). After ἀναγνωριοῦντος we may understand τὸ τόξον, from τὸ τόξον ἔφη γνώσεσθαι in the preceding line—the distinction between γνώσεσθαι and ἀναγνωριοῦντος being like that between λήψις and ἀνάληψις in De mem. 2, 451 a 20

οὔτε γὰρ μνήμης ἐστὶν ἀνάληψις ἡ ἀνάμνησις οὔτε λήψις

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-593

διὰ τούτου ποιῆσαι. ποιῆσαι here may perhaps have the sense of 'suppose' or 'assume' (comp. Herod. 7. 184 ; Xenoph. An. 5. 7. 9 ; Ast, Lex. Plat. 3 p. 136 ). The comma usually placed after τούτου has been removed in order that διὰ τούτου may be connected with ποιῆσαι, so as to mean 'through' or 'in consequence of this statement'; comp. the use of διά in Soph. el. 1, 165 a 1

ὁ συλλογισμὸς ἐκ τινῶν ἐστι τεθέντων ὥστε λέγειν ἕτερόν τι ἐξ ἀνάγκης τῶν κειμένων διὰ τῶν κειμένων

. If the comma is retained, ἀναγνωριοῦντος διὰ τούτου must mean either 'would reveal himself by this' (see on 11, 1452 b 5 ), or 'would recognize him by this'. Butcher, keeping παραλογισμόν, and reading with Bekker and the Aldine ἐποίησε instead of ποιῆσαι, translates the clause thus:

'This remark led Odysseus to imagine that the other would recognize him through the bow, thus suggesting a false inference.'

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-594

οἷον τὸ ἐν τῷ Σοφοκλέους Οἰδίποδι: comp. 15, 1454 b 7

οἷον τὸ ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι

where a certain incident in the story of the O. T. is said to be ἄλογον, just as here another is said to be εἰκός. That the Discovery in the O. T. is probable was shown in 11, 1453 a 26 ( δηλώσας ὃς ἦν). τῇ Ιφιγενείᾳ : Iph. Taur. 582 .

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-595

19 ἐπιθεῖναι γράμματα is 'dare epistolam' (comp. Iph. Taur. 770

ἐπιστέλλει

), not as Bon. Ind. 281 a 44 says, 'addere epistolam'. The dative of the person to whom is omitted, for reasons which a reader of the play will easily understand. It is omitted also for the sake of brevity in Herod. 3. 43

γράψας δὲ ἐς Αἴγυπτον ἐπέθηκε

(scil. τὸ βυβλίον), which Valckenaer explains as meaning

'tradidit epistolam in Aegyptum perferendam'

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-596

αἱ γὰρ τοιαῦται μόναι κτέ.: The difficulty in this clause is obvious, and it has long been recognized. Vahlen's explanation is as follows:

'haec planissima sunt quamquam a Spengelio prave intellecta. neque enim hoc voluit illas agnitiones unicas esse quae careant indiciis et monilibus, sed hoc dicit: hae ἀναγνωρίσεις per se solae sunt (constant) sine illis extrinsecus adminiculis ascitis. et haec quidem sic universe significantur verbis τῶν πεποιημένων σημείων καὶ περιδεραίων, quoniam ea nunc non attinebat singillatim per suas species referre.'

The real crux of the passage, however, is in σημείων; as used at the beginning of the chapter, in the account of the first species of Discovery ( ἡ διὰ τῶν σημείων ἀναγνώρισις, 1454 b 21 ), the term denotes a visible mark or token; but the absence of a σημεῖον of that description is obviously not peculiar to this fifth and best Discovery — ἡ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν πραγμάτων. Twining plausibly suggests that Aristotle may be using σημείων in a more general sense, and that it denotes here — as it might very well do — anything that serves as a 'sign' in the less artistic forms of Discovery. Thus in the second of these the statement of Orestes is a sort of σημεῖον ; in Euripides it is actually described as a τεκμήριον (see on 1454 b 34 ). The same may be said of the tears ( ἔκλαυσεν, ἐδάκρυσεν) in the third species of Discovery. As for the fourth ( ἡ ἐκ συλλογισμοῦ), to judge from the instances, it may depend on a sign (comp. τεκμήριον, Aesch. Choeph. 205 ), or it may result from a reflexion overheard, which thus serves as a sign. In comparison however with that in the O. T. or Iphigenia, all these forms of Discovery are in Aristotle's judgment more or less artificial (comp. πεποιημένων), and thus of inferior artistic value.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-597

δεραίων: comp. Eurip. Ion 1431

δέραια παιδὶ νεογόνῳ φέρειν

. — Menander ( Lefebvre, Fragments d'un MS. de M.) Ἐπιτρέποντες 28

κἀκκείμενον παιδάριον εὗρον νήπιον ἔχον δέραια καὶ τοιουτονί τινα κόσμον.

— Menander ( Lefebvre, Fragments d'un MS. de M.) Ἐπιτρέποντες 86

δός μοι, γύναι, τὰ δέραια καὶ γνωρίσματα.

— Alciphron Ep. 3. 63M

μετὰ τῶν σπαργάνων δέραιά τινα καὶ γνωρίσματα περιθεῖσαι.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-598

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-599

1455a22 δεῖ δὲ τοὺς μύθους κτέ. This begins a series of supplementary rules for the guidance of the dramatic poet in practice. When writing his play in the study he must (1) see the various incidents in it as it were, so as to anticipate the impression they are likely to produce on the stage; and also (2) feel to some extent the various emotions of his personages, if his picture of emotion is to be convincing ( 1455 a 23-34 ). After these five further rules are added in the course of this and the following chapter.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-600

συναπεργάζεσθαι: comp. 30 συναπεργαζόμενον , and Rhet. 2. 8, 1386 b 31

ἀνάγκη τοὺς συναπεργαζομένους σχήμασι καὶ ἐσθῆτι καὶ ὅλως τῇ ὑποκρίσει ἐλεεινοτέρους εἶναι

. συναπεργάζεσθαι, 'to finish off', stands in the same relation to ἀπεργάζεσθαι as συμπληροῦν and συντελεῖν to πληροῦν and τελεῖν. It is to be remembered that in Aristotle's view ( 6, 1450 b 36 ; 9, 1451 b 28 ) the language is but a secondary matter by comparison with the μῦθος. Plutarch's story of Menander's mode of working may be worth quoting: De gloria Ath. 4, 347 E λέγεται δὲ καὶ Μενάνδρῳ τῶν συνήθων τις εἰπεῖν· Ἐγγὺς οὖν, Μένανδρε, τὰ Διονύσια, καὶ σὺ τὴν κωμῳδίαν οὐ πεποίηκας ; τὸν δὲ ἀποκρίνασθαι, Νὴ τοὺς θεοὺς ἔγωγε πεποίηκα τὴν κωμῳδίαν· ὠκονόμηται γὰρ ἡ δίαθεσις [= 'the plan']· δεῖ δ᾽ αὐτῇ τὰ στιχίδια ἐπᾶσαι.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-601

a23 πρὸ ὀμμάτων τιθέμενον: De mem. 1. 450 a 4

ὁ νοῶν, κἂν μὴ ποσὸν νοῇ, τίθεται πρὸ ὀμμάτων ποσόν, νοεῖ δ᾽ οὐχ ὡς ποσόν

. — Probl. 40. 14, 957 a 22

τό τε ἐνύπνιόν ἐστιν ὅταν διανοουμένοις καὶ πρὸ ὀμμάτων τιθεμένοις ὕπνος ἐπέλθῃ

(comp. Bon. Ind. 509 b 30 ).

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-602

οὕτω repeats the idea of πρὸ ὀμμάτων τιθέμενον; what follows, ἐναργέστατα ὁρῶν κτέ., is added as an explanation.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-603

ὁρῶν. Vahlen retains the article before ὁρῶν, and supposes an hyperbaton like that in 6, 1449 b 23 . The article, however, is certainly not wanted, and may easily be explained as a dittographia.

a26

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-604

Καρκίνῳ. The play referred to is assumed on the strength of this statement to have been entitled the Amphiaraus. Nothing more is known of it than what Aristotle here tells us, that the incongruity of a certain incident in it was observed and resented by the audience.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-605

a27 ἐξ ἱεροῦ ἀνῄει:

'e templo exibat'

( Paccius),

'e fano exiit'

( Victorius),

'e templo ascenderat'

( Tyrwhitt),

'had left the temple'

( Twining),

'ex delubro redibat'

( Ritter),

'was on his way from the temple'

( Butcher),

'hatte das Heiligtum bereits verlassen'

( Gomperz).

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-606

μὴ ὁρῶντ᾽ ἂν τὸν θεατὴν κτέ. The sense is: If the incident had not been visibly before them, as part of the action of the piece ( τὰ πραττόμενα), the incongruity would not have been noticed by the audience ( τὸν θεατήν: see on 26, 1461 b 28 ); but they could not help observing it when actually put before their eyes on the stage. To guard against this kind of mistake, therefore, the poet should in his mind's eye see his various incidents beforehand, so as to anticipate the impression they will make in the theatre. In the same way we are told in another place ( 24, 1460 a 15 ) that the absurdity in the Pursuit of Hector in the Iliad would be observed on the stage, though it passes unnoticed in the poem.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-607

ὅσα δὲ δυνατὸν: comp. 23

ὅτι μάλιστα

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-608

τοῖς σχήμασιν: the attitudes and gestures in which great emotion finds expression. The meaning here is apparently this: If the poet is to portray great emotion convincingly, he must feel it himself; and if he feels it, he cannot but express it to some extent in gesture as well as in word. Aristotle, therefore, does not agree with the theory that the poet should write in cold blood, and that poetry is a matter of pure art and intellect; his view rather is that some emotional excitement is one of the conditions required for a strong and convincing picture of passion. With this we may compare the Horatian maxim,

Si vis me flere, dolendum est primum ipsi tibi

( A. P. 102 ), and that of Pope ( Eloisa to Abelard 366),

'He best can paint 'em [i.e. their woes] who can feel 'em most'

; or the perhaps even weightier dictum of Wordsworth ( Pref. to Lyrical Ballads),

'It will be the wish of the Poet to bring his feelings near to those of the persons whose feelings he describes, nay, for short spaces of time, perhaps, to let himself slip into an entire delusion, and even confound and identify his own feelings with theirs.'

How consonant all this is with the actual experience of many great imaginative writers may be seen from the evidence cited by Biese, Das Metaphorische in der dichterischen Phantasie p. 24 (Berl. 1889). In the Carpentariana p. 193 a story is told of Domenichino as showing that the same emotional excitability is not unknown even among painters:

'Le Dominiquin avoit coûtume de jouer, pour ainsi dire, le rôle de toutes les figures qu'il vouloit representer; & de dire tout haut ce que la passion qu'il leur donnoit, pouvoit inspirer. Lorsqu'il peignoit le Martyre de S. André, le Carache le surprit comme il étoit en colere, parlant d'une voix terrible & menaçante; & il travailloit pour lors à un Soldat qui menace le Saint. Après que l' enthousiasme fut passé, le Carache courut l'embrasser, & lui avoua qu'il avoit été ce jour-là son Maître; & qu'il venoit d'apprendre de lui, la véritable manière de réussir dans les expressions.'

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-609

πιθανώτατοι γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως οἱ ἐν τοῖς πάθεσίν Quintilian 6. 2. 27

In iis quae verisimilia esse volemus, simus ipsi similes eorum qui vere patiuntur affectibus.

In the next clause χειμαίνει ... καὶ χαλεπαίνει ἀληθινώτατα explains πιθανώτατοι, and ὁ χειμαζόμενος καὶ ... ὁ ὀργιζόμενος corresponds with οἱ ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν. For the meaning of πιθανός see on 9, 1451 b 16 .

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-610

ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως. The same use of ἀπό is found in Eth. N. 4. 4, 1122 b 13

ἀπὸ τῆς ἴσης δαπάνης τὸ ἔργον ποιήσει μεγαλοπρεπέστερον

. — Meteor. 2. 3, 359 a 7

ὥστε τὰ πλοῖα ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τῶν ἀγωγίμων βάρους ἐν μὲν τοῖς ποταμοῖς ὀλίγου καταδύνειν, ἐν δὲ τῇ θαλάττῃ μετρίως ἔχειν

. — Mech. 22. 854 b 7

ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν πλεῖον ἀπέχῃ τοῦ ὑπομοχλίου ὁ μοχλός, ῥᾷον κινεῖ καὶ πλεῖον ἀπὸ τῆς ἰσχύος τῆς αὐτής

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-611

31 ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν: De insomn. 2, 460 a 3

ῥᾳδίως ἀπατώμεθα περὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν ὄντες, ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἐν ἄλλοις, οἷον ὁ δειλὸς ἐν φόβῳ, ὁ δ᾽ ἐρωτικὸς ἐν ἔρωτι

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-612

χειμαίνει... χαλεπαίνει are intransitive (comp. HSt. s.v. χειμαίνω). The usual interpretation is that of Victorius, who makes them mean 'fluctuare facit alium' (or 'excitat fluctus in animis auditorum') and 'ad iram commovet'. As far, however, as the present passage is concerned, any such reference to the feelings of the audience is out of place; the poet is not supposed to make them angry (for instance), but to put before them a picture of anger which they can accept as sufficiently like reality (see on 19, 1456 b 1 ). The clause in fact is only an amplification of the πιθανώτατοι οἱ ἐν τοῖς πάθεσίν εἰσιν which precedes it.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-613

χειμαζόμενος: comp. infra b 21

χειμασθείς

. The subst. χειμών is similarly used of mental distress or agitation in Epicurus, p. 62, 18 Usener, λύεται πᾶς ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς χειμών, where it is the opposite of ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀταραξία (comp. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 387 , and the Index to Meineke's FCG. p. 1148).

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-614

a 32 ἀληθινώτατα, which qualifies χειμαίνει as well as χαλεπαίνει, is emphatic, as its position shows. It is stronger than πιθανώτατα, the word which Aristotle might very well have used in this context.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-615

διὸ εὐφυοῦς κτέ. Aristotle's curt and allusive statement needs some little expansion to bring out his meaning. It may perhaps be rewritten thus: the imaginative power of identifying oneself for the time with one's personages, which poetry demands, is a matter not of art, but of nature and temperament; it requires a natural gift or else a touch of madness in the poet's mental constitution. This natural gift consists in a certain impressionability of soul; and the illusions of madness arise from a distempered form of the same quality.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-616

εὐφυοῦς. εὐφυής (more fully εὐφυὴς πρός τι) is a general term for one with a natural gift and aptitude for something, as distinct from one who acquires a power by training or study; comp. 22, 1459 a 7 , and Top. 3. 2, 118 a 22

φιλοπονεῖν ἀρνούμεθα, ἵνα εὐφυεῖς εἶναι δόξωμεν

. The word is of frequent occurrence in Plato, as well as in Aristotle, and it is occasionally found in Isocrates also. In the present passage the poetic imagination is tacitly assumed to be a matter of nature, and to be the outcome in some instances of a healthy, and in others, of an unhealthy nature.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-617

εὐφυοῦς ... ἢ μανικοῦ might be largely illustrated from Probl. 30. 1 , where the connexion between 'great wit' (as Dryden calls εὐφυΐα) and madness is considered at length. The writer of the Problem (one of Aristotle's immediate followers, as it would seem) shows that they have a common physiological basis — that the 'melancholic temperament' underlies all exceptional ability, and that a more or less morbid form of it is to be seen in madness, and in certain states of mind akin to madness, e. g. enthusiasm and 'ecstasy'; comp. esp. Probl. 30. 1, 954 a 34

πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ .. νοσήμασιν ἁλίσκονται μανικοῖς ἢ ἐνθουσιαστικοῖς, ὅθεν Σίβυλλαι καὶ Βάκιδες καὶ οἱ ἔνθεοι γίνονται πάντες ... Μαρακὸς δὲ ὁ Συρακούσιος καὶ ἀμείνων ἦν ποιητής, ὅτ᾽ ἐκσταίη

. A close relation between genius and madness is implied also in Rhet. 2. 15, 1390 b 26

καὶ ἐνίοτε ἂν ᾖ ἀγαθὸν τὸ γένος, ἐγγίνονται διά τινος χρόνου ἄνδρες περιττοί, κάπειτα πάλιν ἀναδίδωσιν· ἐξίσταται δὲ τὰ μὲν εὐφυᾶ

['clever', 'quick-witted'] γένη εἰς μανικώτερα ἤθη ... τὰ δὲ στάσιμα ['steady', 'painstaking'] εἰς ἀβελτερίαν καὶ νωθρότητα.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-618

33 μανικοῦ. The alternative here is a rationalistic recognition of the ancient idea of the poet being 'possessed' and 'inspired' at the moment of poetic creation. Plato plays on this idea in his 'praise of madness' in Phaedr. 245 A

ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ἄνευ μανίας Μουσῶν ἐπὶ ποιητικὰς θύρας ἀφίκηται, πεισθεὶς ὡς ἄρα ἐκ τέχνης ἱκανὸς ποιητής ἐσόμενος, ἀτελὴς αὐτός τε καὶ ἡ ποίησις ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν μαινομένων ἡ τοῦ σωφρονοῦντος ἠφανίσθη;

and he returns to it in other dialogues (comp. Apol. 22 C , Meno 99 C , Ion 533 sqq. , Laws 719 C ). For the survival of the notion in later literature see W. H. Thompson's note on Phaedr. 245 A .

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-619

οἱ μὲν ... οἱ δὲ. The singulars which precede are practically equivalent to plurals, εὐφυῶν... μανικῶν (comp. Kühner, Gr. Gr.³ 2. 1 p. 86 ).

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-620

εὔπλαστοι, 'capable of assuming a variety of moods', i. e. as we should say, 'impressionable' or 'emotional'; comp. the Platonic ἁπαλὴ ψυχή in Phaedr. 245 A τρίτη δ᾽ ἀπὸ Μουσῶν κατοκωχή τε καὶ μανία, λαβοῦσα ἁπαλὴν καὶ ἄβατον ψυχήν, and the explanation of Hermias (p. 98 Couvreur) ἁπαλὴν δὲ λέγει τὴν εὔπλαστον καὶ εὐπαθῶς ἔχουσαν πρὸς ὑποδοχὴν τοῦ θείου. The word is properly used of material substances which, instead of being hard and rigid, are easily made to take various shapes; comp. De gen. an. 3. 11, 761 b 32

πολύμορφα τὰ ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ μᾶλλόν ἐστι τῶν ἐν τῇ γῇ τό τε γὰρ ὑγρὸν εὐπλαστοτέραν ἔχει τὴν φύσιν τῆς γῆς

(also Plato Rep. 588 D). A metaphorical extension of meaning, not unlike that in the text, is found in Plato Laws 666 b ἐπίκουρον τῆς τοῦ γήρως αὐστηρότητος ἐδωρήσατο τὸν οἶνον φάρμακον, ὥστε ἀνηβᾶν ἡμᾶς καὶ δυσθυμίας λήθην γίγνεσθαι, μαλακώτερόν τ᾽ ἐκ σκληροτέρου τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἦθος, καθάπερ εἰς πῦρ σίδηρον ἐντεθέντα, γιγνόμενον, καὶ οὕτως εὐπλαστότερον εἶναι. This impressionability of soul, which marks the poetic genius ( εὐφυής), may be explained on the principles set forth in Probl. 30. 1, where the melancholic temperament is said to show itself in a certain variability of mood ( ἀνώμαλοί εἰσιν οἱ μελαγχολικοί), and a general capacity for strong feeling ( ἡ φύσις δήλη ῥέπουσα πρὸς τὰ πάθη).

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-621

ἐκστατικοί describes the extreme form of the emotionalism of the melancholic temperament; some of the 'melancholic' are apt to be so completely carried away by their feelings as to be actually beside themselves for the time. According to Probl. 30. 1 a tendency to this description of 'melancholy' was observable in most of the poets ( τῶν περὶ τὴν ποίησιν οἱ πλεῖστοι, 953 a 28 ); a certain Maracus of Syracuse—like our own Christopher Smart and others—was said to have been at his best in moments of derangement, Μαρακὸς ὁ Συρακούσιος καὶ ἀμείνων ἦν ποιητής, ὅτ᾽ ἐκσταίη ( 954 a 38 ). Among Aristotelian instances of ἐξίστασθαι, ἔκστασις, and ἐκστατικός, as terms of mental pathology, the following may be noted: De gen. et corr. 1. 8, 325 a 19 οὐδένα γὰρ τῶν μαινομένων ἐξεστάναι τοσοῦτον ὥστε τὸ πῦρ ἂν εἶναι δοκεῖν καὶ τὸν κρύσταλλον. — H. A. 6. 22, 577 a 12 ἐξίσταται καὶ μαίνεται. — Cat. 8, 9 b 36 τε μανικὴ ἔκστασις καὶ ἡ ὀργὴ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα [ scil. ποιότητες]· ποιοὶ γὰρ κατὰ ταύτας λέγονται, ὀργίλοι τε καὶ μανικοί. — Probl. 30. 1, 953 a 17 ἡ περὶ τοὺς παῖδας ἔκστασις [said of Hercules slaying his children in his madness]. a 22

ὁ μὲν

[i. e. Ajax] ἐκστατικὸς ἐγένετο παντελῶς. a 14

τῶν μελαγχολικῶν ὅσοι ἐκστατικοί

. Theophrastus H. P. 9. 13, 4 has ἐκστατικός in the active sense of producing ἔκστασις : γίνονται δέ τινες τῶν γλυκειῶν [ scil. ῥιζῶν] αἱ μὲν ἐκστατικαὶ καθάπερ ἡ ὁμοία τῷ σκολύμῳ περὶ Τεγέαν, ἣν καὶ Πάνδειος ὁ ἀνδριαντοποιὸς φαγὼν ἐργαζόμενος ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἐξέστη αἱ δὲ θανατηφόροι κτὲ. This technical use of these words is perhaps another proof of the influence of the language of Hippocrates (v. Foes, Oeconomia Hippocratis s.v. ἔκστασις) on that of Aristotle and his school. ἐξεταστικοί, the reading of the MS., is surely impossible in a context like the present. ἐξετάζειν denotes to 'scrutinize' or 'examine', i. e. to exercise one's critical faculty on something. It is clear, however, as any reader of Probl. 30. 1 must see, that Aristotle is not thinking here of the critical but of the imaginative power of the poet, and that he wishes to distinguish two forms of it, one springing from a healthy, and the other from a more or less morbid state of mind. An instance of the corruption of ἐκστατικός into ἐξεταστικός is found in the MSS. of Aspasius' commentary on the Nic. Ethics, p. 136. 3 ed. Heylbut. Mr. A. O. Prickard has pointed out to me a similar corruption in Longinus 38. 5 ( ἐξετάσεως for ἐκστάσεως).

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. 266⁴) 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.⁵

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.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-642

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-643

24 Ἔστι δὲ πάσης τραγῳδίας κτέ. The fourth of these supplementary rules. The complication and dénouement are of such paramount importance, that two tragedies with the same sort of complication and dénouement should be regarded as substantially the same, however different they may be in other respects. It is quite possible to succeed in the one point and fail in the other; but they are both of equal moment, and require equal attention from the poet. This view of the drift of the paragraph assumes that the sentence δίκαιον ... κρατεῖσθαι in 1456 a 7 should follow after μέχρι τοῦ τέλους in 1455 b 32 . A mere definition of δέσις and λῦσις would have no place in these chapters, unless it were made to lead up to some practical precept, such as we have in δεῖ δὲ ἄμφω ἀεὶ κρατεῖσθαι in 1456 a 10 .

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-644

δέσις ... λύσις: see on 15, 1454 b 37 .

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-645

ἔξωθεν: see on 14, 1453 b 32 .

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-646

ἔνια τῶν ἔσωθεν πολλάκις. It is not necessary to transpose πολλάκις and insert it after the preceding τὰ μὲν ἔξωθεν. The δέσις, says Aristotle, comprises not only the presupposed part of the story ( τὰ ἔξωθεν, or τὰ προπεπραγμένα), but also in many instances ( πολλάκις) some portion of the action within the play. In the Iph. Taur. the δέσις extends as far as l. 391. In the O. T. on the other hand the entire δέσις is presupposed, the λῦσις beginning with the opening scene.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-647

Λυγκεῖ: see on 11, 1452 a 27 . The Lynceus is cited as an instance of a play with a δέσις partly presupposed and partly within the limits of the action of the piece.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-648

τοῦ παιδίου, Abas, the child of Lynceus and Danaus' daughter Hypermnestra.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-649

τραγῳδίας δὲ εἴδη κτέ. The fifth of the supplementary rules. There are four species of Tragedy—each arising apparently (like the species of Democracy in Pol. 4. 12, 1296 b27 ) through the prominence in it of some one of the several elements in a play. Aristotle insists that for an ideally good tragedy all these elements of interest are wanted, and that in so critical an age none can be neglected with impunity ( μάλιστα μὲν οὖν ἅπαντα δεῖ πειρᾶσθαι ἔχειν κτέ. 1456 a 3 ). The species he is now talking of, or at any rate three out of the number, were probably no discovery of his; terms like πεπλεγμένη τραγῳδία, παθητική τραγῳδία, and ἠθική τραγῳδία may very well be supposed to have been already sanctioned and current in the technical language of the theatre (comp. on 9, 1451 b33 ). If the περιπέτεια and ἀναγνώρισις are 'the whole thing' (as we say), the play is πεπλεγμένη; if the element of πάθος is especially prominent, it is παθητική; if it is mainly a portraiture of character, it is ἠθική; and if it depends largely on the 'spectacle', it is 'spectacular'. This last species Aristotle recognizes as a fact, but as there was no derivative from ὄψις corresponding to our 'spectacular', he has to change his form of expression and speak not of the fourth 'species', but of the fourth element ( τὸ δὲ τέταρτον ὄψις), with instances, however, ( αἵ τε Φορκίδες κτέ.) relating to the species of drama in which the element of ὄψις was prominent (see J. of Phil. 14 p. 50 ). These four elements have been already considered, though not quite so directly as Aristotle's language would imply. The περιπέτεια and ἀναγνώρισις, which are assumed to go together (comp. 11, 1452 a32 ), and the πάθος have been distinguished already as elements in the μῦθος (comp. 11, 1452 b9 ); and they are counted here as two parts of the play because each is the prominent factor in a distinct species of tragedy. Two other parts are mentioned, the ἤθη and the ὄψις, apparently for the same reason. If nothing is said of the remaining 'parts' of Tragedy, the reason is obvious; there was no existing species of Tragedy that could be described as consisting mainly of διάνοια or λέξις or μελοποιία. Vahlen and others assume a lacuna in b 34 (after ἀναγνώρισις), on the supposition that Aristotle must have had something to say about the ἁπλῆ τραγῳδία. The ἁπλῆ τραγῳδία, however, is not a species in Aristotle's present sense of the term; and if we are to find a place for it in the text, the same logic would require a recognition of the ἀήθης τραγῳδία ( 6, 1450 a25 ), as being the logical opposite of the ἠθικὴ τραγῳδία in the passage before us. The insertion too, which is due to a desire to bring the present statement into line with that in 24, 1459 b8 , makes it necessary to adopt a highly improbable correction, τερατώδες, in the context ( 1456 a2 ).

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-650

τοσαῦτα γὰρ καὶ τὰ μέρη ἐλέχθη. In lieu of τὰ μέρη Tyrwhitt suggests τὰ μύθων, and Ueberweg τὰ μύθου or τοῦ μύθου—which would mean, if I understand Tyrwhitt's note correctly, that the ἠθικὴ τραγῳδία is based on an ἠθικὸς μῦθος. This, however, can hardly be right, if one remembers the sharp distinction drawn between ἦθος and μῦθος in 6, 1450 a4 . The present passage, due allowance being made for the Aristotelian brevity of expression, is intelligible enough in itself; the difficulty is to bring it into harmony with what is said elsewhere in other parts of the book.

τοσαῦτα γὰρ καὶ τὰ μέρη ἐλέχθη

, no doubt, implies a previous statement, which it is impossible to find in the earlier chapters; and the passage in 24, 1459 b9 implies that a ἁπλῆ as well as πεπλεγμένη τραγῳδία had been recognized among the four species of Tragedy in the passage before us. Difficulties of this kind it is better to acknowledge than to remove at the cost of reforming the text. The truth is that Aristotle is more human than we commonly suppose—that his memory is sometimes at fault, and also that he sometimes writes down what occurs to him at the moment, without stopping to reflect whether it is quite reconcilable with what he has said elsewhere. Though there are chapters in the Poetics, more especially in the early part, which are models of careful drafting, I think it clear that, as the work advances, the statement is not always equally admirable, and that it would require a great deal of revision to make it consistent throughout. The difficulty in the reference τοσαῦτα γὰρ καὶ τὰ μέρη ἐλέχθη is not unlike that in ὥσπερ πρότερον εἴρηται in 6, 1450a 13 , and ὅπερ εἴρηται πολλάκις in 18, 1456 a10 .

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-651

ἡ μὲν πεπλεγμένη κτέ., appositional to the preceding εἴδη τέσσαρα (comp. 16, 1454 b20 ; 21, 1457 b31 ).

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-652

παθητική. No definition is given, as though the term (as also ἠθική in the next line) were sufficiently understood without one.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-653

1456a Αἴαντες: see Nauck, TGF. p. 963 for a list of plays entitled Αἴας.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-654

Ἰξίονες: see Nauck p. 965. Φθιώτιδες, a play by Sophocles ( Nauck p. 282 ).

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-655

Πηλεύς. The reference is perhaps to the Peleus of Sophocles ( Nauck p. 239 ) rather than that of Euripides ( Nauck p. 554 ).

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)⁶ 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

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-660

μάλιστα μὲν οὖν κτἑ. A reminiscence of Aristotle's language here may be traced in Polybius 16. 20. 2 :

διὸ δεῖ μάλιστα μὲν πειρᾶσθαι πάντων κρατεῖν τῶν τῆς ἱστορίας μερῶν· καλὸν γάρ· εἰ δὲ μὴ τοῦτο δυνατόν, τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων καὶ τῶν μεγίστων ἐν αὐτῇ πλείστην ποιεῖσθαι πρόνοιαν

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-661

ἑκάστου is masculine, 'each of his various predecessors'—the genitive being dependent on ἰδίου as in 5, 1449 b16 , 13, 1452 b33 , and 19, 1456 b35 . For the hyperbaton see on 6, 1449 a23 .

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-662

δίκαιον κτέ. This and the next sentence ( πολλοί ... κρατεῖσθαι) are probably out of place (see above, on 18, 1455 b24 ).

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-663

ἄλλην καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν λέγειν. The point here, the conditions under which two tragedies may be said to be the same or not, is very like that in De anima2. 4, 416 a5

χρὴ τὰ ὄργανα λέγειν ἕτερα καὶ ταὐτὰ τοῖς ἔργοις

, and in Pol.3. 3, 1276 a18

πῶς ποτε χρὴ λέγειν τὴν πόλιν εἶναι τὴν αὐτὴν ἢ μὴ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέραν

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-664

οὐδενὶ ἴσως τῷ μύθῳ,

'ob nihil aeque ac ob fabulam'

( Tyrwhitt). The dative οὐδενὶ is to be taken with λέγειν in the sense of 'by reason of' or 'on account of'; comp. De anima2. 4, 416 a5 (quoted above). — De sensu7, 447 b24

φαίνεται γὰρ τὸ μὲν τῷ ἀριθμῷ ἐν ἡ ψυχὴ οὐδενὶ ἑτέρῳ λέγειν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τῷ ἅμα

. — Eth. N.3. 12, 1117 b32

τῷ dὴ τὰ λυπηρὰ ὑπομένειν ἀνδρεῖοι λέγονται

. The construction in ἴσως τῷ μύθῳ ('equally with the story') is normal ( Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 1 p. 411 ); but I am not able to point out an exact parallel. It may be compared, however, with that in Eth. N.1. 4, 1096 a23

τἀγαθὸν ἰσαχῶς λέγεται τῷ ὄντι

, and in Plato Parm.150 e

ἐξ ἴσου τῷ ἑνὶ dι᾽ ὅλου αὐτοῦ τεταμένη;

and with the use of ὁμοίως in Pol.3. 11, 1282 b8

ὁμοίως ταῖς πολιτείαις ἀνάγκη καὶ τοὺς νόμους φαύλους ἢ σπουdaίους εἶναι

, and elsewhere. ἴσως has the sense of 'equally' in Pol.4. 14, 1298 b23 ( Bekker), in Plato Laws805 c , and in Demosth. 10. 74 (v. Weil ad loc.).

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-665

τοῦτο δέ (= τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστί) introduces an explaining clause of similar form in De gen. et corr.1. 6, 323 a17

οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε πᾶν τὸ κινοῦν ποιεῖν, εἴπερ τὸ ποιοῦν ἀντιθήσομεν τῷ πάσχοντι τοῦτο δ᾽ οἷς ἡ κίνησις πάθος

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-666

ἡ αὐτὴ. Aristotle, thinking only of the identity of the two tragedies, omits to recognize the possible alternative ἢ ἄλλη (comp. 19, 1456 b4 ).

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-667

κρατεῖσθαι =

'obtineri'

. Vahlen illustrates this use of the word from Pol.7. 13, 1331 b37

δεῖ δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς τέχναις καὶ ἐπιστήμαις ταῦτα ἀμφότερα κρατεῖσθαι, τὸ τέλος καὶ τὰς εἰς τὸ τέλος πράξεις

, and Dion. Hal. 5. 556

τῆς δὲ σαφηνείας καὶ τῆς ἐναργείας ἀμφοτέρους κρατεῖν ἀπεφηνάμην

. Comp. also Polyb. 16, 20. 2 (quoted above on a 3 ).

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-668

χρὴ δὲ κτέ. The sixth of Aristotle's supplementary rules.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-669

εἴρηται πολλάκις. Though some hint of this may perhaps be discerned in 5, 1449 b12 and 17, 1455 b15 , the reference here is clearly one of Aristotle's oversights (see on 18, 1455 b32 ); it is not true that he has more than once laid down the rule μὴ ποιεῖν ἐποποιικὸν σύστημα τραγῳδίαν. πολλάκις, 'more than once', is the opposite of ἅπαξ (comp. Meteor. 2. 3, 356 b27 ) as well as of ὀλιγάκις, just as πολλά is the opposite of ἕν as well as of ὀλίγα ( Metaph. I 6, 1056 b23 ).

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-670

μεμνῆσθαι καὶ μὴ ποιεῖν. For the conjunction Vahlen quotes Eth. N.1. 7, 1098 a26

μεμνήσθαι δὲ καὶ τῶν προειρημένων χρὴ καὶ τὴν ἀκρίβειαν μὴ ὁμοίως ἐν ἅπασιν ἐπιζητεῖν

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-671

σύστημα, scil. πραγμάτων. The μῦθος or story has been repeatedly described as a σύστασις πραγμάτων (v. 6, 1450 a15, 32, b 32, etc. ).

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-672

ἐποποιικὸν δὲ λέγω τὸ πολύμυθον, scil. σύστημα. The common punctuation (with a full stop before, and a comma after it) makes this clause the beginning of a new sentence. It is clear, I think, that it is a parenthesis, and that the illustration οἷον εἴ τις κτέ. (comp. 26, 1462 b2 ) refers back to the principal statement, μὴ ποιεῖν ἐποποιικὸν σύστημα τραγῳδίαν in a 11 . For other illustrations at some distance from the statements to which they relate see on 7, 1451 a2 .

1456a12

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-673

1456a πολύμυθον. The assumption here is that the story in the Iliad is a πολύμυθον σύστημα, one with a plurality of stories in it (comp. 24, 1462 b 8 ). It is not easy to reconcile this with what we are told in a later chapter ( 23, 1459 a30 ) where the unity of story in the Iliad is emphasized.

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-674

ὅσοι πέρσιν Ἰλίου ὅλην ἐποίησαν. We do not know to whom Aristotle is referring; it is just possible that Agathon may have been one of the number. For the tragedies entitled Ιλίου πέρσις (or simply Πέρσις) see on 23, 1459 b6 .

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-675

Ἀγάθων. Aristotle's sense of the importance of Agathon is shown by his many quotations from him ( Bon. Ind. 4 b5 ), as well as by the present and other references in the Poetics ( 9, 1451 b 21 ; 15, 1454 b14 ). The context (-21) implies that the pathos in Agathon's situations was not always of the most legitimate kind; and in the next paragraph (29) he is said to have set a bad precedent in the treatment of the Chorus. But whatever his artistic shortcomings may have been, we have evidence enough even in Aristophanes of his success with his own generation. There is a good deal of point, therefore, in what Aristotle is saying in support of his rule ( μὴ ποιεῖν ἐποποικὸν σύστημα τραγῳδίαν), that

‘even Agathon failed’

when he neglected it.

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-676

ἐν τούτῳ μόνῳ,

‘in this, and in this alone’

—a pregnant use of μόνος like that in De somno2, 455 a27

διὸ καὶ πᾶσιν ὑπάρχει τοῖς ζώοις καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἁφὴ μόνη πᾶσιν.

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-677

καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἁπλοῖς πράγμασι. I cannot think it necessary to bracket these words (with Susemihl). As περιπέτεια, which is the mark of the

‘complex’

story ( 10, 1452 a16 ; comp. 11, 1452 a32 ), is directly suggestive of it, ἐν ταῖς περιπετείαις is practically equivalent to ἐν τοῖς πεπλεγμένοις πράγμασι. Aristotle adds καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἁπλοῖς πράγμασι, in order to make his statement cover the whole ground by including both forms of plot. The failure of these unsuccessful poets, he says in effect, was really due not to any fault of execution, but to an initial mistake in their choice of subjects; they forgot the limitations of the Drama, and undertook to dramatize a story too long and too complex for the purposes of the stage.

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-678

ὧν βούλονται,

‘the effects they desire’

. The kind of effect, which is explained in the next clause ( τραγικὸν γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ φιλάνθρωπον), may not be of the best order; but it is that which, in their anxiety to please their public, they wish to produce.

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-679

τραγικὸν γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ φιλάνθρωπον. For the change of number in τοῦτο comp. 19, 1456 ; it is the converse of that in 17, 1455 33 (comp. Bon. Ind. 490 b17 ). Aristotle's theory is that the tragic situation should be ἐλεεινόν—which implies that the sufferer does not deserve his misfortunes ( 13, 1453 a ); he incidentally admits, however, that it may be only φιλάνθρωπον (see on 13, 1452 b38 ), as it is, for instance, when the sufferings of the wicked are put before us in such a way as to arouse a certain commiseration or human feeling for the sufferers. The later Tragedy would seem to have affected this inferior form of tragic motive.

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-680

ἔστιν δὲ τοῦτο κτέ. The illustrations which follow were probably taken from actual plays. The tragedies Aristotle has in mind must have involved a strong περιπέτεια with all the interest and excitement attending it; they failed, however (we are told), in spite of this and other attractions (comp. στοχάζονται ὧν βούλονται θαυμαστῶς), through an initial mistake in their subject, which was one more fitted for an epic than a play.

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-681

ἔστιν δὲ τοῦτο εἰκὸς: comp. 25, 1461 b15 . The reference is to the sophistical saying of Agathon ( fr. 9 Nauck ),

τάχ᾿ ἄν τις εἰκὸς αὐτὸ τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι λέγοι, βροτοῖσι πολλὰ τυγχάνειν οὐκ εἰκότα,

which Aristotle has examined in Rhet. 2. 24, 1402 a 10 . There is some variation of text here, as another reading, ἔστιν δὲ τοῦτο (καὶ) εἰκός, is believed to underlie the Arabic Version. With the και the clause adds a further point in favour of these unsuccessful plays: the kind of incident just mentioned is said to be

‘probable also’

. Without the καί the clause involves a criticism or condemnation, not unlike that in 13, 1453 a 35

ἔστιν δὲ οὐχ αὕτη κτέ.

‘this is probable, however, only in Agathon's non-natural sense of the word’

. A qualification of this kind (introduced by ὥσπερ καθάπερ) is found more than once in this same chapter (17 and 27), and again in 21, 1457 b24 ; comp. also Metaph. B 2, 998 a 2

ἅπτεται γὰρ τοῦ κανόνος οὐ κατὰ στιγμὴν ὁ κύκλος ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ Πρωταγόρας ἔλεγεν ἐλέγχων τοὺς γεωμέτρας.

— Rhet. 1. 5, 1361 a 4

πολλοὶ γὰρ ὑγιαίνουσιν ὥσπερ Ἡρόδικος λέγεται.

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-682

καὶ τὸν χορὸν κτέ. The seventh and last of these practical rules. It reappears in the well-known precept of Horace A. P. 193

Actoris partes chorus officiumque virile defendat, neu quid medios intercinat actus, quod non proposito conducat et haereat apte.

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-683

Εὐριπίδῃ. For the dative (conventionally rendered by apud) comp. Pol. 8. 5, 1339b8

οὐ γὰρ ὁ Ζεὺς αὐτὸς ἄδει καὶ κιθαρίζει τοῖς ποιηταῖς.

— Plato Rep. 389 Ε

οἷα καὶ Ὁμήρῳ Διομήδης λέγει.

— Laws 706 C

Ὀδυσσεὺς γὰρ αὐτῷ [scil. Ὁμήρῳ] λοιδορεῖ τὸν Ἀγαμέμνονα.

The tacit assumption here is perhaps this, that the choral songs in Euripides, though no mere ἐμβόλιμα (like those in the later Drama), were not always very closely connected with the action of the piece. A tradition of this criticism survives in the grammarians. The chorus in Phoen. 1019 the scholiast condemns as irrelevant:

πρὸς οὐδὲν ταῦτα· ἔδει γὰρ τὸν χορὸν οἰκτίσασθαι τὸν θάνατον τοῦ Μενοικέως ἢ ἀποδέχεσθαι τὴν εὐψυχίαν τοῦ νεανίσκου. ἀλλὰ περὶ Οἰδίπου καὶ τῆς Σφιγγὸς διηγεῖται τὰ πολλάκις εἰρημένα.

A more general condemnation is found in the scholiast on Aristoph. Ach. 443 :

καὶ διὰ τούτων τὸν Εὐριπίδην διασύρει. οὗτος γὰρ εἰσάγει τοὺς χοροὺς οὔτε τὰ ἀκόλουθα φθεγγομένους τῇ ὑποθέσει, ἀλλ᾽ ἱστορίας τινὰς ἀπαγγέλλοντας, ὡς ἐν ταῖς Φοινίσσαις, οὔτε ἐμπαθῶς ἀντιλαμβανομένους τῶν ἀδικηθέντων ἀλλὰ μεταξὺ ἀντιπίπτοντας.

The Roman poet Accius also must have been of the same opinion, to judge from the mutilated fragment of his Didascalica in Nonius 178, 23

sed Euripidis, qui choros temerius in fabulis * * *.

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-684

τὰ ᾀδόμενα: the choral, as opposed to τὰ λεγόμενα, the spoken parts of the play. In [ Demosthenes] 60. 9

τοὺς τῶν ἀδομένων ποιητάς

is a way of describing the lyric poets; comp. also Plato Rep. 398 C

οὐκοῦν ὅσον γε αὐτοῦ λόγος ἐστίν, οὐδὲν δήπου διαφέρει [scil. τὸ μέλος] τοῦ μὴ ἀδομένου λόγου.

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-685

ἐμβόλιμα:

‘carmina intercalaria’

( Budaeus). The word is usually a term of chronology, as in Herod. 1. 32 and 2. 4 . With the grammarians it seems to have meant

‘interpolated’

: Hesychius

ἐμβόλιμα ἔπη τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν γραμματικῶν ὡς ἀλλότρια καὶ νόθα ἀθετούμενα.

Cicero has the very similar word ἐμβόλιον in Ep. ad Q. Fr. 3. 1, 24 , in the sense of an

‘insertion’

‘interlude’

(v. Ernesti, Lex. tech. gr. p. 118 ). Twining's note on this passage is well worth quoting:

‘It is curious to trace the gradual extinction of the Chorus. At first, it was all; then, relieved by the intermixture of dialogue, but still principal; then, subordinate to the dialogue; then digressive, and ill connected with the piece; then borrowed from other pieces at pleasure—and so on, to the fiddles and act-tunes, at which Dacier is so angry.’

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-686

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-687

1456a34 λέξεως καὶ διανοίας. This is the usual order of the two terms in the Poetics (v. 6, 1450 a9, 14, 29 and 24, 1459 b16 ). The only instance of the reverse order, which is that of their logical importance ( 6, 1450 b12 ; comp. Rhet. 2. 26, 1403 b36 ), is in 24, 1459 b12

ἔτι τὰς διανοίας καὶ τὴν λεξιν ἔχειν καλῶς.

For the meaning of διάνοια see on 6, 1450 a6 .

κατὰ τὴv διάνοιαν; comp. Phys. 4. 14, 222 b31

τὸ θᾶττον καὶ βραδύτερον κατὰ πᾶσάν ἐστι μεταβολήν.

In Bon. Ind. 369 b8

κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν

is explained as equivalent to διανοητικά.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-688

ὅσα ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου κτέ. In the Rhetoric three kinds of speech are recognized, according as the aim of the speaker is (1) to gain the confidence of his audience by creating in their minds a favourable idea of himself and his general credibility; or (2) to work on their feelings; or (3) to convince their reason: Rhet. 1. 2, 1356 a1

τῶν δὲ διὰ τοῦ λόγου ποριζομένων πίστεων τρία εἴδη ἐστίν αἱ μὲν γάρ εἰσιν ἐν τῷ ἤθει τοῦ λέγοντος, αἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ τὸν ἀκροατὴν διαθεῖναί πως, αἱ δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ λόγῳ διὰ τοῦ δεικνύναι ἢ φαίνεσθαι δεικνύναι κτέ.

The present summary notes the second and third of these three εἴδη, but ignores the first, though there is certainly nothing to exclude that sort of speech from the rhetoric of Tragedy.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-689

πάθη. The instances οἷον ἔλεον ἢ φόβον κτέ. are added, because up to this point πάθος has usually meant

‘suffering’

‘calamity’

( 11, 1452 b11 ).

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-690

ἔλεον ἢ φόβον ἢ ὀργὴν καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα. According to Tumlirz ( Die tragischen Affecte Mitleid und Furcht nach Aristoteles p. 28) this shows that Aristotle supposes Tragedy to arouse anger and other emotions as well as pity and fear in the mind of the spectators. There is no such reference here to the spectators; the effect meant is that on the hearer on the stage. One might just as well say that the arguments put into the mouth of a personage ( τό τε ἀποδεικνύναι κτέ.) are addressed to the spectators, and not to some other personage in the play. The rhetoric of the speaker in a tragedy is dramatically directed to the hearer on the stage, i. e. to another of the dramatis personae. When Plato says of Euripides

ἐπίσταται . . ῥήσεις ποιεῖν . . οἰκτρὰς καὶ τοὐναντίον αὖ φοβερὰς καὶ ἀπειλητικάς

( Phaedr. 268 c ), he does not suppose him to threaten the hearers of his pieces.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-691

μέγεθος καὶ μικρότητα, scil. παρασκευάζειν. The clause is an afterthought, as its logical place would be after τό τε ἀποδεικνύναι καὶ τὸ λύειν. The corresponding formula in Isocrates 42 c is

τά τε μεγάλα ταπεινὰ ποιῆσαι καὶ τοῖς μικροῖς μέγεθος περιθεῖναι;

and in the Rhetoric αὔξειν καὶ μειοῦν : Rhet. 2. 26, 1403 a 20

τὸ δ᾽ αὔξειν καὶ μειοῦν ἐστιν ἐνθυμήματα πρὸς τὸ δεῖξαι ὅτι μέγα ἢ μικρόν, ὥσπερ καὶ ὅτι ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακὸν ἢ δίκαιον ἢ ἄδικον.

The reading μικρότητας is retained by Vahlen, who defends the change of number by quoting (among other instances) De part. an. 4. 5, 679 b 37

διαφέρει τῇ θέσει καὶ τοῖς μεγέθεσιν.

— 680 a 29

ἐν τῷ ψύχει καὶ ταῖς ἀλέαις.

— Plato Laws 734 Α

μεγέθει καὶ πλήθει καὶ πυκνότησιν.

—

779 Β ὁμαλότητί τε καὶ ὁμοιότησιν.

— 860 Β

πλήθει καὶ μεγέθεσιν.

1456b1

1456b μέγεθος καὶ μικρότης continued It is difficult, however, to explain the change of number with two words so closely related as μέγεθος and μικρότης, and in a formula so technical as the present. The sense also of the plural μικρότητας is obscure, as it does not seem to fall under any of the heads recognized by Bernhardy, Synt. p. 62 or Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 1 p. 17.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-692

καὶ ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν: comp. 15, 1454 a 18

ὁ λόγος ἢ ἡ πρᾶξις.

Aristotle is quite aware that there is a rhetoric of action as well as a rhetoric of words. The διάνοια of the dramatis personae may be shown in their acts; they may do things, just as they say things, with a view to exciting pity, fear, etc., or with a view to creating an idea that something is or is not true, etc.; and whichever mode of expression be used, they have to follow, according to Aristotle, the same method and principles.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-693

ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν ἰδεῶν δεῖ χρῆσθαι, scil. τῇ διανοίᾳ, or τοῖς τῆς διανοίας μέρεσιν. For the meaning of see on 7, 1450b 34.

ἀπό

denotes here the logical starting-point.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-694

μεγάλα ἢ εἰκότα. Aristotle might have expressed himself more fully by saying μεγάλα ἢ μικρά ἢ εἰκότα ἢ ἀπίθανα (comp. on 18, 1456 a 9 ).

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-695

ἄνευ διδασκαλίας = ἄνευ λόγου,.

‘sine docentis opera’

Tyrwhitt) it is explained by what follows,

τί γὰρ ἂν εἴη τοῦ λέγοντος ἔργον ;

The party instructed or informed here is one of the dramatis personae, who learns the mind of another either through some act of his, or through some statement by him in words.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-696

τὰ δὲ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ, scil. ἐλεεινά, δεινά, μεγάλα κτέ.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-697

παρὰ τὸν λόγον. For the preposition comp. b13 and 15, 1454 b 15 .

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-698

εἰ φαίνοιτο ᾗ δέοι. The traditional εἰ φανοῖτο (which would have to be taken as equivalent to εἰ μέλλοι φαίνεσθαι) is against the rule laid down by Mvig, Gr. Synt. p. 119 Eng. tr. There is not much to choose between Vahlen's ἢ δέοι and Castelvetro's ἤδη. ἢ δέοι, however, is somewhat nearer the manuscript reading ἡδέα, and much more probable than either Tyrwhitt's δεῖ or Spengel's διάνοια. It means

‘in the required light’

, i.e. as ἐλεεινά, or δεινά, etc. If things appear of themselves in this light, without the aid of the rhetorical art of the speaker, the speaker is not wanted. The present remark may be compared with that in 6, 1450 b8

ἐν οἷς οὐκ ἔστι δῆλον κτέ.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-699

τῶν δὲ περὶ τὴν λέξιν. Having briefly considered the διάνοια, the intellectual or rhetorical power revealed in the speeches of the dramatic personages, Aristotle passes on to their λέξις, the diction or language in which they are made to express themselves. This point he investigates under three heads:—(1) the parts or constituents of the diction as a whole; (2) the various kinds of names in it; and (3) the limits within which unusual names or forms of names are admissible in poetry. Before entering on this line of discussion, however, he sets aside a matter which might perhaps seem germane to his subject, the elocutionary element in the spoken language. The word βαδίζει, for instance, according to one's tone in uttering it, may mean

‘he walks’

, or

‘does he walk?’

; and ἄειδε may be uttered as a command (

‘sing!’

) or as a prayer. These and similar distinctions, in Aristotle's view, belong to the language as spoken rather than to the language as written, and thus come within the province of elocution ( ὑποκριτική) rather than that of poetry or literature proper.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-700

τὰ σχήματα τῆς λέξεως means literally the different

‘attitudes’

or turns of meaning given to the language when it comes to be actually spoken. The same idea underlies the expression σχήματα λέξεως of the grammarians, as one may see from Cicero Orator 83

Verborum collocationem illuminat iis luminibus quae Graeci quasi aliquos gestus orationis σχήματα appellant.

Quintilian 9. 1. 13

Si habitus quidam et quasi gestus sic [scil. σχήματα] appellandi sunt.

σχῆμα

‘gestus’

occurs in 17, 1455 29 and 26, 1462 3 (comp. 1, 1447 a27 ). Aristotle's σχήματα τῆς λέξεως, however, must not be identified with the σχήματα λέξεως or

‘figures of speech’

, as we call them, of later writers. A

‘figure of speech’

is a literary artifice, a deviation from the simple and usual mode of expression for purposes of literary effect; Quintilian defines it as a

conformatio quaedam orationis remota a communi et primum se offerente ratione

( 9. 1. 4 ), or as an

oratio a simplici rectoque loquendi genere deflexa

( 9.3.3 ; comp. Ernesti, Lex. techn. gr. p. 338 ). In a

‘figure of speech’

, as compared with the simple form of expression (e.g.

‘Macedonia's madman’

and

‘Alexander’

), we have a difference of words without any difference of sense; whereas in the Aristotelian σχήματα τῆς λέξεως we have the same words and a different sense—the difference of sense resulting from a difference of some kind in the mode of enunciation.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-701

ὑποκριτικῆς. υπόκρισις, the Latin pronunciatio, means

‘delivery’

‘elocution’

. In the Rhetoric two styles of oratory are distinguished, the

‘graphic’

style in which the sense is fully expressed by the actual language, and the

‘hypocritic’

style, which requires certain artifices of elocution to bring out the meaning: Rhet. 3. 12, 1413 b 17

τὰ ὑποκριτικὰ ἀφῃρημένης τῆς ὑποκρίσεως οὐ ποιοῦντα τὸ αὑτῶν ἔργον φαίνεται εὐήθη, οἷον τά τε ἀσύνδετα καὶ τὸ πολλάκις τὸ αὐτὸ εἰπεῖν ἐν τῇ γραφικῇ ὀρθῶς ἀποδοκιμάζεται, ἐν δὲ (τῇ) ἀγωνιστικῇ καὶ οἱ ῥήτορες χρῶνται· ἔστι γὰρ ὑποκριτικά

(comp. 3. 12, 1414 b 5 ).

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-702

ἀρχιτεκτονικήν. The ἀρχιτέκτων is properly the master-builder, who knows the scheme of the whole work and directs the artisans and others under him: Plato Polit. 259 E

ἀρχιτέκτων γε πᾶς οὐκ αὐτὸς ἐργατικὸς ἀλλ᾽ ἐργατῶν ἄρχων ... παρεχόμενός γέ που γνῶσιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ χειρουργίαν.

Aristotle recognizes a similar distinction in other arts, even in medicine: Pol. 3. 11, 1282 b 3

ἰατρὸς ὁ τε δημιουργὸς καὶ ὁ ἀρχιτεκτονικός.

The

‘architectonic’

form of ὑποκριτική involves a knowledge of its rationale and general principles, as distinct from the empiric knowledge possessed by rhapsodists, actors, orators, and other practicians.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-703

οἷον τί ἐντολὴ κτέ. refers back to τὰ σχήματα τῆς λέξεως in 9 (comp. on 7, 1451 a 2 ). The classification in the text originated with Protagoras, who is said to have distinguished four (or perhaps seven) fundamental differences in our mode of speech: Diog. Laert. 9. 53

διεῖλέ τε τὸν λόγον πρῶτος εἰς τέτταρα, εὐχωλὴν ἐρώτησιν ἀπόκρισιν ἐντολήν —οἱ δὲ⁷ εἰς ἑπτά, διήγησιν ἐρώτησιν ἀπόκρισιν ἐντολὴν ἀπαγγελίαν εὐχωλὴν κλῆσιν —, οὓς καὶ πυθμένας εἶπε λόγων,

— Quintilian 3. 4. 10

Protagoram transeo, qui interrogandi respondendi mandandi precandi, quod εὐχωλὴν dixit, partes solas putat.

It will be seen that Aristotle has arranged the σχήματα in pairs; one kind of speech may be made by a difference of intonation to mean either a command or a prayer, another either a simple statement or a threat, another either a question or an answer, and so forth with the rest. Aristotle's instances may be compared with those in Dion. Hal. 5. 46 R.

τὰ μὲν ὡς ἀποφαινόμενοι λέγομεν, τὰ δ᾽ ὡς πυνθανόμενοι, τὰ δ᾽ ὡς εὐχόμενοι, τὰ δ᾽ ὡς ἐπιτάττοντες, τὰ δ᾽ ὡς διαποροῦντες, τὰ δ᾽ ὡς ὑποτιθέμενοι, τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλως πως σχηματίζοντες.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-704

παρὰ γὰρ τὴν τούτων γνῶσιν κτέ. The argument here comes practically to this: That these σχήματα τῆς λέξεως are something outside the art of Poetry itself is shown by the fact that ignorance of them is not one of the usual charges brought by hostile critics against a poet; Protagoras' criticism on the first line of the Iliad may be dismissed as too trivial to deserve attention.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-705

ἐπιτίμημα: see on 25, 1460 b 6 .

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-706

καὶ ἄξιον: Pol. 2. 11, 1272 632

τι καὶ ἄξιον εἰπεῖν

(comp. Riddell, Digest of Idioms' § 132).

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-707

ἄειδε. The imperative as such merely expresses a bidding ( κελεύειν), but a tone of authority may turn it into a command ( ἐπιτάττειν ; comp. Schmidt, Handbuch der lat. u. gr. Synonymik p. 51). Protagoras professed to understand Homer's ἄειδε in this dictatorial sense of the imperative, on the assumption that it was to be read as 'ἄειδε!' Aristotle's answer is that if ἄειδε gets this sense, it is through the fault not of the poet but of the reciter. An echo of the criticism ascribed to Protagoras survives in Schol. Ven. A on Il. 1. 1, where ἄειδε is said to be an instance of the poetic use of the imperative for the optative:

ὅτι κατὰ τὴν ποιητικὴν ἤτοι ἄδειαν ἢ συνήθειαν λαμβάνει [ . e. Homer] τὰ προστακτικὰ ἀντὶ εὐκτικῶν.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-708

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-709

1456b20 τῆς δὲ λέξεως κτέ. This whole chapter has been condemned by Ritter and others as an interpolation; and it must be admitted that, according to our notions of the divisions of knowledge, the matter in it belongs to grammar and philology rather than to an Art of Poetry. Aristotle's divisions, however, are not always quite the same as ours, as his relegation of the theory of the simple sounds in language to 'metric' in the De Partibus ( 2.16, 66087 ) is enough to prove. The writer of the chapter takes the same view of the simple sounds, and tells us that they need not be discussed at any length in a book like the Poetics. The main difficulty, accordingly, is in his assumption that in some way or other the other 'parts of speech' come within the scope of a work on poetry. He may perhaps have thought that some analysis of language in general was logically required as a preparation for the theory of poetical language in the next two chapters, which are成 questionably germane to the main subject of the book. And apart from this one has to remember the historical connexion between grammar and poetry in Greek antiquity. Grammar seems to have originated in Greece in the criticism and interpreta- tion of poetry; its relation to poetry was felt and acknowledged even in the time of Dionysius Thrax, who begins his treatise with the definition,

γραμματική ἐστιν ἐμπειρία τῶν παρὰ ποιηταῖς τε καὶ συγγραφεῦσιν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ λεγομένων

(p. 5 Uhlig). That certain matters of grammar come under the cognizance of poetry is implied apparently in De interpr.4, 1785 , when a distinction is made between the logical and the extra-logical forms of statement:

οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι [scil. λόγοι] ἀφείσθωσαν· ῥητορικῆς γὰρ ἢ ποιητικῆς οἰκειοτέρα ἡ σκέψις

(comp. Pacius ad loc.). The a priori objection, therefore, to this chapter is not quite so conclusive as it might seem at first sight. The chapter itself, whether an original part of the Poetics or not, has more than one mark of date about it. ἄρθρον and πτῶσις have not yet acquired their usual sense of 'article' and 'case'; λόγος still retains its peculiarly Aristotelian meaning, and the definitions of ἄρθρον, σύνδεσμος, ὄνομα and ῥῆμα seem to have been framed with conscious reference to it (see on 1457 10); the general terminology and logical forms throughout the chapter are Aristotelian; and there are also several isolated points and allusions which would be wholly unintelligible if it were not for the parallels and illus- trations we are able to find in the unquestioned writings of Aristotle.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-710

ἁπάσης, 'taken as a whole', as opposed to the parts into which it may be divided; comp. Meteor.4. 1, 379b 5

ἡ θάλασσα κατὰ μέρος μὲν διαιρουμένη τάχα σήπεται, ἅπασα δ᾽ οὔ.

— Plato Theaet.147 Ε

τὸν ἀριθμὸν πάντα δίχα διελάβομεν.

— Gorg.502 c

εἴ τις περιέ- λοιτο τῆς ποιήσεως πάσης τό τε μέλος κτέ.

— Laws737 Ε

δύο μέρη τοῦ παντὸς ἀριθμοῦ.

The Latin omnis is used in just the same way in Caesar B. G.1. I

Gallia est omnis divisa in parles tres.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-711

τὰ μέρη. Aristotle's μέρη τῆς λέξεως is an anticipation of our 'parts of speech'; but the term covers more ground; his list of μέρη comprises three distinct kinds of 'parts': (1) the elements into which words are analyzable ( στοιχεῖον and συλλαβή) ; (2) the various kinds of words ( σύνδεσμος, ἄρθρον, etc.); and (3) the λόγος - the actual λέξις being a series of λόγοι. It includes, therefore, all the elements of language in every stage of analysis, from the simplest sounds to the proposition. It is only under the second of the above heads, i.e. in his classification of words, that Aristotle deals with the 'parts of speech' of later grammar. This passage is cited by Ammonius on the De Interpretatione:

λόγου μὲν ταῦτα [i. e. articles, conjunctions, etc.] οὐ μέρη, λέξεως δὲ μέρη, ἧς καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτὸς μέρος, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ποιητικῆς εἴρηται

(p. 12 Busse); and there is more than one reference to it in Boethius on the same book:

Aristoteles in libris quos de poetica scripsit locutionis partes esse syllabas vel etiam coniunctiones tradidit

(2, p. 6 Meiser). -

In opere vero de poetica non eodem modo dividit locutionem, sed omnes omnino locutionis partes adposuit, confirmans esse locutionis partes elementa syllabas coniunctiones articulos nomina casus verba orationes. locutio namque non in solis significativis vocibus constat, sed supergradiens significationes vocum ad articulatos sonos usque consistit

(2, p. 8).

The classification before us which distinguishes words into σύνδεσμοι, ἄρθρα, ὀνόματα, ῥήματα and πτώσεις, is an advance on that in the lost Aristotelian work known as the τέχνης τῆς Θεοδέκτου συναγωγή (fr. 127 Teubn.), which recognized only three kinds of words, ὀνόματα, ῥήματα, and σύνδεσμοι. This lost book is men- tioned by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Quintilian in their sketches of the history of the 'parts of speech'; but they both ignore the present chapter of the Poetics. The omission, instead of justifying Ritter's athetesis of the chapter, merely shows that the Poetics were but little read in certain periods of antiquity.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-712

ἄρθρον. That the word has to be transposed is shown by the position of the explanation in the following statement about it (1457°6).

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-713

στοιχεῖον: comp. Metaph.A 3, 1014 8 26

στοιχεῖον λέγεται ἐξ οὗ σύγκειται πρώτου ἐνυπάρχοντος ἀδιαιρέτου τῷ εἶδει εἰς ἄλλο εἶδος· οἷον φωνῆς στοιχεῖα ἐξ ὧν σύγκειται ἡ φωνὴ καὶ εἰς διαιρεῖται ἔσχατα, ἐκεῖνα δὲ μηκέτι εἰς ἄλλας φωνὰς ἑτέρας τῷ εἶδει αὐτῶν.

στοιχεῖον was properly a letter of the alphabet; it was Plato (v. Eudemus ap. Simplic. in Phys. 1 p. 7. 13 Diels) who gave it the philosophical sense of 'element', which it so often has in Aristotle. The present definition shows the influence of the philosophical associations connected with the word ; a στοιχεῖον is defined as an indivisible voice-sound capable of serving as a constituent, or element, in an intelligible voice-sound ( συνετὴ φωνή). In thus describing it as a 'sound' Aristotle implicitly distinguishes it from the γράμμα, or written symbol which stands for the sound (comp. Metaph.B 4, 1000ª 2 ); the distinction, however, is very far from being generally observed in Aristotle (see Diels, Elementum p. 33). The two terms are treated as synonyms in Plato Crat.426 D .

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-714

συνετή. The alternative reading συνθετὴ has been accepted by several editors, as also by Steinthal ( Gesch. d. Sprachwissenschaft 1 p. 253) and Diels ( Elementum p. 33). The main argument in favour of συνθετὴ is that, as defined in b 34, the syllable is a φωνὴ συνθετή, and that the syllable is viewed in sundry Aristotelian passages ( Bon. Ind. 702 b 39) as a synthesis of στοιχεῖα. This is true enough. But it has to be remembered on the other side that Aristotle often speaks of the στοιχεῖα ας στοιχεῖα φωνῆς ( Bon. Ind. 702 b 35)-where φωνή means the same thing as the συνετὴ φωνή of the present passage. And if we assume συνθετὴ to be the original reading, the excepting clause (οὐ πᾶσα δὲ κτέ.), which puts the 'indivisible sounds' of the brutes into a different category, is irrelevant. Aristotle's argument here seems to be something like this: In the utterances of the brutes there are indivisible sounds, but these 'noises' of theirs are directly significant in themselves ( De interpr.2, 16229 ); they are not στοιχεῖα φωνῆς, because they do not combine as elements to form a φωνὴ συνετή. The indivisible sounds, on the other hand, in human speech exist as elements in speech, and they have no meaning in themselves; the meaning in human speech is in the words and propositions -not in the 'elements' which analysis reveals in them (comp. Vahlen, Beitr. 3 p. 220). φωνὴ συνετή is perhaps the nearest Aristotelian equivalent for our term 'word'. It may be taken as including not only the φωνὴ σημαντική, the word that stands for something, but also the φωνὴ ἄσημος-words like ἀμφί, περί, μέν, δέ, etc. ( Aristotle's ἄρθρα and σύνδεσμοι), which stand for nothing by themselves, though they have a certain significance in their place in intelligible human speech.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-715

ταύτης δὲ μέρη κτέ.: Plato Crat.424 C

ἆρ᾽ οὖν καὶ ἡμᾶς οὕτω δεῖ πρῶτον μὲν τὰ φωνήεντα διελέσθαι, ἔπειτα τῶν ἑτέρων κατὰ εἴδη τά τε ἄφωνα καὶ ἄφθογγα· οὗτωσὶ γάρ που λέγουσιν οἱ δεινοὶ περὶ τούτων· καὶ τὰ αὐ φωνήεντα μὲν οὖ, οὐ μέντοι γε ἄφθογγα;

- Phil.18 в

ἐπειδὴ φωνὴν ἄπειρον κατενόησεν εἴτε τις θεὸς εἴτε καὶ θεῖος ἄνθρωπος, ὡς λόγος ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ Θεύθ τινα τοῦτον γενέσθαι λέγων, ὃς πρῶτος τὰ φωνήεντα ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ κατενόησεν οὐχ ἓν ὄντα ἀλλὰ πλείω, καὶ πάλιν ἕτερα φωνῆς μὲν οὖ, φθόγγου δὲ μετέχοντά τινος, ἀριθμὸν δέ τινα καὶ τούτων εἶναι· τρίτον δὲ εἶδος γραμμάτων διεστήσατο τὰ νῦν λεγόμενα ἄφωνα ἡμῖν· τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο διῄρει τά τε ἄφθογγα καὶ ἄφωνα μέχρι ἑνὸς ἑκάστου, καὶ τὰ φωνήεντα καὶ τὰ μέσα κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, ἕως ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν λαβὼν ἑνί τε ἑκάστῳ καὶ ξύμπασι στοιχεῖον ἐπωνό- μασεν.

Here Plato's μέσα are Aristotle's ἡμίφωνα. In later theory the ἡμίφωνα and ἄφωνα of Aristotle come under the more general designation of 'consonants', σύμφωνα: Sextus Emp. Adv. math.1. 100

τὰ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν [scil. τῶν στοιχείων] φωνάεντα προσαγορεύουσι τὰ δὲ σύμφωνα, καὶ φωνάεντα μὲν ἑπτά, αεηιουω, σύμφωνα δὲ τὰ λοιπά

102

των δὲ συμφώνων τὰ μὲν ἡμίφωνά ἐστι κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς .. τὰ δὲ ἄφωνα.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-716

φωνῆεν. The word had been already used by Euripides, fr. 578 ed. Nauck

ἄφωνα φωνήεντα συλλαβὰς τιθεὶς ἐξηῦρον ἀνθρώποισι γράμματ᾽ εἰδέναι.

It may be observed that both Plato ( Theaet.203 B ) and Aristotle ( Metaph.N 6, 1093 13 ) recognize the vowels as being seven in number.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-717

ἄνευ προσβολῆς: the opposite of μετὰ προσβολῆς in the next line. The difference between the vowels and consonants is that the latter imply a certain προσβολή as the condition of their becoming audible, whereas no such προσβολή is required to make the vowels audible. The sense of the word προσβολή as here used is far from clear. It has been taken to mean additio ( Valla), adiectio ( Paccius), ictus ( Victorius), percussio ( Robortello), and allisus ( Goulston); Castelvetro, who renders it by percossa, confesses that he does not know what it means. The idea of most interpreters is that the term refers in some way or other to the physical mechanism of speech; to the impact of the tongue, for instance, on the parts within the mouth, or something of that sort. Twining, who translates it by articulation (with Batteux), tells us in a note that it is 'literally percussion: i. e. of the tongue against the palate or teeth, the lips against the teeth or against each other, and all other modes of consonant articulation'. In support of this physiological interpretation Vahlen ( Beitr. 3 p. 224) quotes De part. an.2. 16, 6608 2

ὁ λόγος ὁ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ἐκ τῶν γραμμάτων σύγκειται, τῆς δὲ γλώττης μὴ τοιαύτης οὔσης μηδὲ τῶν χειλῶν ὑγρῶν οὐκ ἂν ἦν φθέγγεσθαι τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν γραμμάτων τὰ μὲν γὰρ τῆς γλώττης εἰσὶ προσβολαί, τὰ δὲ συμβολαὶ τῶν χειλῶν ;

and argues to show that προσβολή may be used here in a sense wide enough to include the συμβολὴ τῶν χειλῶν, as well as the προσβολὴ τῆς γλώττης, of the De Partibus. This view, however, is open to more than one objection. ( ) It is hard to see how, in the absence of some explanation in the context, προσβολή can stand for προσβολή γλώττης, or can be taken to include the notion of συμβολὴ χειλῶν. (2) Such a reference to the physiology of articulation would be out of place in the definition; the differences in the mechanism of articulation are a separate point, which Aristotle recognizes apparently for the first time in another section further on in the chapter ( 31 ταῦτα δὲ διαφέρει σχήμασί τε τοῦ στόματος καὶ τόποις). I think that Valla was probably right in taking προσβολή in the sense of additio or adiectio, i. e. as equivalent to προσθήκη-the word actually used by Lucian in a very similar context to mark the distinction between the vowels and semivowels ( Iud. Voc. 5, 88 R.). It may be observed, too, that προσβάλλειν and προστι- θέναι are synonyms in Antiphanes fr. 206 Kock. The general sense, then, according to this view of προσβολή, will be that the vowels are audible by themselves ( ἄνευ προσβολῆς); whereas the semivowels and mutes (the consonants) require the support or addition of a vowel ( μετὰ προσβολῆς) to make them audible. This was certainly the distinction in later grammar: Dionysius Thrax p. 11 Uhlig

σύμφωνα δὲ λέγονται ὅτι αὐτὰ μὲν καθ ἑαυτὰ φωνὴν οὐκ ἔχει, συντασσόμενα δὲ μετὰ τῶν φωνηέντων φωνὴν ἀποτελεῖ

- Sextus Emp. Adv. math. 1. 102

ἄφωνα δέ ἐστι τὰ μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων συνεκφωνούμενα.

- Diomedes 418 P.

mutae dictae quod per se sine adminiculo vocalium non possunt enuntiari.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-718

ἡμίφωνον: Aristoxenus (quoted below). - Dionysius Thrax p. 12 Uhlig

ἡμίφωνα δὲ λέγεται [ότι] παρόσον ἧττον τῶν φωνηέντων εὔφωνα καθέστηκεν ἔν τε τοῖς μυγμοῖς καὶ σιγμοῖς.

- Sextus Emp. Adv. math. 1. 102

ἡμίφωνα μὲν ὅσα δι᾽ αὐτῶν ῥοῖζον ἢ σιγμὸν ἢ μυγμὸν τινα παραπλήσιον ἦχον κατὰ τὴν ἐκφώνησιν ἀποτελεῖν πεφυκότα.

-- Diomedes 416 P.

Semivocales dictae quod dimidium eius potestatis habent: etenim per se enuntiantur, sed per se nec syllabam nec plenam vocem faciunt.

Plato only knows the semivowels as τὰ μέσα (v. supra on b24 ).

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-719

ἔχον φωνὴν ἀκουστήν. Apart from the vowels the semivowels have some sort of sound as noises, not a distinctly audible voice-sound ( φωνὴ ἀκουστή) like the vowels; this it is that distinguishes them from the mutes, which have no sound at all by themselves. Comp. Plato Theaet. 203 Β

τό τε σίγμα τῶν ἀφώνων ἐστί, ψόφος τις μόνον οἷον συριττούσης τῆς γλώττης· τοῦ δ᾽ αὖ βῆτα οὔτε φωνὴ οὔτε ψόφος, οὐδὲ τῶν πλείστων στοιχείων.

- Aristoxenus ap. Dion. Hal. 5 p. 72 R.

των μὴ φωνηέντων μὲν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὰ ψόφους ὁποίους δή τινας ἀποτελεῖν πέφυκε, ῥοῖζον ἢ σιγμὸν ἢ μυγμὸν ἢ τοιούτων τινῶν άλλων ἤχων δηλωτικούς, δέ ἐστιν ἁπάσης ἄμοιρα φωνῆς καὶ ψόφου, καὶ οὐχ οἷά τε ἠχεῖσθαι καθ' ἑαυτά· διὸ δὴ ταῦτα μὲν ἄφωνά τινες ἐκάλεσαν, θάτερα δὲ ἡμίφωνα.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-720

ἄφωνον. In the definition μετὰ προσβολῆς serves to distinguish the mute from the vowel; the idea of it, however, is repeated in a more explicit form in μετὰ τῶν ἐχόντων τινὰ φωνὴν. The expression τῶν ἐχόντων τινὰ φωνήν is wide enough to include the semivowels as well as the vowels. The semivowels are audible by themselves, though only as noises (comp. Plato Phileb. 18

έτερα φωνῆς μὲν οὖ, φθόγγου δὲ μετέχοντά τινος

); and a semivowel is sufficient to make a mute audible, though only as a noise-not as a φωνὴ ἀκουστή. Aristotle carefully chooses his words, therefore, in saying γινόμενον ἀκουστόν ; since ἔχον φωνὴν ἀκουστήν, 'with an audible voice-sound', would have been true only of the combination of a mute and a vowel.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-721

ταῦτα δὲ διαφέρει. Of the five differences here noted the first and second relate to the physiological mechanism of speech; the remainder come under the head of προσῳδία-a term which with the ancients included breathing and accent, as well as quantity (see on 25, 1461 a 22 ).

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-722

σχήμασίν τε τοῦ στόματος καὶ τόποις. Plato ( Tim. 75 D ) is aware of the function of the teeth, lips, and tongue in the formation of speech, and has also described ( Crat. 426 ) the various movements of the tongue in the utterance of certain letters (comp. Xenophon Mem. 1. 4, 12 ). From Alexander's comment on Metaph. N 6, 1093 a23 ( p. 883 Hayduck ) we learn that these points in the physiology of speech had long before this engaged the attention of Archinus, the statesman to whom Athens owed the introduction of the Ionic alphabet in 403 (see Usener, Rh. Mus. 25 p. 591 ). For the σχήματα τοῦ στόματος comp. De audib. 800 a16

ἀναπνέομεν δὲ τὸν μὲν ἀέρα πάντες τὸν αὐτόν, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα καὶ τὰς φωνὰς ἐκπέμπομεν ἀλλοίας διὰ τὰς τῶν ὑποκειμένων ἀγγείων διαφοράς· ταῦτα δὲ ἐστιν τε ἀρτηρία

[i. e. wind-pipe] καὶ ὁ πνεύμων καὶ τὸ στόμα. πλείστην μὲν οὖν διαφορὰν ἀπεργάζονται τῆς φωνῆς αἰ τε τοῦ ἀέρος πληγαὶ καὶ οἱ τοῦ στόματος σχηματισμοί. For the τόποι τοῦ στόματος as factors in articulation see more especially H. A. 4. 9, 535 a28 ; De part. an. 2. 16, 660 a1 ; 3. 1, 661 b14 ; and Metaph. N 6, 1093 a23 (with Alexander's note).

δασύτητι καὶ ψιλότητι καὶ μήκει καὶ βραχύτητι ἔτι δὲ ὀξύτητι καὶ βαρύτητι καὶ τῷ μέσῳ. The καὶ τῷ μέσῳ in the next line belongs equally to each of the three pairs of opposites, and not merely to the last of them. The meaning of δασύτης and ψιλότης in speech may be seen from De audib. 804 b 8

δασεῖαι δ᾽ εἰσὶ τῶν φωνῶν ὅσαις ἔσωθεν τὸ πνεῦμα εὐθέως συνεκβάλλομεν μετὰ τῶν φθόγγων, ψιλαὶ δ᾽ εἰσὶ τοὐναντίον ὅσαι γίνονται χωρὶς τῆς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐκβολῆς;

and from Dion. Hal. 5 p. 85 R.

ταῦτα [i. e. τὰ ψιλά] μὲν γὰρ τὴν ἑαυτῶν δύναμιν ἔχει μόνην, τὰ δὲ δασέα καὶ τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος προσθήκην.

ψιλός, 'without addition' (see on 1, 1447 a29 ), means in this connexion 'without aspiration'. The threefold distinction in the text, as applied to the mutes, passed on to the grammarians, and became an accepted part of grammar (comp. Dion. Thrax p. 12

τούτων [scil. τῶν ἀφώνων] ψιλὰ μὲν τρία, \overline{\kappa}\overline{\pi}\overline{\tau} δασέα δὲ τρία, \overline{\theta}\overline{\phi}\overline{\chi}, μέσα δὲ τούτων τρία, \overline{\beta}\overline{\gamma}\overline{\delta}· μέσα δὲ εἴρηται ὅτι τῶν μὲν ψιλῶν ἐστι δασύτερα, τῶν δὲ δασέων ψιλότερα

, and Priscian 549 P. ); and it still appears in our familiar division of mutes into aspiratae, mediae, and tenues-where the tenues represent the ψιλά of the Greeks.⁸

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-723

μήκει καὶ βραχύτητι. The intermediates ( μέσα) in quantity are the three dichronous vowels , , : Dion. Thrax p. 10

τῶν δὲ φωνηέντων μακρὰ μὲν ἐστι δύο, \overline{\eta} καὶ ῶ, βραχέα δὲ δύο, καὶ , δίχρονα δὲ τρία, δίχρονα δὲ λέγεται, ἐπεὶ ἐκτείνεται καὶ συστέλλεται.

- Sextus Emp. Adv. math. 1. 100

τῶν δὲ φωνηέντων τρεῖς λέγουσι διαφοράς· δύο μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν φύσει μακρὰ λέγουσι τυγ- χάνειν, τὸ \overline{\eta} καὶ τὸ ῶ, ἰσάριθμα δὲ βραχέα, τὸ καὶ τὸ , τρία δὲ κοινὰ μήκους τε καὶ βραχύτητος, , ἅπερ δίχρονα καὶ ὑγρὰ καὶ ἀμφίβολα καὶ μεταβολικά καλοῦσιν· ἕκαστον γὰρ αὐτῶν πέφυκεν ὁτὲ μὲν ἐκτείνεσθαι ὀτὲ δὲ συστέλλεσθαι

(comp. Dion. Hal. 5 p. 74 R. , and Aulus Gellius 16. 18.5 ).

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-724

ὀξύτητι καὶ βαρύτητι. A third kind of difference is to be seen in the differences of accent. Accent with Aristotle is a part of προσῳδία (see on b31 ), but he has no special name for it; the word τόνος in Rhet. 3. 1, 1403 b29 relates to the tone or key in which something may be said, and not, as is sometimes supposed (e. g. by Cope), to the syllabic accent in words. Aristotle's intermediate accent is clearly that conventionally indicated by a circumflex, as standing between the acute and grave, and having thus something of the nature of both. This was the received view of the phonetic value of the 'circumflex' in antiquity, though the names by which it was known referred to the form of the mark rather than the nature of the accent itself; comp. the pseudo- Sergius, 4 p. 531 Keil

Ammonius Alexandrius qui Aristarchi scholae successit

ὀξύβαρυν

vocat, Ephorus autem Cymaeus

περίσπασιν,

Dionysius Olympius [read: Olynthius]

δίτονον,

Hermocrates Iasius

σύμπλεκτον,

Epicharmus Syracusius

κεκλασμένην ;

verum ea nunc ab omnibus

περισπωμένη

Graece vocatur, apud nos flexa, quoniam primo erecta rursus in gravem flectitur.

For further illustrations of the notion of the circumflex in antiquity see Nauck, Aristophanis Byz. fragmenta p. 13 , and Wilmanns, De Varronis libris grammaticis p. 187 . It is to be observed that (like Plato Crat. 399 A ) Aristotle ignores the circumflex in the passage in Soph. el. 23, 179 a 14 εἰ παρὰ προσῳδίαν ὀξεῖαν [scil. ὁ λόγος ἐστί], ἡ βαρεῖα προσῳδία λύσις, εἰ δὲ παρὰ βαρεῖαν, ἡ ὀξεῖα, and speaks as though the only substantial difference in accent were that between acute and grave. His view of it in fact was probably very like that ascribed to the Peripatetic Athenodorus in the pseudo- Sergius, 4 p. 529 Keil

Athenodorus duas esse prosodias putavit, unam inferiorem, alteram superiorem; flexam autem (nam ita nostra lingua

περισπωμένην

vocamus) nihil aliud esse quam has duas in una syllaba.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-725

[ἐν] τοῖς μετρικοῖς: comp. infra b38 . The preposition has to be bracketed, as there is no hint of a book on metre, actual or contemplated, by Aristotle himself (comp. Bergk, Kl. Schr. 2 p. 753 ). He leaves the subject to the μετρικοί, just as he does in the parallel in De part. an. 2. 16, 660b 7

ποίας δὲ ταῦτα

[scil. τὰ γράμματα] καί πόσας καὶ τίνας ἔχει διαφοράς, δεῖ πυνθάνεσθαι παρὰ τῶν μετρικῶν. The theory of metre, in its primitive form, took cognizance of many matters which we should relegate to grammar or phonology. It started, like grammar, with the στοιχεῖα or elementary sounds in language ( Longinus Prol. in Hephaest. p. 142 Gaisf.

τοῦ περὶ μέτρων λόγου πολλοὶ πολλαχῶς ἤρξαντο, οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ στοιχείων, ὡς Φιλόξενος

); and, as the passage in the De Partibus intimates (comp. Dion. Hal. 5 p. 74 R. ), it dealt with the whole question of the number and nature of these elements.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-726

συλλαβή. As here defined a συλλαβή is a combination of a mute and a 'letter with a sound', i. e. either a vowel or a semivowel (see on b 28 ), to make the mute audible. An instance of the first combination is BA (see Metaph. Z 17, 1041 b13 ); of the second ГР (comp. Metaph. N 6, 1093b 22 ), where the I becomes audible at any rate as part of a complex 'noise'. In the further combination we have an articulate, as well as an audible, sound- φωνὴ ἀκουστή, not a mere ἀκουστόν. Aristotle, however, does not stop to note the difference. The meaning given to συλλαβή in the Aristotelian definition is apparently the proper technical sense of the term: Dionysius Thrax p. 16 Uhlig

συλλαβή ἐστι κυρίως σύλληψις συμφώνων μετὰ φωνηέντος ἢ φωνηέντων, οἷον καρ, βοῦς· καταχρηστικῶς δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐξ ἑνὸς φωνηέντος, οἷον ᾶ, \overline{\eta}

(see also Charisius 2 P. , and Marius Victorinus 2470-5 P. ). In ordinary speech, however, the term was often used to denote the units of sound or 'syllables' (as we say) into which a word, a foot, or a verse is divisible. Plato, for intance, speaks of ΣΩ as the 'first syllable' in Socrates ( Theaet. 203 c ), and of words as 'made up of syllables' ( Crat. 424 Ε

συλλαβὰς συντιθέντες, ἐξ ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰ ῥήματα συντίθενται

); words also like ἐû and ἤια etc. were said to be disyllables, trisyllables, etc. Aristotle has lapsed into this use of the term even in the Poetics, in 21, 1457b 2 where the a in Πηληιάδεω is regarded as a συλλαβὴ ἐμβεβλημένη (see note on the passage); and it is by no means uncommon in other Aristotelian writings; see Cat. 6, 4b 33 ; De interpr. 4, 16b31 ; De gen. an. 1. 18, 722a 32 ; Metaph. N 6, 1093b 1 ; Rhet. 3. 2, 1405 a 31 (comp. Bon. Ind. 710b 45 ; and for the general history of the term Schmidt, Beiträge zur Gesch. der Grammatik p. 126 ). It is to be observed that Aristotle ignores the φωναὶ συνθεταί called diphthongs; for the ancient view of them see Blass, Aussprache p. 20 .

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-727

φωνὴν ἔχοντος includes the semivowel as well as the vowel (see on b 28 ).

καὶ γὰρ τὸ ΓΡ ἄνευ τοῦ Α = τὸ γὰρ ΓΡ καὶ ἄνευ τοῦ Α.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-728

τῆς μετρικῆς: see on b 34 . As the foot is made up of syllables, the theory of the συλλαβή belonged to metre just as much as to grammar: Aristides Quintil. 1. 20, p. 28 Jahn

ἀρχὴ μὲν οὖν ἡ τῆς μετρικῆς ὁ περὶ στοιχείων λόγος, εἶθ᾿ ὁ περὶ συλλαβῆς, εἶθ' ὁ περὶ ποδῶν, εἶθ οὕτως ὁ περὶ μέτρων.

- Longinus Prol. in Heph. p. 142 Gaisf.

τοῦ δὲ περὶ μέτρων λόγου πολλοὶ πολλαχῶς ἤρξαντο, οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ στοιχείων, ὡς Φιλόξενος, οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ μέτρων ὅρου, ὡς Ηλιόδωρος, ἡμεῖς δὲ Ἡφαιστίωνι κατακολουθήσομεν ἀπὸ συλλαβῆς ἀρξάμενοι.

By τούτων τὰς διαφοράς Aristotle probably meant not only the familiar distinction of syllables into long and short, but also the finer differences the ancient theory of rhythmic recognized in the times of syllables, when the time of the consonant or consonants in them is taken into account (v. Kühner, Gr. Gr. 1. 1 p. 300 ).

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-729

σύνδεσμος. The traditional text of this and the following section (that on the ἄρθρον) is confessedly corrupt. Twining finds a good deal of it unintelligible (comp. Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachwissen- schaft 1 p. 263 ); and Vahlen, besides bracketing ἢ φωνὴ μέσου in 1457a 8-10 , has to assume two lacunas, one after συντίθεσθαι in 1457a 2 , and another after

δηλοῖ

in 1457a 7 . At this point Aristotle passes from the constituents of words (letters and syllables) to actual words; and he begins by noting this distinction: some words are φωναὶ ἄσημοι, and others φωναὶ σημαντικαί ; these latter being the nouns and verbs in language, which have a meaning of their own and stand for something even when uttered by themselves. The σύνδεσμοι and ἄρθρα however, are said to be φωναὶ ἄσημοι; i. e. they convey no meaning when uttered by themselves. If we may provisionally take them to represent in some way the little connexive words in language, the question arises as to the nature of the two kinds of connexives and the distinction Aristotle wished to draw between them. It will be observed that he describes them by reference to their position and function in the complex φωνὴ σημαντική, called a λόγος a little further on in the chapter ( 1457a 23 ). It is necessary, therefore, to go back to his idea of λόγος, and consider the various forms of λόγοι which he either recognizes or may be presumed to have recognized. λόγος in the present sense of the term has no exact English equivalent, though 'speech', 'discourse', or 'phrase' is sometimes conventionally made to stand for it. According to the definition in 1457a 23 it is a significant combination of significant words, e. g. of two (or more) nouns, or verbs (including what Aristotle would call their πτώσεις), or of a verb and a noun, or of a noun and a verb. Α λόγος, in Aristotle's sense of the term, does not necessarily involve predication. The instance he gives in 1457a 25 of a non-predicative λόγος is a definition, that of 'man', e.g. ζῷον πεζὸν δίπουν - where the combination of the three nouns is equivalent to 'man', and may replace it as one of the terms of a proposition. This form of λόγος is the λόγος ὀνοματώδης of An. post. 2. 10, 93 b 31 . Under this same head we may include certain other forms of expression, e. g. βαδίζει χαίρων (a combination of two verbs), and οἰκοῦσι νῆσον (a verb+ a noun). A more complex instance of the same type would be a combination like οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, where the terms are combined into one by the copulative, and οἰκοῦσι περὶ δυσμάς, where the terms are hyphened together by the preposition⁹ (comp. Hartung, Lehren der Alten über die Dichtkunst p. 284 ). The other form of λόγος is that which involves predication-the λόγος ἀποφαντικός of the De Interpretatione (4.17a seqq.). If we may work out the hint in De Interpretatione5, 17a 20 , we may divide the λόγοι of this description into two kinds, the simple and the composite, and take the example in 1457a 28,

Κλέων βαδίζει

, as the type of the simple predicational λόγος. It is not so easy to find an Aristotelian instance of the composite predicational λόγος; but its nature is indicated in general terms in the passage in the De Interpretatione: it consists of two or more simple predicational λόγοι combined in some way or other into one single λόγος. How, then, and by means of what kinds of words is this combination effected? The De Interpretatione ignores this question. We may perhaps supply the omission, however, by reflecting for a moment on the structure of complex sentences and observing the different relations of the parts or members to the whole. In some instances the simple λόγοι ἀποφαντικοί are merely co-ordinated, and held together by copulative or similar conjunctions, as in Κλέων βαδίζει καὶ Σωκράτης κάθηται, Κλέων μὲν βαδίζει Σωκράτης δὲ κάθηται, Κλέων βαδίζει ἀλλὰ Σωκράτης κάθηται (comp. συνδέσμῳ εἷς in 1457a 30 ); in others they are subordinated to one another, and form a sort of organic whole knit into one by words which indicate relation and interdependence. This last point in the theory of the λόγος would have to be recognized in any grammatical analysis of the sentence and its construction. I venture to suggest that it may have been actually present in Aristotle's mind at the time of framing his definitions of σύνδεσμος and ἄρθρον, and that it is to be found in the text, if it be permissible to restore it in some such way as this:—

σύνδεσμος δέ ἐστι φωνὴ ἄσημος, ἢ οὔτε κωλύει οὔτε ποιεῖ φωνὴν μίαν σημαντικὴν ἐκ πλειόνων φωνῶν πεφυκυῖαν συντίθεσθαι [καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄκρων καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου], ἣν μὴ ἁρμόττει ἐν ἀρχῇ λόγου τιθέναι καθ αὑτόν, οἷον μέν, δή, τοί, δέ. ἢ φωνὴ ἄσημος ἢ ἐκ 5 πλειόνων μὲν φωνῶν μιᾶς σημαντικῶν δὲ ποιεῖν πέφυκε μίαν σημαντικὴν φωνήν, (οἷον τὸ ἀμφί καὶ τὸ περί καὶ τὰ ἄλλα). ἄρθρον δ᾽ ἐστὶ φωνὴ ἄσημος, ἢ λόγου ἀρχὴν ἢ τέλος ἢ διορισμὸν δηλοῖ [οἷον τὸ ἀμφί καὶ τὸ περί καὶ τὰ ἄλλα. φωνὴ ἄσημος ἢ οὔτε κωλύει οὔτε ποιεῖ φωνὴν μίαν σημαντικὴν ἐκ πλειόνων φωνῶν], πεφυκυῖα τίθεσθαι 10 καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄκρων καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου.

The words bracketed after συντίθεσθαι in l. 2 I suppose to be a repetition in the wrong place of those after τίθεσθαι in l. 9; and the clause ἢ φωνὴ...φωνῶν in ll. 8–9 to have come in through a repetition of the beginning of the definition of σύνδεσμος in l. 1 (comp. Düntzer, Rettung d. aristotelischen Poetik p. 194 ). It will be seen also that the illustration οἷον τὸ ἀμφί τὰ ἄλλα is assumed to be out of place where it stands, and is transferred to l. 6, so as to form part of the second definition of σύνδεσμος—a view which has been anticipated by Hartung. Two kinds of σύνδεσμοι, then, are recognized in the text as amended. The first is said to consist of the connexive words whose presence in a λόγος does not affect the coherence of the terms. There is no difficulty in illustrating this point; if Κλέων and βαδίζει are combinable terms, the combination of them in the proposition Κλέων βαδίζει is neither hindered nor helped by the insertion after the first word of a μέν, δέ, α δή, οι τοί. Little words of this description are what the grammarians called 'expletives'. Though they stand at the beginning of the λόγος, they are not an integral part of it; they belong to it not per se ( καθ' αὑτόν), but per accidens, and only serve to indicate a relation to some other λόγος before or after it. In contradistinction to these Aristotle recognizes a second species of σύνδεσμος (l. 4), one that is a real and constitutive part of the λόγος into which it enters. This function, as I have endeavoured to show above, in the general survey of the possible forms of λόγοι, is fulfilled by the prepositions and the copulative conjunctions. Aristotle's σύνδεσμος, therefore, whatever else it may signify, may be taken to include the preposition, the copulative conjunction, and also certain particles. The sense of the word ἄρθρον is more difficult to determine owing to the absence of examples to illustrate its meaning. The term must clearly denote a particular kind of connexive required for a particular kind of λόγος. The kind of λόγος Aristotle had in mind may perhaps be inferred from the fact that the ἄρθρον in it is said to indicate the beginning, or end, or dividing-point in its structure. Such a λόγος may be assumed to be a composite proposition, and moreover one of a more complex form than that in Κλέων βαδίζει καὶ Σωκράτης κάθηται and the like. The two constituent propositions in it are either intimately connected by being related in such a way that the one is the beginning and the other the end of the whole; or they are in some way divided or separated one from the other. With this we may compare the definition of the 'period' in Rhet. 3. 9, 1409 a 35

λέγω δὲ περίοδον λέξιν ἔχουσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ τελευτὴν αὐτὴν καθ᾽ αὑτὴν καὶ μέγεθος εὐσύνοπτον

. As a conjectural interpretation of this statement it may be suggested (1) that the ἄρθρα which mark the beginning of the proposition represent the conditional and causal conjunctions, together with the relative pronouns and adverbs; (2) that those marking the end are the final and illative conjunctions; and (3) those marking the separation or division in the proposition, the disjunctives. The kinds of proposition which involve the use of such words as these are ignored in Aristotle's logical writings, but it seems to me that he may very well have had something to say of them in an analysis like that in the present chapter of the forms and constituents of ordinary speech. I am not unaware of the lacunas that may be found in this interpretation of the Aristotelian ἄρθρον. It must be taken for what it is worth, and with many allowances, as an attempt to recover the rough draft of an all but lost chapter of early grammar. For a discussion of the textual and other difficulties in these two sections I may refer to Vahlen's Beiträge, 3 p. 229 and 306 , and Schömann's Animadversiones ad veterum grammaticorum doctrinam de articulo ( Jahrb. f. class. Philol. Suppl.-Bd. V p. 5) . Both σύνδεσμος and ἄρθρον were terms taken by grammar from anatomy (see on 7, 1450 b 34 ); the former is properly a 'ligament', and the latter a 'joint'. The language in the text as to the function of the ἄρθρον or joint-word, ἢ λόγου ἀρχὴν ἢ τέλος δηλοῖ, recalls that in the passage in De anima 3. 10, 433 b 21 , which describes the physical joint as the means of locomotion in the animal:

τὸ δὲ κινοῦν ὀργανικῶς, ὅπου ἀρχὴ καὶ τελευτὴ τὸ αὐτό, οἷον ὁ γιγγλυμός· ἐνταῦθα γὰρ τὸ κυρτὸν καὶ κοῖλον τὸ μὲν τελευτὴ τὸ δ᾽ ἀρχή (διὸ τὸ μὲν ἠρεμεῖ τὸ δὲ kινεῖται), λόγῳ μὲν ἕτερα ὄντα μεγέθει δ᾽ ἀχώριστα

(comp. J. of Phil. 17 p. 64 ). The joint-word in grammar, therefore, would naturally imply a more structural and organic connexion than is to be found when the λόγοι are simply strung together by σύνδεσμοι. I should add that the instances of σύνδεσμοι in Rhet. 3. 5, 1407 a 20 are μέν and δή, together with γάρ, τέ, καί, and apparently ἐπεί [? ἔτι]; and that a distinction not unlike that in the text between the two kinds of σύνδεσμοι is implied in Probl. 16. 20, 919 a 22

ἐκ τῶν λόγων ἐνίων ἐξαιρεθέντων συνδέσμων οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ λόγος Ἑλληνικός, οἷον τὸ τέ καὶ τὸ καί, ἔνιοι δὲ οὐθὲν λυποῦσι διὰ τὸ τοῖς μὲν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι χρῆσθαι πολλάκις, εἰ ἔσται λόγος, τοῖς δὲ μή

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-730

1 κωλύει, scil. ποιεῖσθαι.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-731

φωνῶν: 1.e. φωνῶν σημαντικῶν.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-732

λόγου. The term is explained in 23. Aristotle is using it without explanation, as though it were a familiar and well-understood word. Just before this (in 1) he employed the periphrasis φωνὴ μία σημαντική in lieu of it. καθ᾽ αὑτόν is to be taken with λόγου (comp. Top. 8. 11, 161 b 19 ). The λόγος as such is tacitly distinguished from the λόγος as brought into relation with some other λόγος by the insertion of a word which is no integral part of it per se. καθ᾽ αὑτό is the opposite of πρὸς ἕτερον ἢ κατὰ συμβεβηκός ( Bon. Ind. 212 a 3 ).

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-733

διορισμός seems to mean here 'separation' or 'disjunction', a metaphorical extension of the sense it has in the De Partibus: 3. 10, 672 a 14

τοῦ διορισμοῦ χάριν ἐστὶ (scil. τὸ διάζωμα) τοῦ τε περὶ τὴν κοιλίαν τόπου καὶ τοῦ περὶ τὴν καρδίαν

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-734

πεφυκυῖα τίθεσθαι καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄκρων καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου does not necessarily mean any more than this, that some of the ἄρθρα have one and others another of these three possible places in the complex form of λόγος. πεφυκυῖα τίθεσθαι implies that the rule is general and not always observed in practice.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-735

ὄνομα. In this definition συνθετή differentiates the ὄνομα from the στοιχεῖον, σημαντική from the ἄρθρον and σύνδεσμος, ἄνευ χρόνου from the ῥῆμα, and what remains ( ἧς μέρος οὐδὲν κτέ.) from the λόγος. In a λόγος ( . 8. ζῷον πεζὸν δίπουν, οι Κλέων βαδίζει) the parts retain their several meanings; whereas in an ὄνομα, if the parts happen to have a meaning, it is lost in the word into which they enter; Θεόδωρος for instance denotes a certain man, not a kind of gift: De interpr. 2, 16 b 19

ὄνομα μὲν οὖν ἐστι φωνὴ σημαντικὴ κατὰ συνθήκην ἄνευ χρόνου, ἧς μηδὲν μέρος ἐστὶ σημαντικὸν κεχωρισμένον· ἐν γὰρ τῷ Κάλλιππος τὸ ἵππος οὐδὲν αὐτὸ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ σημαίνει, ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ καλὸς ἵππος

. The general term ὄνομα must be taken to include not only the nouns, but also the adjectives, the personal and demonstrative pronouns, and possibly even the article as a kind of pronoun—in fact all the declinable parts of speech except perhaps the relatives, which may have been classed among the ἄρθρα A verb also apart from a subject, as a mere name for an action, may be called an ὄνομα, as it is for instance in 21, 1457 a 25; 22, 1458 b20; 25, 1461 b 31; comp. De interpr. 3, 16 b 19

αὐτὰ μὲν οὖν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὰ λεγόμενα ὀνόματά ἐστι [scil. τὰ ῥήματα] καὶ σημαίνει τι (ἵστησι γὰρ ὁ λέγων τὴν διάνοιαν καὶ ὁ ἀκούσας ἠρέμησεν), ἀλλ᾽ εἰ ἔστιν ἢ μὴ οὔπω σημαίνει

. It is a ῥῆμα proper only when actually said of a subject, as the predicate of a proposition.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-736

οὐ χρώμεθα: comp. 21, 1457 a 33 πλὴν οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι σημαίνοντος. The construction in the clause may be seen from Vahlen's paraphrase, εν τοῖς διπλοῖς οὐ χρώμεθα τῷ μέρει ἡγούμενοι καὶ αὐτὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ σημαίνειν. The participial ὡς καὶ αὐτὸ καθ᾽ αὐτὸ σημαῖνον is an acc. absolute like those in 3, 1448 a 37 and 26, 1462 10.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-737

τῷ Θεοδώρῳ: i.e. 'the word Θεόδωρος'; comp. infra 28 ὁ Κλέων, ' the word Κλέων'. — Plato Crat. 392 D

τὸν Ἀστυάνακτα

, ' the name Astyanax'; for the similar Latin usage v. Wilkins on Cicero De Oratore 2, 193 . In the De interpr. we have the more scholastic form of expression with a nominative, ἐν τῷ Κάλλιππος. τὸ δῶρον: i. e. the word δῶρον implied in Θεόδωρος. As the parallel in the De interpr. is ἐν τῷ Κάλλιππος τὸ ἵππος οὐδὲν αὐτὸ καθ ἑαυτὸ σημαίνει, it has been proposed to restore here τὸ δωρος for τὸ δῶρον. The two cases, however, as Düntzer reminds us, are not quite similar, since δωρος does not exist as a separate word, as ἵππος does, and there would therefore be no point in saying of it that it is without meaning ( οὐ σημαίνει).

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-738

ῥῆμα: De interpr. 3, 16b 6

ῥῆμα δέ ἐστι τὸ προσσημαῖνον χρόνον, οὐ μέρος οὐδὲν σημαίνει χωρίς, καὶ ἔστιν ἀεὶ τῶν καθ᾽ ἑτέρου λεγομένων σημεῖον. λέγω δ᾽ ὅτι προσσημαίνει χρόνον, οἷον ὑγίεια μὲν ὄνομα, τὸ δὲ ὑγιαίνει ῥῆμα προσσημαίνει γὰρ τὸ νῦν ὑπάρχειν ... 16 τὸ ὑγίανεν ἢ τὸ ὑγιανεῖ οὐ ῥῆμα ἀλλὰ πτώσεις ῥήματος διαφέρει δὲ τοῦ ῥήματος, ὅτι τὸ μὲν τὸν παρόντα προσσημαίνει χρόνον, τὰ δὲ τὸν πέριξ

. In this passage (though not in De interpr. 10, 19b 13 ) the past and future tenses of the verb are set aside as πτώσεις, the verb in the logical theory of predication being always in the present (comp. Mansel, Prolegomena Logica p. 273). It is to be noted that in these instances of verbs, the verb is in the third person singular of the present; the reason for this is that a proper name like Κλέων οι Κορίσκος is tacitly assumed to be its subject. With Plato, it may be observed, the ῥῆμα includes the predicative adjective as well as the verb (v. Crat. 399 A ).

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-739

προσσημαίνει. Boethius, In Aristot. de Interpr. 2 p. 66 Meiser , translates this by

consignificat

, thus identifying its sense with that of the later word συσσημαίνειν.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-740

πτῶσις, as a term of grammar, has not yet acquired the special sense of 'case' which it has in the grammarians; and there is no equivalent for it in our modern terminology. We may perhaps translate it by 'modification' or 'mode'. Given a word, a noun or a verb, with a certain meaning, a πτῶσις of it embodies that meaning with some secondary idea superadded. It does not necessarily involve a difference of form; βαδίζει; as a question, is a πτῶσις of the affirmative βαδίζει, 'he walks', and δῶρον as an accusative a πτῶσις of δώρον as a nominative. In most instances, however, a πτῶσις is distinguished from the original noun or verb by some difference of form, e. g. by a difference of termination. Under the general head of πτώσεις Aristotle includes the following species of words :- (1) the oblique cases of all nouns, as compared with the nominative, e. g. Φίλωνος etc. from Φίλων ( De interpr. 2, 16 a 33 ). (2) The nominative also of common nouns; it is a πτῶσις through the idea of number which it suggests thus ἄνθρωπος is 'a man', and ἄνθρωποι 'several men'. (3) The forms involving a distinction of gender, e.g. οὗτος, αὕτη, τοῦτο and the like ( Soph. el. 14, 173 b 27 ). (4) The paronymous adjectives, e. g. χαλκούς from χαλκός ( Rhet. 3. 9, 1410 a 32 ), ἀνδρεῖος as compared with the substantive ἀνδρία ( Rhet. 1. 7, 1364 b 36 ; Cat. 1, 1 a 14 ). (5) The comparatives and superlatives as compared with the positive adjectives, e. g. βέλτιστος from ἀγαθός ( Top. 5. 7, 136 b 30 ). (6) The adverbs as compared with the corresponding adjectives, e. g. δικαίως from δίκαιος ( Top. 1. 15, 106 b 29 ; 5. 7, 136 b 15 ). (7) The past and future tenses of the verb ( De interpr. 3, 16 b 16 ); and presumably also the forms embodying distinctions of person, number, voice, etc. To these must be added (8) τὰ ὑποκριτικά, the modifications of sense words may acquire through differences in the mode of enunciation. This synopsis of the different uses of the term in Aristotle may be sufficient to show that πτῶσις with him is a logical rather than a philological conception, and that it is only in certain of its applications that it corresponds to our declension or inflexion or derivation. It is the sense rather than the word itself that is conceived as derivative; a πτῶσις takes its meaning, i. e. the fundamental part of it, from the primary word; and the idea of this latter is involved in any explanation we give of the πτῶσις; Φίλωνοs for instance means 'of Φίλων', and γραμματικός means 'possessing γραμματική'—both being accordingly πτώσεις, the one of Φίλων and the other of γραμματική. With Aristotle's use of πτῶσις we may compare Varro's equally heterogeneous instances of 'declinatio':

a Terentius Terenti, ab equo equiso, ab homine homunculus, a mamma mammosae, a prudentia prudens, a pugnando et currendo pugiles et cursores

( L. L. 8, 14 ).

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-741

ἄνθρωπος: Phys. 3. 7, 207 b 34

ἄνθρωπος εἷς ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐ πολλοί

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-742

τὰ ὑποκριτικά: see on 19, 1456 b 10.

ἐπίταξιν:

see on 19, 1456b 16 .

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-743

βάδιζε: to be read as βάδιζε , i. e. as a dictatorial imperative.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-744

λόγος. The definition is framed to distinguish a λόγος from an ὄνομα; see above on 10, and comp. De interpr. 4, 16 b 26

λόγος δέ ἐστι φωνὴ σημαντικὴ κατὰ συνθήκην, ἧς τῶν μερῶν τι σημαντικόν ἐστι κεχωρισμένον, ὡς φάσις, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς κατάφασις ἢ ἀπόφασις

λέγω δέ, οἷον ἄνθρωπος σημαίνει μέν τι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὅτι ἔστιν ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλλ᾽ ἔσται κατάφασις ἢ ἀπόφασις, ἐάν τι προστεθῇ

. The clause ἧς ἔνια μέρη καθ᾽ αὑτὰ σημαίνει τι refers to the nouns and verbs (with their πτώσεις) as the significant parts of all λόγοι; the σύνδεσμοι and ἄρθρα are φωναὶ ἄσημοι. For the meaning of λόγος and the various forms of λόγοι see on 20, 1456 b 38 (also Bon. Ind. 433 b 48 ).

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-745

οὐ γὰρ ἅπας, κτέ. An indirect reproof, perhaps, to Plato, who seems to speak as though a λόγος were always in the form of a proposition: Soph. 262 Α

οὐκοῦν ἐξ ὀνομάτων μὲν μόνων συνεχώς λεγομένων οὐκ ἔστι ποτὲ λόγος, οὐδ᾽ αὖ ῥημάτων χωρὶς ὀνομάτων λεχθέντων

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-746

ὁ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁρισμός: e.g. ζῷον πεζὸν δίπουν ( Top. 1. 7, 103 a 27 ) οἱ ζῷον ἐπιστήμης δεκτικόν ( Top. 5. 2, 130 b8 ).

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-747

ἐνδέχεται ἄνευ ῥημάτων εἶναι λόγον. This is the λόγος ὀνοματώδης of An. post. 2. 10, 93b31 —a combination of words that may serve as an equivalent for a name, and take the place of one as a term in a proposition (comp. De interpr. 11, 21 a 29 ). It may be a more or a less exact equivalent; the most exact is what Aristotle calls a definition (comp. Metaph. Z 4, 1030 a 14 ).

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-748

εἷς δὲ ἐστι λόγος διχῶς. That a λόγος, in spite of its composite nature, has a certain unity in it is tacitly assumed in the definition in a 23 λόγος δὲ φωνὴ συνθετὴ κτέ. This unity, as the text implies, is not of the same order in all kinds of λόγοι. A definition (a λόγος without predication) is one, because the combination of terms in it signifies and stands for one thing ( ἓν σημαίνει), just in the same way as a name may do. The proposition also, e. g. Κλέων βαδίζει, is one because the combination of terms describes a single act or fact (comp. De interpr. 5, 17 a 16

ὁ ἓν δηλῶν λόγος

), and admits of only one assertion or denial. On the other hand in a composite λόγος consisting of two or more propositions with copulative or other coordinating conjunctions to connect them together, the formal unity of the whole is due to this conjunction of the parts, the several propositions which compose it. The Iliad is an extreme instance of such a λόγος. This point, the difference in the unity in these two kinds of λόγοι, is more than once noticed by Aristotle elsewhere in very similar terms: De interpr. 5, 17 a 8

ἔστι δὲ εἰς πρῶτος [? πρώτως] λόγος ἀποφαντικὸς κατάφασις, εἶτα ἀπόφασις· οἱ δ᾽ ἄλλοι [scil. λόγοι ἀποφαντικοί] πάντες συνδέσμῳ εἷς ἔστι δὲ εἷς λόγος ἀποφαντικὸς ἢ ὁ ἓν δηλῶν ἢ ὁ συνδέσμῳ εἷς, ... πολλοὶ δὲ οἱ πολλὰ καὶ μὴ ἓν ἢ οἱ ἀσύνδετοι

. An. post. 2. 10, 93 b 35

λόγος δ᾽ εἷς ἐστι διχῶς, ὁ μὲν συνδέσμῳ, ὥσπερ ἡ Ἰλιάς, ὁ δὲ τῷ ἓν καθ᾽ ἓν δηλοῦν μὴ κατὰ συμβεβηκός

. — Metaph. Η 6, 1045 a 12 :

ὁ δ᾽ ὁρισμὸς λόγος ἐστὶν εἷς οὐ συνδέσμῳ καθάπερ ἡ Ἰλιάς, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἑνὸς εἶναι

(comp. also Metaph. Z 4, 1030 b 9 ).

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-749

ἐκ πλειόνων , scil. λόγων.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-750

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-751

31 ἁπλοῦν... διπλοῦν: see 20, 1457 12 , and De interpr. 2, 16ª 19 (quoted above on 20, 1457 10 ). In the De Interpretatione ( 2, 16ª23 ) the general term for a compound is συμπεπλεγμένον ὄνομα. The Rhetoric has more than one reference to this chapter on the species of names: Rhet. 3. 1, 1404 36

οὐχ ἅπαντα ὅσα περὶ λέξεως ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ἀκριβολογητέον ἡμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα περὶ τοιαῦτης οἷας λέγομεν. περὶ δ᾽ ἐκείνης εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιητικῆς.

- 3. 2, 1404b5

τῶν δ᾽ ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων σαφὴ μὲν ποιεῖ τὰ κύρια, μὴ ταπεινὴν δὲ ἀλλὰ κεκοσμημένην τάλλα ὀνόματα ὅσα εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιητικῆς.

ὄντων δ᾽ ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων ἐξ ὧν ὁ λόγος συνέστηκεν, τῶν δ᾽ ὀνομάτων τοσαῦτ᾽ ἐχόντων εἴδη ὅσα τεθεώρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιήσεως, τούτων γλώτταις μὲν καὶ διπλοῖς ὀνόμασι καὶ πεποιημένοις ὀλιγάκις καὶ ὀλιγαχοῦ χρηστέον ... τὸ δὲ κύριον καὶ τὸ οἰκεῖον καὶ μεταφορὰ μόναι χρήσιμοι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ψιλῶν λόγων λέξιν.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-752

μεγαλειωτῶν is all but identical with the reading in A o, μεγαλιωτῶν, and simpler than Tyrwhitt's μεγαλείων ὡς or Vahlen's μεγαλείων ὧν. Α μεγαλειωτὸν ὄνομα would be a name that has been 'made grand', an exaggerated or amplified name. Though a verb μεγαλειοῦν is not found in extant literature, it is a legitimate derivative from μεγαλεῖος, which is sometimes used of words (e. g. in Xenophon Mem. 2. 1. 34 ); and it is presupposed in the LXX. word μεγαλείωμα. After μεγαλειωτῶν we may supply οἷον = e.g. For similar instances of the omission of οἷον see 25, 1461ª26 ; An. pr. 1. 4, 26ª8 ; De gen. et corr. 2. 5, 332b14 ; Eth. N. 5. 8, 1133ª7 ; Rhet. 3. 5, 1407ª38 ; 3. 6, 1408b6 (etc.). In lieu of μεγαλιωτῶν (or μεγαλειωτῶν) the Arabic version is said to imply Μασσαλιωτῶν— reading which has met with the approval of Diels ( Berlin Academy, Sitzungsb.1888 p. 53 ) as well as others. An expression like τὰ πολλὰ τῶν Μασσαλιωτῶν, however, is certainly not free from difficulty. The general view seems to be that it is practically equivalent to τὰ πολλὰ τῶν Μασσαλιωτικῶν; so that Aristotle is to be credited with the statement that the majority ( τὰ πολλά) of the proper or other names in use at Massilia were of the abnormal type described in the text. There is, as far as I know, no hint of anything of the kind in any ancient writer; and it is to my thinking too improbable to be believed without very distinct evidence. The recent translators, who accept the new reading, must have felt the difficulty, as they tone down the expression by a free rendering of τὰ πολλά, making the clause mean either 'like so many Massilian expressions' ( Butcher), or 'wie jene massaliotischen Namen' ( Gomperz). It has to be remembered also that it was hardly necessary for Aristotle to go as far as Marseilles for instances of such names. They were certainly not unknown in Athens ( Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen2 p. 29 ); and to judge from their appearance in Plautus, they must have been common enough in the later Attic Comedy.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-753

Ἑρμοκαϊκόξανθος: a compound of three river-names, Hermus, Caicus, and Xanthus (comp. Dindorf in HSt. s.v., and Letronne, Étude des noms propres grecs p. 62). After this the Greek text must have lost something, as the Arabic version, as translated by Margoliouth, renders the passage by Ermocaicon Xanthus qui supplicabatur Dominum caelorum (or Iovem), which Diels supposes to represent an hexameter line, Ἑρμοκαϊκόξανθος, ἐπευξάμενος Διὶ πατρί. I hesitate to adopt this very attractive conjecture, though it has been accepted by both Butcher and Gomperz, because the context seems to me to suggest rather a second instance of the same kind of word, a τετραπλοῦν ὄνομα of some sort. Some such compound as ἐπευξιθεῶναξ, if one may venture to invent the word, would represent the general sense of the Arabic. As these abnormal compounds were characteristic of the Dithyramb (see on 22, 1459ª9 ), and not uncommon in Comedy, it is difficult to see why Aristotle should have had recourse to what would seem to be an epic or a mock epic for an instance of a τριπλοῦν ὄνομα.

1457b

ἅπαν δὲ ὄνομα κτέ. The present survey of the vocabulary of poetry may be compared with that in Isocrates 190 D

τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ποιηταῖς πολλὰ δέδονται κόσμοι· καὶ γὰρ ... οἷόν τ᾿ αὐτοῖς ... δηλῶσαι μὴ μόνον τοῖς τεταγμένοις ὀνόμασιν, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν ξένοις, τὰ δὲ καινοῖς, τὰ δὲ μεταφοραῖς, καὶ μηδὲν παραλιπεῖν ἀλλὰ πᾶσι τοῖς εἴδεσι διαποικῖλαι τὴν ποίησιν.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-754

κύριον. The κύριον ὄνομα is the established and familiar term for a thing, as distinct from the γλῶττα, the μεταφορά and the other ξενικὰ ὀνόματα (see on 22, 1458ª22 ). In actual usage, however, the κύριον ὄνομα is more especially opposed to the metaphor. As the metaphor is an ἀλλότριον ὄνομα ( infra b7), the κύριον ὄνομα is much the same thing as the οἰκεῖον or 'proper' name for the thing; comp. Rhet. 3. 2, 1404b 31

τὸ δὲ κύριον καὶ τὸ οἰκεῖον

[= i. e. τὸ οἰκεῖον]

καὶ μεταφορὰ μόναι χρήσιμοι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ψιλῶν λόγων λέξιν.

Hence it is that in Latin proprie often represents the κυρίως, and propria nomina the κύρια ὀνόματα of Greek writers. Horace has an attempt at a more literal translation of the latter term in A. P. 234

Non ego inornata et dominantia nomina solum verbaque, Pisones, satyrorum scriptor amabo.

In Isocrates 190 D-E the designation for the words in common use, in contradistinction to those belonging more especially to poetry, is τὰ τεταγμένα or τὰ πολιτικὰ ὀνόματα.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-755

κόσμος. The term reappears in 22, 1458 b 33 . As Aristotle's explanation is lost (see on b33), the technical sense to be attached to it is a matter of conjecture. In Isocrates 190 D (see above on b1) the metaphor, the strange word, and the coined word are grouped together under the general head of κόσμοι; and Aristotle himself in the Rhetoric ( 3. 2, 1404 b5 and 1405ª14 ) uses the verb κοσμεῖν in an equally wide sense, to denote the embellishment of style by means of metaphor and other unusual forms of expression. In the present passage, however, it is clear that the term κόσμος must have a special meaning, since instead of including the γλῶττα, the μεταφορά, etc., it is expressly distinguished and made to stand apart from them. The only positive hint we have in the Poetics of the sense of the term is in 22, 1459ª11 , where it is said to be allowable not only in epic poetry, but also in oratory and in the iambic parts of Tragedy:

ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἰαμβείοις διὰ τὸ ὅτι μάλιστα λέξιν μιμεῖσθαι ταῦτα ἁρμόττει τῶν ὀνομάτων ὅσοις κἂν ἐν λόγοις τις χρήσαιτο· ἔστι δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα τὸ κύριον καὶ μεταφορὰ καὶ κόσμος.

Aristotle is generally supposed to be referring to the epitheton ornans; in support of which interpretation Tyrwhitt and others point to the use of κόσμος in Rhet. 3. 7, 1408 a 13

μηδ' ἐπὶ τῷ εὐτελεῖ ὀνόματι ἐπῇ κόσμος· εἰ δὲ μή, κωμῳδία φαίνεται, οἷον ποιεῖ Κλεοφῶν· ὁμοίως γὰρ ἔνια ἔλεγε καὶ εἰ εἶπειεν ἂν πότνια συκή.

This passage in the Rhetoric, however, does not justify this view. πότνια is regarded there as a κόσμος, not because it is a certain kind of epithet, but because it is a γλῶττα ( v. on b4), and therefore one of the unusual words which according to the Rhetoric ( 3. 2, 1404 b5 ) serve to embellish the style. An epitheton ornans need not be of this kind; in γάλα λευκόν, for instance, the epithet is κύριον ὄνομα. As the κόσμος, according to the classification in the text, is a special kind of word, distinguished from the κύριον ὄνομα on the one side and the γλῶττα, μεταφορά, etc., on the other, we may perhaps suppose it to be the ornamental synonym, a word, for example, like Πηλείδης for Achilles, Ἤφαιστος for fire, ὄλεθρος for one who causes destruction - the kind of word which in the ancient classification of tropes came under the heads of synecdoche, antonomasia, and metonymia (comp. Volkmann, Rhetorik der Gr. u. Röm. p. 421-5). If Aristotle's κόσμος does not include such synonyms, he has ignored what he elsewhere ( Rhet. 3. 2, 1404b39 ) knows to be an important element in the poetic vocabulary. Cicero De Oratore 3. 167 distinguishes between the 'coined' word, factum verbum ( Aristotle's πεποιημένον ὄνομα), the 'transferred' word, translatum verbum ( i. e. μεταφορά), and the 'ornamental equivalent', ornandi causa proprium proprio commutatum; this last being apparently identical with the κόσμος of the Poetics. We must not forget that Aristotle recognizes some words as being more beautiful than others: Rhet. 3. 2, 1405 a 6

καὶ ἀπὸ καλῶν [ scil. δεῖ μεταφέρειν]· κάλλος δὲ ὀνόματος τὸ μέν, ὥσπερ Λικύμνιος λέγει, ἐν τοῖς ψόφοις ἢ τῷ σημαινομένῳ

[ i. e. either in its sound or in its associations],

καὶ αἶσχος δὲ ὡσαύτως

with which we may compare the definition of Theophrastus ( ap. Demetr. De eloc. 173 ),

κάλλος ὀνόματός ἐστι τὸ πρὸς τὴν ἀκοὴν ἢ πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν ἡδὺ ἢ τὸ τῇ διανοίᾳ ἔντιμον

( v. Rabe, De Theophrasti libris περὶ λέξεως p. 44). It would be strange if this very obvious artifice of poetical expression were overlooked by Aristotle in a book like the Poetics.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-756

γλώτταν. The term is sufficiently general to include foreign, dialectical, and also obsolete words-all words (or senses) in fact which require explanation, because outside the limits of ordinary Attic Greek (comp. Rhet. 3. 1, 1404a33

τῶν ὀνομάτων ἀφείκασιν

[ i. e. the tragedians]

ὅσα παρὰ τὴν διάλεκτόν ἐστιν

). For instances in the Poetics see 22, 1458 b 21 and 25, 1461a10 ; others are to be found in Rhet. 3. 3, 1406a7 , where the use of γλώτται in prose is said to be a frigid affectation:

μία δὲ [ scil. αἰτία ψυχρότητος] τὸ χρῆσθαι γλώτταις, οἷον Λυκόφρων Ξέρξην πέλωρον ἄνδρα, καὶ Σκίρων σίννις ἀνήρ, καὶ Ἀλκιδάμας ἄθυρμα τῇ ποιήσει, καὶ τὴν τῆς φύσεως ἀτασθαλίαν, καὶ ἀκράτῳ τῆς διανοίας ὀργῇ τεθηγμένον.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-757

μὴ τοῖς αὐτοῖς δέ: De caelo 1. 3, 269 b 26

ἀνάγκη δὲ πᾶν τὸ φερόμενον ἢ κάτω ἢ ἄνω ἢ κουφότητ᾽ ἔχειν ἢ βάρος ἢ ἄμφω, μὴ πρὸς τὸ αὐτὸ δέ.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-758

σίγυνον. The gloss in Hesychius is

σίγυνοι· τὰ ξυστὰ δόρατα, ἢ τοὺς ὁλοσιδήρους ἄκοντας

(comp. Schol. Plat. Amat. p. 87 R. and Apoll. Rh.2. 99 ). The word exists in a variety of forms ( HSt. s. v. σιβύνη). That it belonged to the Cyprian dialect is said also by Herodotus 5. 9

σιγύννας δ᾽ ὧν καλέουσι Λίγυες . . . τοὺς καπήλους, Κύπριοι δὲ τὰ δόρατα

, and by Schol. Apoll. Rh.2. 99

σιγύννους δὲ καλοῦσιν οἱ Κύπριοι τὰ ἀκόντια

. I suspect we should restore σίγυνος in the present passage, as there seems to be no trace elsewhere of a neuter form. Herwerden also ( Lex. gr. suppl.) tacitly assumes σίγυννος as the nominative in Aristotle.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-759

μεταφορά. μεταφέρειν, said of a word, means to transfer it from its proper object to another more or less like that ( v. 22, 1459a8 and Bon. Ind. 462a1). The substantive μεταφορά has two meanings, (1) the abstract sense of transference ( e. g. in the present passage, and infra b 30), and (2) the concrete sense of the word in its transferred or metaphorical application ( e. g. supra b1; 22, 1458a22, 25, 33 , etc.). Metaphor, according to Aristotle, consists in transferring a word from the object to which it is appropriate to another kind of object more or less like it; comp. 22, 1459a8 , and Top. 6. 2, 140 b 9

ἡ μεταφορὰ ποιεῖ πως γνώριμον τὸ σημαινόμενον διὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα πάντες γὰρ οἱ μεταφέροντες κατά τινα ὁμοιότητα μεταφέρουσιν.

Four kinds of similarity are noted in the text, that between genus and species, that between species and genus, that between species and species, and that between a thing and its analogue-where there is a similarity of relations. The present classification of metaphors is assumed in Rhet. 3. 2, 1405 a 3 and 3. 10, 1410 b 36 .

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-760

λέγω δὲ, scil. ἐπιφοράν, or μεταφοράν.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-761

νηῦς κτέ.: Od. 1, 185 and 24, 308 .

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-762

ἑστάναι τι: comp. infra b 16 ἀφελεῖν τι. In the present passage, however, the indefinite τι is the subject of the infinitive, in the same way for instance as in Phys. 5. 1, 224 b 23

τῷ τούτου τι μεταβάλλειν

( intr.), and in Rhet. 2. 8, 1386 b 12, 13 . It is just as much the subject as τοῦτο is in Eth. N. 3. 7, 1114 b 11

τὸ καλῶς τοῦτο πεφυκέναι ἡ τελεία καὶ ἀληθινὴ ἂν εἴη εὐφυΐα.

Compare also Metaph. 4, 1047b13

τὸ γάρ σε ἑστάναι νῦν ψεῦδος μέν, οὐκ ἀδύνατον δέ.

The traditional rendering of ἑστάναι τι is 'a kind of standing' ( stare aliquod, or stare quoddam in the old versions), but it has not the sanction of Tyrwhitt and Hermann, who translate ἑστάναι τι simply by stare; which shows that they were not insensible to the grammatical objection against making the τι qualify an infinitive. See infra on b 16 ( ἀφελεῖν τι).

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-763

δὴ μυρί᾽ Ὀδυσσεὺς κτέ.: Il. 2, 272 .

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-764

ἀπ᾿ εἴδους: Rhet. 3. 11, 1413a14

καὶ αἱ παροιμίαι μεταφοραὶ ἀπ᾿ εἴδους ἐπ᾿ εἶδός εἰσιν· οἷον ἄν τις ὡς ἀγαθὸν πεισόμενος αὐτὸς ἐπαγά-

γηται εἶτα βλαβῇ ὡς ὁ Καρπάθιός φησι τὸν λαγώ. ἄμφω γὰρ τὸ εἰρημένον πεπόνθασιν.

See Rhet. 3. 10, 1410 b 14 and 11, 1411b 26 for other instances of this description. The two quotations in the text, which have been supposed to be fragments either of some epic poet ( Kinkel, EGF. p. 72) or of a parodist ( Brandt, Parod. gr. rel. p. 112), were probably both of them from the Καθαρμοί of Empedocles. The second, τεμὼν ἀτειρέι χαλκῷ, is, as Vahlen has pointed out, identical with part of the Empedoclean line (fr. 143 Diels), preserved by Theo Smyrnaeus: Arithm. p. 20 Gelder (=p. 15 Hiller)

η̂ των͂ πολιτικῶν [Πλατωνικῶν Hiller] λόγων παράδοσις τὸ μὲν πρῶτον έχει καθαρμόν τινα ... ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς κρηνάων ἄπο πέντ᾿ ἀνιμῶντά φησιν ἀτειρέι χαλκῷ δεῖν ἀπορρύπτεσθαι, ὁ δὲ Πλάτων ἀπὸ πέντε μαθημάτων δεῖν φησι ποιεῖσθαι τὴν κάθαρσιν.

The exact form of the verse of Empedocles is perhaps irrecoverable, but it is not difficult to see that Theo's ἀνιμῶντα is a prosaic substitute for the τεμὼν preserved by Aristotle (comp. Diels, Hermes15, 173 ). ἀτειρής—a favourite epithet with Empedocles ( v. Diels, Index p. 232)—is a reminiscence of Homer. The same may be said also of χαλκός, if it meant, as it probably did in Empedocles ( v. Bullialdus ad loc. p. 128 ed. Gelder), a brazen urn, such as was used in certain rites. Aristotle elsewhere refers to Empedocles in a way which implies that his poems might be assumed to be familiar to every one ( v. on b 24). As he regards him as a master of metaphor ( μεταφορικός fr. 70; see on 1, 1447b18 ), there is a special propriety in his quoting instances of metaphor from the writings of Empedocles.

ἀφελεῖν τι. The recent interpreters seem to agree in supposing this to mean 'a kind of removing' ( auferre aliquod in Lat.), though a very different view was taken of it by Victorius, Heinsius, Goulston, Tyrwhitt, Hermann, and Ritter, who represent it by auferre aliquid or auferre quiddam. The now usual rendering implies that the infinitive is treated as an ordinary substantive, with the indefinite pronoun attached to it in the same way as in ἡδονή τις, γένεσίς τις, and the like. There is no recorded instance of this construction in classical Greek. In the parallels in the Sophistici Elenchi ( 22, 178b12 sqq. ) the τι in ποιεῖν τι, πάσχειν τι, and αἰσθάνεσθαί τι is assuredly (as Pacius saw) the object after these verbs. Aristotle's assumption is that a generic may be supplanted by a specific term, when it comes to be applied to a special kind of object. Thus ἑστάναι, said of a ship, is supplanted by ὁρμεῖν, and ἀφελεῖν, said of water, by ἀρύσαι. If he had had the instance cited in b 27 before him here, he might very well have said τὸ σπείρειν ἀφιέναι τί ἐστι where the τι would have represented the accusative, τὸν καρπόν, of the later passage.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-765

τῷ δὲ ἀνάλογον (comp. Metaph. I 4, 1070b 17 ) replaces the κατὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον in 659, ἐπιφοράν being again understood. Analogy or proportion is thus defined in Eth. N. 5. 5. 1131*31,

ἡ ἀναλογία ἰσότης ἐστὶ λόγων καὶ ἐν τέτταρσιν ἐλαχίστοις

. In the statement in the text the general form of analogy, B: A :: D: C, is illustrated by an example :— φιάλη (Β): Διόνυσος (Α) :: ἀσπίς (D) : Ἄρης (C). Metaphor consists in giving the φιάλη (B) the name belonging to its analogue (D), viz. ἀσπίς, or vice versa. This transference of a name, as Aristotle proceeds to tell us ( καὶ ἐνίοτε προστιθέασιν, 619), is sometimes softened by an explanatory addition to the word in its new application. The addition may be either (1) positive or (2) negative. Thus instead of simply speaking of the shield (D) as a cup (B), we may (1) add the term to which the shield is properly related (C), i. e. Ares, and thus call the shield the 'cup of Ares' (B+C); or (2) we may add a negative epithet, to show that the word is used in a non-natural sense, and describe the shield as 'a cup that holds no wine' ( φιάλη ἄοινος). A string of metaphors from analogy is quoted in Rhet. 3. 10, 1410b 36

τῶν δὲ μεταφορῶν τεττάρων οὐσῶν εὐδοκιμοῦσι μάλιστα αἱ κατ᾿ ἀναλογίαν, ὥσπερ Περικλῆς ἔφη τὴν νεότητα τὴν ἀπολομένην ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ οὕτως ἠφανίσθαι ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ὥσπερ εἴ τις τὸ ἔαρ ἐκ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐξέλοι κτέ.

The use of such metaphors, as serving for instance to give life to a description of things inanimate, is considered at length in Rhet. 3. 11 ; comp. esp. 3. 11, 1411 b 32

ἐν πᾶσι δὲ τῷ ἐνέργειαν ποιεῖν εὐδοκιμεῖ οἷον ἐν τοῖσδε, “αὐτις ἐπὶ δάπεδόνδε κυλίνδετο λᾶας ἀναιδής”, καὶ “ ἔπτατ᾿ ὀιστός”, ... καὶ “ αἰχμὴ δὲ στέρνοιο διέσσυτο μαιμώωσα”. ἐν πᾶσι γὰρ τούτοις διὰ τὸ ἔμψυχα εἶναι ἐνεργοῦντα φαίνεται· τὸ ἀναισχυντεῖν γὰρ καὶ μαιμᾶν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἐνέργεια. ταῦτα δὲ προσήψε διὰ τῆς κατ᾿ ἀναλογίαν μεταφορᾶς· ὡς γὰρ ὁ λίθος πρὸς τὸν Σίσυφον, ὁ ἀναισχυντῶν πρὸς τὸν ἀναισχυντούμενον.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-766

ἐρεῖ: comp. infra b 21, 23, and εἴρηκεν and λέγει in the context (b 15, 20). The subject, if one must be supplied, is 'the poet', just as in the parallels in the Topics it would be 'the disputant'.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-767

b 19 προστιθέασιν. Instead of the metaphor pure and simple, i. e. 'cup' for shield, they add on to it the term to which the proper word (i. e. shield) supplanted by the metaphor (i. e. cup), is relative. The shield being relative to Ares, the metaphor may be softened by describing it as 'the cup of Ares'. In the Greek here ἀνθ᾿ οὗ λέγει = τὸ ἀνθ᾽ οὗ λέγει τὴν μεταφοράν, 'the original term supplanted by the metaphor'; and it has to be taken as the subject of the ἐστί in πρὸς ὅ ἐστι; the clause, therefore, might have been thus given : προστιθέασιν τὸ πρὸς ὅ ἐστι τὸ ἀνθ᾽ οὗ λέγει τὴν μεταφοράν ; comp. Castelvetro's rendering (in his Basel edition), 'aggiungono la cosa a che ha riguardo quello, in iscambio di che dice'; and Tyrwhitt's, 'adjiciunt illud, ad quod relativum est id, pro quo translatum dicit.' The distinction here described, between the metaphor with a qualifying addition (positive or negative) and the metaphor without it, is recognized in Rhet. 3. 11, 1412 b 32

αἱ εἰκόνες τρόπον τινὰ μεταφοραί· ἀεὶ γὰρ ἐκ δυοῖν λέγονται, ὥσπερ ἡ ἀνάλογον μεταφορά· οἷον ἡ ἀσπίς, φαμέν, ἐστὶ φιάλη Ἄρεως καὶ τὸ τόξον φόρμιγξ ἄχορδος. οὕτω μὲν οὖν λέγουσιν οὐχ ἁπλοῦν, τὸ δ᾽ εἰπεῖν τὸ τόξον φόρμιγγα ἢ τὴν ἀσπίδα φιάλην ἁπλοῦν.

For the singular λέγει v. supra on

ἐρεῖ,

1457b18 . For the difference of number in προστιθέασιν comp. 4, 1448 b 17; 26, 1461 b 30; Eth. N. 5. 8, 1132b 34

ἢ γὰρ τὸ κακῶς ζητοῦσιν· εἰ δὲ μή, δουλεία δοκεῖ εἶναι, εἰ μὴ ἀντιποιήσει

(see Vahlen on 26, 1461 b 30, and Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2, 1 p. 87 ).

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-768

21 ἐρεῖ τοίνυν κτέ.: Rhet. 3. 4, 1407a 14( Roemer)

ἀεὶ δὲ δεῖ τὴν μεταφορὰν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ ἀνάλογον ἀνταποδιδόναι καὶ ἐπὶ θάτερα [καὶ ἐπὶ] τῶν ὁμογενῶν· οἷον εἰ ἡ φιάλη ἀσπὶς Διονύσου, καὶ τὴν ἀσπίδα ἁρμόττει λέγεσθαι φιάλην Ἄρεως.

φιάλη Ἄρεως was the bold metaphor of the dithyrambic poet Timotheus (fr. 16 Bergk = 22 Wilamowitz). The idea was doubtless suggested by the similarity of shape between a shield and the φιάλη which Dionysus sometimes had in his hand in ancient art.

b 24

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-769

ἢ ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς. The actual words of Empedocles, which Aristotle supposes us to know, are not to be found among his extant fragments; all that can be said of them is that they must have been something like γῆρας ἡμέρας but different from that in point of phraseology. The metaphor in Emped. 20. 5 Diels,

περὶ ῥηγμῖνι βίοιο

, is not sufficiently like this to be what Aristotle had in mind. This allusive way of referring to something supposed to be known to the reader is not uncommon in Aristotle; see 17, 1455 b 9 ( εἴθ᾽ ὡς Εὐριπίδης), 25, 1460 b 36 ( ἔτυχεν ὥσπερ Ξενοφάνει); comp. Metaph. Γ 5, 1010 a 5

οὕτω γὰρ ἁρμόττει μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν ἢ ὥσπερ Ἐπίχαρμος εἰς Ξενοφάνην

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-770

ἑσπέραν βίου: Alexis fr. 228 Kock

ἤδη γὰρ ὁ βίος οὐμὸς ἑσπέραν ἄγει

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-771

25 δυσμὰς βίου: Plato Laws 6, 770 A

ἐν δυσμαῖς τοῦ βίου

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-772

ὄνομα κείμενον, an existing or established name, as in Top. 6. 2, 140b 3

ἔτι εἰ μὴ κειμένοις ὀνόμασι χρῆται, οἷον Πλάτων ὀφρυόσκιον τὸν ὀφθαλμόν, ἢ τὸ φαλάγγιον σηψιδακές, ἢ τὸν μυελὸν ὀστεογενές· πᾶν γὰρ ἀσαφὲς τὸ μὴ εἰωθός

; comp. also Top. 2. 1, 109a 28

εἰσὶ διτταί [scil. καὶ ἁμαρτίαι], ἢ τῷ ψεύδεσθαι ἢ τῷ παραβαίνειν τὴν κειμένην λέξιν οἱ τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις ὀνόμασι τὰ πράγματα προσαγορεύοντες, οἷον τὴν πλάτανον ἄνθρωπον, παραβαίνουσι τὴν κειμένην ὀνομασίαν

(comp. Bon. Ind. 380b 31). Metaphor is often a way of supplying the deficiencies of ordinary language ( Meteor. 4. 3, 380 a 18, b 28 ; Rhet. 3. 2, 1405a 36 ; Quintilian 8. 6, 5, 18 ). In the present passage Aristotle reminds us that, if one of the terms in an analogy has no special name of its own, it may still be described in just the same way as in the preceding instances ( ὁμοίως λεχθήσεται), i. e. by a metaphor softened or explained by the mention of that to which the nameless thing or act is relative. Thus the sowing (B) of seed (A) on the part of the husbandman is analogous to the scattering (D) abroad of light or flame (C) on the part of the sun. This act of the sun has no special name; but we may metaphorically call it 'sowing' (B), and then qualify the metaphor by adding the term to which the act (D) itself is relative, viz. 'flame' (C), and speak of the sun as 'sowing flame' — σπείρων φλόγα (B+C) σπείρων φλόγα is a qualified metaphor on exactly the same lines as φιάλη Ἄρεως (see on b 16); the only difference is that in the one case there is an ὄνομα κείμενον for the thing meant (viz. ἀσπίς), whereas in the other such a name does not exist in actual language.

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-773

27 ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνώνυμον: for the preposition, comp. Pol. 3. 1, 1275a 30

ἀνώνυμον τὸ κοινὸν ἐπὶ δικαστοῦ καὶ ἐκκλησιαστοῦ

. Aristotle's use of ἀνώνυμος has been already considered (on 1, 1447b 9).

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-774

b 28 πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον. Aristotle, unconsciously passing from one sense of ἥλιος to another, is now using it as the prosaic equivalent for the word φλόξ in the poetical quotation in the next line, i. e. in the sense of sunshine or sunlight, the meaning ἥλιος has in Herodotus 8. 23

ἅμα ἡλίῳ σκιδναμένῳ πᾶσα ἡ στρατιὴ ἐπέπλεε ἁλὴς ἐπὶ τὸ Ἀρτεμίσιον

, and in several well-known expressions.

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-775

b 29 πρὸς τὸν καρπόν. Castelvetro's πρὸς τὸν ἀφιέντα τὸν καρπόν, which has been accepted by several editors, rests on the assumption that the analogy in Aristotle's mind was simply that between sowing (B) on the part of the husbandman (A), and the nameless act, the emission of light (D), on the part of the sun (C). In that case the epithet θεοκτίσταν in the quotation must be taken to represent the addition required to soften the metaphor.

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-776

30 διὸ εἴρηται: comp. ὅθεν πεποίηται and ὅθεν εἴρηται in 25, 1461a 28–29. Quotations similarly introduced will be found in Rhet. 2. 9, 1387a 33 , and in 2. 10, 1388a 7, 15 . That in the text was perhaps from a tragedy ( Nauck, TGF.2 p. 856).

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-777

ἔστι δὲ τῷ τρόπῳ τούτῳ κτέ.: see above on b 16. προσαγορεύσαντα τὸ ἀλλότριον, scil. ὄνομα, as in Pol. 4. 7, 1293b 39

πέμπτη δ' ἐστὶν [scil. πολιτεία] ἣ προσαγορεύεται τὸ κοινὸν ὄνομα πασῶν

. The more usual construction in Aristotle is προσαγορεύειν ὀνόματι. In saying προσαγορεύσαντα τὸ ἀλλότριον ἀποφῆσαι τῶν οἰκείων τι he seems to have fallen into a false antithesis. φιάλη, in the illustration, is ἀλλότριον in relation to the shield, and ἄοινος negatives something οἰκεῖον in relation to a cup. Words like ἄοινος come under the general designation of στερήσεις ( Bon. Ind. 699 b 42). The free use of them in the metaphors of poetry is noted in Rhet. 3. 6, 1408a 6

ὅθεν καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα οἱ ποιηταὶ φέρουσι, τὸ ἄχορδον καὶ τὸ ἄλυρον μέλος· ἐκ τῶν στερήσεων γὰρ ἐπιφέρουσιν

εὐδοκιμεῖ γὰρ τοῦτο ἐν ταῖς μεταφοραῖς λεγόμενον ταῖς ἀνάλογον, οἷον τὸ φάναι τὴν σάλπιγγα εἶναι μέλος ἄλυρον

. The instance in Rhet. 3. 11, 1413 a 1 is φόρμιγξ ἄχορδος, a way of describing a bow.

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-778

πεποιημένον. A πεποιημένον ὄνομα is a word coined by the poet for the occasion, and in this respect unlike the words hitherto considered (the κύριον ὄνομα, the γλῶττα, and the μεταφορά), which are parts of an already existing vocabulary. Such coining of new words was termed ὀνοματοποιία ( Volkmann, Rhetorik p. 425). καλούμενον: comp. 21, 1458a 6 ὀνομαζομένου.

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-779

b 34 τίθεται. For the middle comp. H. A. 7. 12, 588 a 9

διὸ καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα τότε τίθενται, ὡς πιστεύοντες ἤδη μᾶλλον τῇ σωτηρίᾳ

. — Rhet. 3. 13, 1414 b 15 :

δεῖ δὲ εἰδός τι λέγοντα καὶ διαφορὰν ὄνομα τίθεσθαι

δοκεῖ γὰρ ἔνια εἶναι τοιαῦτα

is a parenthesis giving a reason for the instances that come after it; comp. 25, 1460b 24, and the note on Eth. N. 5. 1, 1129 a 29 in my Textual Criticism of the Nic. Ethics p. 43; also Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2 p. 853.

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-780

35 ἐρνύγας, scil. καλεῖ or λέγει, to be understood from τίθεται in the preceding line; comp. Top. 6. 2, 140 a 3 (quoted on b 25), Rhet. 3. 3, 1406 a 7 (quoted on b 4), and Eth. N. 6. 7, 1141 a 9

τὴν δὲ σοφίαν ἔν τε ταῖς τέχναις τοῖς ἀκριβεστάτοις τὰς τέχνας ἀποδί- δομεν, οἷον Φειδίαν λιθουργὸν σοφὸν καὶ Πολύκλειτον ἀνδριαντοποιόν [scil. λέγομεν]

. We do not know where Aristotle found the word, and there is no evidence for the form of the nom. sing.; the correction of Victorius, ἔρνυγας, assumes it to have been ἔρνυξ, like ἄντυξ; but it is just as likely that it was ἐρνύγη. An explanation of the word survives in Hesychius:

ἔρνυτας [sic] ἔρνη. βλαστήματα, κλάδοι

. The form in Hesychius, with a τ instead of a γ, has been defended by Meineke as the acc. pl. of a Cretan word ἔρους (= ἔρνος) supposed to be implied in Ἐπιρνύτιος, a Cretan name for Zeus according to Hesychius s. v. (see note in M. Schmidt's ed.). Aristotle's view of it, however, is that it is a coined word, not a γλῶττα as a Cretan word would be; it is to be remembered too that he shows himself elsewhere (25, 1461a 14) not wholly unfamiliar with the Cretan dialect.

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-781

ἀρητῆρα. The reference is no doubt to the use of the word in Il. 1. 11

οὕνεκα τὸν Χρύσην ἠτίμασεν ἀρητῆρα

. Hesychius has the same explanation:

ἀρητῆρα· ἱερέα

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-782

ἐπεκτεταμένον κτέ. The three kinds of word remaining for consideration are abnormal only in form. As they are substantially the same as the usual words, they are said to be intelligible to all (22, 1458b 4), i. e. they do not require explanation as a γλῶττα might do. The ἐπεκτεταμένον ὄνομα is the ordinary word lengthened out in one or other of two ways, either through the lengthening of a syllable normally short, or through the insertion of an extra syllable. Aristotle's standard being Attic, he regards πόληος for instance as a lengthened form of πόλεως. ἐπεκτείνειν has this same sense in Metaph. Δ 4, 1014 b 17

εἴ τις ἐπεκτείνας λέγοι τὸ υ (in the word φύσις)

4 1458 a 4 Πηλείδου. The reading of A c, Πηλέος, is retained by Vahlen, who marks a lacuna after the word. M. Schmidt fills up the assumed gap by the following restoration: τὸ Πηλέος (Πηλῆος καὶ τὸ Πηλείδου) Πηληιάδεω. It is quite as easy, however, to suppose Πηλέος to have got in by assimilation to the preceding πόλεως (or πόλεος, as it is in A c); and it must be admitted that a second instance of this sort of lengthening is hardly wanted. As regards Πηληιάδεω for Πηλείδου, Aristotle's view apparently is that the -ā- in it is epenthetic, συλλαβὴ ἐμβεβλημένη (v. on 20, 1456b 34). Its other deviations from the normal word ( -ηι = -ει-, and -εω = -ου) would be, according to ancient theory, instances of διαίρεσις, 'resolution', with a lengthening of vowels in the resolved diphthongs.

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-783

ἀφῃρημένον. As the ἀφῃρημένον is the opposite of the ἐπεκτεταμένον ὄνομα (v. supra 1), we may take the term to include (1) a word with a shortened vowel, and (2) a word shortened by the omission of a syllable, whether in the beginning, middle, or end of it, i. e. a word which in the terminology of the grammarians has suffered ἀφαίρεσις, συγκοπή, or ἀποκοπή. Aristotle's examples, however, κρῖ, δῶ, [blank], are all instances of ἀποκοπή — the term he himself uses with reference to this class of words in 22, 1458 b 2; comp. Strabo's (364 Cas.) explanation of Μέσση in Il. 2. 582 :

ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ κατ᾿ ἀποκοπὴν δέχονται τὴν Μεσσήνην· παραδείγμασι δὲ χρῶνται τοῦ μὲν ποιητοῦ τῷ κρῖ καὶ δῶ καὶ μάψ, καὶ ἔτι ‘ἥρως δ᾽ Αὐτομέδων τε καὶ Ἀλκιμος’ ἀντὶ τοῦ Ἀλκιμέδων . . παρ᾿ Ἐμπεδοκλεῖ δὲ ‘μία γίνεται ἀμφοτέρων ὄψ’, ἡ ὄψις

. It is clear that Aristotle's ἀφῃρημένον ὄνομα covers a wider ground than the ἀφαίρεσις of the grammarians, and that it must include their ἀποκοπή and συγκοπή. In the preliminary statement in 21, 1457b 2 the shortened word is termed the ὑφῃρημένον, not the ἀφῃρημένον ὄνομα. In the interests of uniformity—which one can hardly suppose Aristotle to have ignored in a matter so technical as this—one must either read ἀφῃρημένον in 21, 1457 b 2 (with Spengel), or restore ὑφῃρημένον throughout the present section. Some of the grammarians seem to have used ὑφαίρεσις (v. HSt. s. v.) for the dropping of a letter in the middle of a word.

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-784

5 μία γίνεται ἀμφοτέρων ὄψ: Empedocles fr. 88 Diels. The reading of the MS. οησ (see on 18, 1456a) must represent ὄψις, a gloss on ὄψ (comp. Strabo 364, quoted above on 4).

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-785

ἐξηλλαγμένον. The 'changed' word is in regard to some one part of it the invention of the poet. To that extent, therefore, it has a certain affinity with the 'coined' word, the πεποιημένον ὄνομα (21, 1457 b 33).

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-786

7 δεξιτερὸν κατὰ μαζόν: Il. 5. 393 (comp. Plutarch Qu. conv. 5. 4, p. 677 D, and Athenaeus 423 ).

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-787

αὐτῶν δὲ τῶν ὀνομάτων κτέ. Up to this point names have been viewed in reference to their origin, sense, or form. Apart from these aspects, however, they may also be classified according to their gender, and distinguished as masculine, feminine, and neuter. This classification of names according to gender will be seen to be founded on the terminations of the nominatives in Attic. The primary distinction between masculine and feminine terminations seems to have been generalized from the names of objects in which there is a visible distinction of sex, and more especially from the names of men and women (comp. Aristoph. Nub. 682 ). Thus nouns ending in the consonants Ν, Ρ, Σ, Ψ, Ξ are regarded as normally masculine, because names like Δίων, Νέστωρ, Πάρις, Πέλοψ, Κόραξ, are names of males; those ending in the vowels Η, Ω, and Α (long or short) are normally feminine, because Ἑλένη, Κλειώ, Ἥρα, Μοῦσα are names of females. The names of sexless things (the neuters, as we call them) Aristotle terms τὰ μεταξύ, because as a class these words occupy an ambiguous position, their final letters being sometimes those of the masculines and sometimes those of the feminines. Thus δένδρον, ἦτορ, τεῖχος, as ending in the consonants Ν, Ρ, Σ, have what Aristotle regards as masculine terminations; whereas κάρα, τέρμα, etc., have feminine ones; the other neuters also, μέλι, γόνυ, etc., as ending in vowels, show a certain affinity with the feminines. This seems to be the rationale of the present scheme of genders; and it is in essentials the same as that of the grammarians, though theirs no doubt is both fuller and more systematic, and leaves fewer facts to be treated as anomalies or exceptions (comp. Dionysius Thrax p. 15 Uhlig). Aristotle's classification is based on that of Protagoras, who distinguished nouns into masculine, feminine, and σκεύη ( Rhet. 3. 5, 1407b 7

Πρωταγόρας τὰ γένη τῶν ὀνομάτων διήρει, ἄρρενα καὶ θήλεα καὶ σκεύη

) — the last of the three terms meaning with him not 'things' but 'names of things', as it does also in Aristotle, in Soph. el. 14, 173b 39

καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν θηλέων ὀνομάτων ὡσαύτως, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λεγομένων μὲν σκευῶν ἐχόντων δὲ θηλείας ἢ ἄρρενος κλῆσιν

. In Soph. el. 14, 173b 19 we are told that Protagoras said it was a solecism to make μῆνις and πήληξ feminine, evidently because he thought and E to be normally masculine terminations, just as Aristotle does. Aristophanes, Nub. 658, ridicules this new ὀρθοέπεια of Protagoras in the matter of gender. Stilpo is said to have disputed the propriety of speaking of Athene as a θεός:

μὴ γὰρ εἶναι αὐτὴν θεὸν ἀλλὰ θεάν· θεοὺς δὲ εἶναι τοὺς ἄρρενας

( Diog. Laert. 2. 116 ).

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-788

9 ὅσα τελευτᾷ εἰς τὸ Ν καὶ Ρ καὶ Σ. This may seem an overstatement, as there are neuters which have these endings (see 17). The explanation is to be found in Aristotle's view of the neuters; he does not conceive them as having terminations peculiar to themselves, but as holding an intermediate position between the two main classes, some of them having a masculine and others a feminine termination.

1458a11

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-789

ἐκ τῶν φωνήεντων is equivalent to a partitive genitive (comp. 1458 a 11 ; Pol. 5. 1, 1302 a 4 ; Rhet. 1. 9, 1367 b 36 ; 10, 1369 b 7 ). Van Cleef, Index Antiphonteus p. 58, has noted several instances of this use of ex in Antiphon.

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-790

12 τῶν ἐπεκτεινομένων εἰς Α , 'in Α among the vowels capable of being lengthened'. The remaining dichronous vowels (see on 20, 1456 b 32 ), Ι and Υ, are said a little further on to be found in the terminations of neuters ( a 15 ).

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-791

ἴσα... πλήθη. πλήθη is 'numbers', as the plural of πλῆθος, numerus or summa. It is hardly necessary, therefore, to restore πλήθει from certain of the apographs.

25. mvp-aristotle-comment-792

οὐδὲ εἰς φωνῆεν βραχύ. It is to be remembered that there is no Greek noun ending in Ε or Ο. A neuter pronoun, like τοῦτο τοιοῦτο (comp. Herodian 2 p. 764 Lentz), would be in Aristotle's classification (see on 20, 1457 b 18 ) not an ὄνομα proper but a πτῶσις ὀνόματος.

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-793

τρία. No mention is made here of κίκι, which Plato had used in Tim. 60 A . This and sundry other words of the same order (see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 288) may perhaps have been in Aristotle's view not sufficiently naturalized to require recognition.

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-794

16 πέντε. The old editions (with some few of the apographs) explain this by adding τὸ πῶν τὸ νᾶπυ τὸ γόνυ τὸ δόρυ τὸ ἄστυ after πέντε. The nouns ending in Υ are certainly more than five in number (comp. Herodian 1 p. 354 Lentz). We may perhaps suppose Aristotle to have arrived at this number by ignoring words like γλάφυ, δάκρυ, μέθυ, μῶλυ φῖτυ as antiquated, and taking account only of those which formed part of the existing Attic vocabulary.

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-795

τὰ δὲ μεταξύ: see above on 8. Our word 'neuters', which represents the οὐδέτερα of the grammarians, points to the difference between the neuters and the masculines and feminines; Aristotle's τὰ μεταξύ to their resemblance; they are said to occupy an intermediate position, because in their terminations some of them resemble the masculine and others the feminine nouns; they have in fact no distinctive terminations of their own.

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-796

εἰς ταῦτα καὶ Ν καὶ Ρ καὶ Σ. The text, as thus amended, acknowledges the neuters ending in Ρ ( ὕδωρ, ἧπαρ, etc.); but it apparently says nothing of those ending in Α ( κῦμα, ποίημα, κάρα, etc.). It has been proposed accordingly to insert καὶ Α after ταῦτα, so as to complete the list of neuter endings (comp. Herodian 2 p. 646 Lentz

τελικὰ οὐδετέρων ὀνομάτων ἔξ, ᾶ, ι, ν, ρ, υ, ς

). It is just possible to keep to the traditional text here, by supposing that in a statement so loosely drafted as this ταῦτα was meant to recall not only the two vowels ( Ι and Υ) just considered, but also Α, which has been described in the preceding context ( a 12 ) as one of the ἐπεκτεινόμενα or dichronous vowels. In that case ταῦτα will stand allusively for τὰ ἐπεκτεινόμενα, and include Α as well as Ι and Υ.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-797

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-798

18 λέξεως: 6, 1450 b 13

λέγω δὲ ... λέξιν εἶναι τὴν διὰ τῆς ὀνομασίας ἑρμηνείαν

. In this chapter Aristotle does not deal with style in general, but only with the portion of it which relates to the choice of words, the ἐκλογὴ ὀνομάτων of the grammarians; his aim is to describe the poetic vocabulary, and determine the limits to the use of exceptional words and expressions in poetry. This chapter is referred to in Rhet. 3. 1, 1404 a 28 , where the language of oratory is contrasted with that of poetry :

ἑτέρα λόγου καὶ ποιήσεως λέξις ἐστίν

δηλοῖ δὲ τὸ συμβαῖνον· οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ τὰς τραγῳδίας ποιοῦντες ἔτι χρῶνται τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ καὶ ἐκ τῶν τετραμέτρων εἰς τὸ ἰαμβεῖον μετέβησαν διὰ τὸ τῷ λόγῳ τοῦτο τῶν μέτρων ὁμοιότατον εἶναι τῶν ἄλλων, οὕτω καὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἀφείκασιν ὅσα παρὰ τὴν διάλεκτόν ἐστιν, οἷς δ᾽ οἱ πρῶτον ἐκόσμουν, καὶ ἔτι νῦν οἱ τὰ ἑξάμετρα ποιοῦντες, ἀφείκασιν· διὸ γελοῖον μιμεῖσθαι τούτους οἱ αὐτοὶ οὐκέτι χρῶνται ἐκείνῳ τῷ τρόπῳ

ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι οὐχ ἅπαντα ὅσα περὶ λέξεως ἔστιν εἰπεῖν, ἀκριβολογητέον ἡμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα περὶ τοιαύτης οἷας λέγομεν

περὶ δ᾽ ἐκείνης εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιητικῆς

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-799

a 20 λέξεως ἀρετὴ κτέ.: Rhet. 3. 2, 1404 b 1

ὡρίσθω λέξεως ἀρετὴ σαφῆ εἶναι (σημεῖον γὰρ ὅτι ὁ λόγος, ἐὰν μὴ δηλοῖ, οὐ ποιήσει τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ἔργον), καὶ μήτε ταπεινὴν μήτε ὑπὲρ τὸ ἀξίωμα ἀλλὰ πρέπουσαν· ἡ γὰρ ποιητικὴ ἴσως οὐ ταπεινή, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πρέπουσα λόγῳ

τῶν δ᾽ ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων σαφὴ μὲν ποιεῖ τὰ κύρια, μὴ ταπεινὴν δὲ ἀλλὰ κεκοσμημένην τάλλα ὀνόματα ὅσα εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιητικῆς· τὸ γὰρ ἐξαλλάξαι ποιεῖ φαίνεσθαι σεμνοτέραν

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-800

ταπεινή. For ταπεινή as the opposite of σεμνή ( a 21 ) comp. Rhet. 3. 2, 1404 b 3, 8 , Isocrates 35 c , and the antithesis between τὸ ταπεινόν and τὸ μεγαλοπρεπές in Rhet. ad Alex. 3, 1423 a 31 . Dionysius Hal. 5 p. 15 R. finds an instance of meanness of diction even in Homer, in the language in Od. 16. 1-16 :

διὰ γὰρ τῶν εὐτελεστάτων τε καὶ ταπεινοτάτων ὀνομάτων πέπλεκται πᾶσα ἡ λέξις, οἷς ἂν καὶ γεωργὸς καὶ θαλαττουργὸς καὶ χειροτέχνης καὶ πᾶς ὁ μηδεμίαν ὥραν τοῦ λέγειν εὖ ποιούμενος ἐξ ἑτοίμου λαβὼν ἐχρήσατο. λυθέντος γοῦν τοῦ μέτρου φαῦλα φανήσεται τὰ αὐτὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἄζηλα οὔτε γὰρ μεταφοραί τινες ἐν αὐτοῖς εὐγενεῖς ἔνεισιν οὔτε ὑπαλλαγαὶ

οὔτε καταχρήσεις οὔτε ἄλλη τροπικὴ διάλεκτος οὐδεμία, οὐδὲ δὴ γλῶτται πολλαί τινες οὐδὲ ξένα ἢ πεποιημένα ὀνόματα

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-801

Κλεοφῶντος: see on 2, 1448 a 12 .

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-802

21 Σθενέλου. This Sthenelus is presumably the tragic poet mentioned more than once by Aristophanes ( Vesp. 1313 and fr. 151 Kock ). It is doubtful whether a single line of his has come down to us ( Nauck, TGF. p. 762).

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-803

ἐξαλλάττουσα τὸ ἰδιωτικὸν: Rhet. 3. 3, 1406 a 15

ἐξαλλάττει γὰρ τὸ εἰωθός [scil. τὰ ἐπίθετα], καὶ ξενικὴν ποιεῖ τὴν λέξιν

. It will be observed that Aristotle is now using ἐξαλλάττειν in a large sense, to denote all possible deviations from the ordinary forms of expression ( πᾶν τὸ παρὰ τὸ κύριον, a 23 ), instead of restricting it to the kind of deviation presented in the ἐξηλλαγμένον ὄνομα ( 21, 1458 a 6 ). τὸ ἰδιωτικόν = τὸ εἰωθός or τὸ κύριον; but the point of view is not quite the same. τὸ ἰδιωτικόν is the language of the ordinary man, the prosaic as opposed to the poetic mode of expression; the antithesis of ἰδιώτης and ποιητής is already in Plato ( Phaedr. 258 D , Symp. 178 B , Laws 890 A ). Isocrates 203 D has ἰδιωτικὰ ὀνόματα, but in a different sense.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-804

22 ξενικοῖς. In Plato (e. g. in Crat. 401 B, 417 C ) a ξενικὸν ὄνομα is a non-Attic word or form, what Aristotle calls a γλώττα (see on 21, 1457 b 4 ); Isocrates 190 D (quoted above on 21, 1457 b 1 ) uses ξένα ὀνόματα in the same sense. Aristotle's ξενικὰ ὀνόματα, however, is a wider term; it comprises all the various deviations from the usual form of expression ( πᾶν τὸ παρὰ τὸ κύριον a 23 )—the μεταφορά, the ἐπεκτεταμένον ὄνομα, etc., as well as the γλώττα. In the Rhetoric also τὸ ξενικόν is the general opposite of τὸ εἰωθός : Rhet. 3. 3, 1406 a 15

ἐξαλλάττει τὸ εἰωθός, καὶ ξενικὴν ποιεῖ τὴν λέξιν

.— 3. 12, 1414 a 26

τὸ εἰωθὸς καὶ ξενικόν

. The attraction such unfamiliar words have for us is explained in Rhet. 3. 2, 1404 b 8 :

τὸ ἐξαλλάξαι ποιεῖ φαίνεσθαι σεμνοτέραν [scil. τὴν λέξιν]· ὥσπερ γὰρ πρὸς τοὺς ξένους οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς πολίτας, τὸ αὐτὸ πάσχουσι καὶ πρὸς τὴν λέξιν. διὸ δεῖ ποιεῖν ξένην τὴν διάλεκτον· θαυμασταὶ γὰρ τῶν ἀπόντων εἰσίν, ἡδὺ δὲ τὸ θαυμαστόν

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-805

ἅπαντα τοιαῦτα is an exaggeration, like ἁπάντων in 1, 1447 b 22 . All that Aristotle really means is that too much metaphor, or an undue proportion of strange words makes the sentence an enigma or a 'barbarism'. τοιαῦτα = ξενικά, or ἐκ ξενικῶν. This passage is quoted in a fragment attributed to Longinus ( Rhet. Gr. 1, 325 Spengel ):

ὅτι ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης τοὺς πάντα μεταφέροντας αἰνίγματα γράφειν ἔλεγεν

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-806

1458a25 μὲν οὖν ‘saepe usurpatur ubi notio modo pronunciata amplius explicatur’, Bon. Ind. 540 b 42 ; comp. 14, 1453b 32 and Vahlen’s note on the present passage.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-807

αἴνιγμα. The puzzle in a riddle Aristotle explains, as arising from the presence of metaphors, i. e. of words used in a transferred sense. The element of metaphors in riddles is noted again in Rhet. 3. 2, 1405b 4

καὶ ὅλως ἐκ τῶν εὖ ᾐνιγμένων ἔστι μεταφορὰς λαβεῖν ἐπιεικεῖς (μεταφοραὶ γάρ αἰνίττονται), ὥστε δῆλον [δηλοῦν] ὅτι εὖ μετενήνεκται

.— 3. 11, 1412a 24

καὶ τὰ εὖ ᾐνιγμένα διὰ τὸ αὐτὸ ἡδέα· μάθησις γάρ· καὶ λέγεται μεταφορά [μεταφορᾷ].

Quintilian also (8. 6, 14) speaks of the riddle-like effect of too much metaphor:

Ut modicus autem atque opportunus eius usus illustrat orationem, ita frequens et obscurat et taedio complet, continuus vero in allegorias et aenigmata exit.

26 τε γάρ is practically no more than γάρ in this and many other Aristotelian passages (comp. Bon. Ind. 750b 5 , and Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 2 p. 244 ).

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-808

ἰδέα: equivalent here to οὐσία (see Waitz, Org. 2 p. 406 ).

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-809

a 28 τῶν ὀνομάτων. ὄνομα has been used before this as a generic term including the metaphor, etc., as well as what Aristotle calls the κύριον ὄνομα (see 21, 1457b 1 ). When opposed, however, to the metaphor, as in the present passage, it may easily mean the name (as we say) for the thing, i. e. its proper name, its κύριον ὄνομα. It recurs in this more specific sense in 22, 1458 b 2 and b 16 . It is not so absolutely necessary, therefore, to adopt the emendation of Heinsius, τῶν (κυρίων) ὀνομάτων, or the reading which the Arabic Version is believed to imply, τῶν (ἄλλων) ὀνομάτων. For other instances of the same use of general terms in a restricted sense see on 1, 1447a 29 (ἢ τοῖς μέτροις) .

a 29

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-810

κατὰ δὲ τὴν μεταφορῶν, scil. σύνθεσιν. The correction μεταφορῶν seems to be required not only by the form of the antithesis, κατὰ τὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων σύνθεσιν, in the preceding line, but also by the meaning. It is the combination of metaphors that produces the sense of impossibility (comp. ἀδύνατα συνάψαι a 27) which is of the essence of an αἴνιγμα.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-811

ἄνδρ᾽ εἶδον κτέ.: a line traditionally ascribed to Cleobulina, fr. 1 Bergk. The riddle is partially explained in Rhet. 3. 2, 1405b 35

οὐ πόρρωθεν δεῖ ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῶν συγγενῶν καὶ τῶν ὁμοειδῶν μεταφέρειν τὰ ἀνώνυμα [(ἐπὶ) τὰ ἀνώνυμα?] ὠνομασμένως, ὃ λεχθὲν δῆλόν ἐστιν ὅτι συγγενές, οἷον ἐν τῷ αἰνίγματι τῷ εὐδοκιμοῦντι “ἄνδρ᾽ εἶδον πυρὶ χαλκὸν ἐπ᾿ ἀνέρι κολλήσαντα”.

ἀνώνυμον γὰρ τὸ πάθος, ἔστι δ᾽ ἄμφω πρόσθεσις τις· κόλλησιν τοίνυν εἶπε τὴν τῆς σικύας προσβολήν.

1458 a 29 χαλκός, as a name for what we conventionally call a 'cupping-glass', is a metaphor derived from the material of which the instrument was often made in antiquity. Celsus 2. 11 has a description of the brazen cupping-glass and its mode of action:

Aenea [scil. cucurbitula] altera parte patet, altera clausa est... in aeneam linamentum ardens conicitur, ac sic os eius corpori aptatur imprimiturque donec inhaereat... ubi inhaesit, si concisa ante scalpello cutis est, sanguinem extrahit; si integra est, spiritum

(comp. Aristot. Probl. 9. 9-12, 890a 7-37 ; Mayor on Juv. 14. 58 ; and the monograph of K. P. I. Lampros, Περὶ σικυῶν καὶ σικυάσεως, Athens 1895).

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-812

κολλήσαντα: a metaphor ἀπ᾿ εἴδους ἐπὶ εἶδος (see 21, 1457b 13 ). For the tense of the participle see Goodwin, Syntax of Greek Moods and Tenses § 148 .

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-813

ἐκ τῶν γλωττῶν βαρβαρισμός: a mere repetition of the ἐὰν δὲ ἐκ γλωττῶν βαρβαρισμός in a 25, and brought in also without syntactical connexion with the context. The words may be the residue of a longer statement now lost, or a stop-gap to disguise a lacuna, or a rough note by Aristotle himself to indicate a point to be worked out at length at some future time.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-814

βαρβαρισμός is the opposite of ἑλληνισμός. ἑλληνίζειν in Aristotle (v. Bon. Ind. 238b 53 ) means to speak Greek like a native, i. e. correctly, and βαρβαρίζειν to speak it like a foreigner, whether through the use of 'strange words' ( γλῶτται), or through that of strange or unauthorized forms of words. That βαρβαρίζειν had this wide sense is clear from the explanation of σολοικίζειν ('to speak incorrectly') in Soph. el. 3, 165b 20

τέταρτον δὲ σολοικίζειν ποιεῖν, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ ποιῆσαι τῇ λέξει βαρβαρίζειν, ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τὸν ἀποκρινόμενον

(comp. Bon. Ind. 688b 54 ). In later theory, however, 'barbarism' denotes more especially a faulty use of particular words, and 'solecism' a fault of construction or syntax: Sextus Emp. Adv. math. 1. 210

βαρβαρισμός ἐστι παράπτωσις ἐν ἁπλῇ λέξει παρὰ τὴν κοινὴν συνήθειαν, καὶ σολοικισμός ἐστι παράπτωσις ἀσυνήθης κατὰ τὴν ὅλην σύνταξιν καὶ ἀνακόλουθος

(v. Volkmann, Rhetorik p. 396 ). Quintilian (1. 5, 8) distinguishes three senses of 'barbarismus' in Latin:

Barbarismum pluribus modis accipimus: unum gente [? genus], quale fit si quis Afrum vel Hispanum latinae orationi nomen inserat alterum genus barbarismi accipimus quod fit animi natura... tertium est illud vitium barbarismi cuius exempla vulgo sunt plurima, sibi etiam ... quisque fingere potest, ut verbo cui libebit adiciat litteram syllabamve vel detrahat, aut etiam aliam pro alia aut eandem alio quam rectum est loco ponat.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-815

δεῖ ἄρα κεκρᾶσθαί πως τούτοις, scil. τὴν λέξιν; the language of poetry should have some admixture of unusual words or forms in it. Similarly in the Rhetoric a certain combination of familiar and unfamiliar words is said to be an element of pleasure in a speech: Rhet. 3. 12, 1414a 25

καὶ τὸ ἡδεῖαν [scil. τὴν λέξιν εἶναι] τὰ εἰρημένα ποιήσει ἂν εὖ μειχθῇ τὸ εἰωθὸς καὶ ξενικόν.

In the text τούτοις refers back to the ξενικά in a 22; all from ἀλλ᾽ ἄν τις in a 23 to βαρβαρισμός in a 31 is digression. For the qualifying πως in this connexion comp. Probl. 30. 1, 954a 27

ἐὰν δέ πως κραθῶσι

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-816

τὸ μὲν γὰρ μὴ ἰδιωτικὸν ποιήσει, scil. ταῦτα, i. e. τὰ ξενικά. The οἷον prefixed to the list of ξενικά which follows is the appositional and explanatory οἷον, nempe or scilicet (comp. Bon. Ind. 502a 7 ). There is a reference to this place in Rhet. 3. 2, 1404b 5 :

τῶν δ᾽ ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων σαφῆ μὲν ποιεῖ τὰ κύρια, μὴ ταπεινὴν δὲ ἀλλὰ κεκοσμημένην τάλλα ὀνόματα ὅσα εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιητικῆς.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-817

34 εἴδη, scil. ὀνομάτων.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-818

οὐκ ἐλάχιστον δὲ μέρος συμβάλλεται: Isocrates 156 B

οὐ γὰρ ἐλάχιστον μέρος τὰ γένη ταῦτα συμβάλλεται πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν.

— Hippocrates 1 p. 525 K.

οὐκ ἐλάχιστον μέρος συμβάλλεται ἀστρονομίη ἐς ἰητρικήν.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-819

συμβάλλεται. The singular verb may be explained by supposing the real subject to be τὰ ἐπεκτεταμένα καὶ ἀποκεκομμένα καὶ ἐξηλλαγμένα ὀνόματα rather than the various processes they exemplify. Other instances of a singular verb with several subjects in the plural will be found in Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 1 p. 81 . The anomaly in the present instance is not so harsh as it might have been, as the verb precedes its subjects, and is also at some distance from them: it may be illustrated also by the common use of ἔστι, ἦν, and γίγνεται followed by a plural subject (see Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 1 p. 68 ). Vahlen quotes a similar construction with δοκεῖ in H. A. 4. 9, 536a 17

δοκεῖ δὲ . . . ὥσπερ λύχνοι φαίνεσθαι οἱ ὀφθαλμοί.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-820

35 ὥστε οὐκ ὀρθῶς ψέγουσιν κτέ. In this long digression, which extends to ἐκεῖνος δὲ τοῦτο ἠγνόει in 1459a 4, Aristotle insists on the literary value and effect of the various poetical forms of expression, and defends their use by the poets. He first answers the critics of the epic (b 7–31), and then those of the tragic diction (b 31–1459a 4).

b 7

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-821

τὸν ποιητήν, the poet, whoever he may be. It is evident, however, that Aristotle is mainly concerned with Homer (comp. Bon. Ind. 609b 57 ); the licences he considers are all epic licences; and the instances quoted in b 9–10 were presumably meant to caricature the Homeric hexameter. It was generally admitted that Homer was ready enough metri gratia to take great liberties with language (see Ludwich, Aristarchs Homerische Textkritik 2 p. 127 ; Schulze, Qu. epicae p. 3 ). Throughout this chapter Aristotle is thinking quite as much of the epic poet as of the tragedian, though his theory of the Epic is still to come (in 23–24).

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-822

Εὐκλείδης ὁ ἀρχαῖος. Nothing further is known of him. As a surmise, which must be taken for what it is worth, I would suggest that he may possibly be the Euclid who was Archon in the year 403, when the reformed alphabet was officially adopted at Athens. At that moment considerable attention seems to have been devoted to questions of phonetics (see on 20, 1456 b 31 ); and the anomalies and licences of Homeric metre may very well have been one of the facts to which the reforming party pointed in proof of the need of a fuller alphabet.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-823

ὡς ῥᾳδιον ποιεῖν = ὡς ῥᾳδιον ὂν ποιεῖν. For the omission of ὄν see Goodwin, Syntax of Greek Moods and Tenses § 75. 1 .

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-824

b 8 ἐκτείνειν. From the definition of the ἐπεκτεταμένον ὄνομα in 21, 1457b 35 it is clear that Aristotle is referring not only to the lengthening of a short vowel but also to the insertion of an extra syllable in a word.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-825

b 9 ἰαμβοποιήσας ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ λέξει. The sense of these words and their connexion with the lines which follow have been a difficulty with the interpreters from the days of Victorius, who gives up the passage in despair. Goulston renders them by 'qui etiam in ipsa oratione soluta iambica confecit'; Tyrwhitt by 'in ipsa oratione soluta cavillo facto'; M. Schmidt by 'ihr Verfahren in seinem eignen Ausdruck persiflirte'; Ueberweg by 'er legt den Spott in die Redeform selbst (durch Sylbenverlängerung) hinein'. Vahlen’s interpretation (which is practically the same as Tyrwhitt’s) is 'iambum sive carmen probrosum et cavillatorium faciens mero sermone pedestri (in purer prosa)'. It is not so easy to see how ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ λέξει can mean the same thing as ἐν ψιλῇ λέξει; nor is ἰαμβοποιήσας quite the same thing as ἴαμβον ποιήσας. Perhaps the simplest solution of the difficulty is to transpose ἰαμβοποιήσας, placing it after ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ λέξει, and then take the two lines of parody which follow as its object. ἰαμβοποιεῖν τι may very well mean to 'write, or say, something as an ἰαμβοποιός (i. e. as a caricaturist), just in the same way as δραματοποιεῖν τι means to 'describe as a δραματοποιός (48 b 37), and λογοποιεῖν τι to describe as a λογοποιός.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-826

Ἐπιχάρην κτέ. This and the next quotation are given as specimens of prose which by a liberal use of epic licences may be made to read as verse. By the artifice of lengthening two short syllables Ἐπιχάρην εἶδον κτέ. becomes an hexameter—the lengthening required with Ἐπιχάρην being like that in ἐπίτονος in Od. 12. 423.

βαδίζειν

, it may be observed, is not an epic word. How the second instance was to be read as a verse is not equally clear, the text here being obviously corrupt. If we may suppose ἐλλέβορον to be a scribal error for ἐλλεβόρου, the parodist may have proposed to read this as ἐλλεβόροιο.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-827

Μαραθῶνάδε. The accentuation in A c ( Μαραθῶνα δὲ) is in accordance with the rule of Apollonius and Herodian ( La Roche, Homerische Textkritik p. 221 ).

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-828

φαίνεσθαί πως χρώμενον: De gen. et corr. 1. 10, 328b 10

φαίνεται γάρ πως καὶ μικτὰ ἠρέμα

. A visible use of these artifices is one thing and a discreet use of them ( τὸ μέτριον, b 12) another. For the antithesis comp. Pol. 5. 11, 1314a 28

περί τε τὰς ἀπολαύσεις τὰς σωματικὰς [scil. δεῖ] τοὐναντίον ποιεῖν ἢ νῦν τινὲς τῶν τυράννων ποιοῦσιν· οὐ γὰρ μόνον εὐθὺς ἕωθεν τοῦτο δρῶσιν καὶ συνεχῶς πολλὰς ἡμέρας, ἀλλὰ καὶ φαίνεσθαι τοῖς ἄλλοις βούλονται τοῦτο πράττοντες, ἵν᾿ ὡς εὐδαίμονας καὶ μακαρίους θαυμάσωσιν· ἀλλὰ μάλιστα μὲν μετριάζειν τοῖς τοιούτοις, εἰ δὲ μή, τό γε φαίνεσθαι τοῖς ἄλλοις διαφεύγειν.

In the Rhetoric Aristotle lays down the same rule for oratory: the orator must use all the arts of language, but with discretion, so as not to allow his use of them to become too apparent: Rhet. 3. 2, 1404b 18

διὸ δεῖ λανθάνειν ποιοῦντας, καὶ μὴ δοκεῖν λέγειν πεπλασμένως ἀλλὰ πεφυκότως

(comp. also 3. 7, 1408b 4 ).

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-829

τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ, scil. τῆς διαλέκτου; comp. οἱ ἐπιτιμῶντες τῷ τοιούτῳ τρόπῳ τῆς διαλέκτου in b 6, and τῷ τρόπῳ τούτῳ τῆς μεταφορᾶς χρῆσθαι in 21, 1457 b 30 . Vahlen, who supplies ἐπεκτάσεσι after χρώμενον, takes τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ as equivalent to τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον.

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-830

12 τὸ δὲ μέτριον. If the traditional reading, τὸ δὲ μέτρον, be retained, we have to understand μέτρον in the sense of 'measure' or 'limit'. The objection to this interpretation is that μέτρον has the sense of 'metre' in the immediate context (b 16), and that any other sense would be somewhat confusing in a passage dealing with 'metrical' licences. τὸ μέτριον, on the other hand, is certified by more than one parallel in the Rhetoric: Rhet. 3. 2, 1405a 32

εὐλαβεῖσθαι δὲ δεῖ καὶ παρατηρεῖν ἐν ἀμφοῖν τὸ μέτριον.

— 3. 3, 1406a 16

ἀλλὰ δεῖ στοχάζεσθαι τοῦ μετρίου, ἐπεὶ μεῖζον ποιεῖ κακὸν τοῦ εἰκῇ λέγειν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἔχει τὸ εὖ, ἡ δὲ τὸ κακῶς, διὸ τὰ Ἀλκιδάμαντος ψυχρὰ φαίνεται· οὐ γὰρ ἡδύσματι χρῆται ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐδέσματι τοῖς ἐπιθέτοις, οὕτω πυκνοῖς καὶ μείζοσι καὶ ἐπιδήλοις.

In another passage, Rhet. 2. 14, 1390b 8

ὅσα δ᾽ ὑπερβάλλουσιν ἢ ἐλλειπουσι, τούτων τὸ μέτριον καὶ τὸ ἁρμόττον

, we find Aristotle passing from the idea of τὸ μέτριον to that of τὸ ἁρμόττον just as he does here in the context (b 15).

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-831

κοινὸν ἁπάντων ἐστὶ τῶν μερῶν: Rhet. 3. 7, 1408a 36

τὸ δ᾽ εὐκαίρως ἢ μὴ εὐκαίρως χρῆσθαι κοινὸν ἁπάντων τῶν εἰδῶν ἐστιν.

b 14

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-832

ἀπρεπῶς. In the Rhetoric an unsuitable metaphor is said to be one of the faults which make the style of an orator 'frigid': Rhet. 3. 3, 1406b 5

τὸ ψυχρὸν ἐν ταῖς μεταφοραῖς γίνεται· εἰσὶ γὰρ καὶ μεταφοραὶ ἀπρεπεῖς αἱ μὲν διὰ τὸ γελοῖον (χρῶνται γὰρ καὶ οἱ κωμῳδοποιοὶ μεταφοραῖς) αἱ δὲ διὰ τὸ σεμνὸν ἄγαν καὶ τραγικόν.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-833

ἐπίτηδες ἐπὶ τὰ γελοῖα. ἐπὶ τὰ γελοῖα, which has been bracketed (by Gomperz), seems to be wanted to keep up the parallelism with what is said in b 5 sqq. on the subject of the epic licences, which Euclid had parodied and turned to ridicule. Aristotle's reply to Euclid is that it is quite possible to misuse metaphors, etc., for the same purpose, ἐπὶ τὰ γελοῖα (comp. Rhet. 3. 3, 1406b 5 , quoted above). The comparative ἐπὶ τὰ γελοιότερα would be more in accordance with usage (comp. Stallb. on Plato Symp. 214 E ).

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-834

15 τὸ δὲ ἁρμοττόντως. This is considered (1) in reference to these epic licences ( ἐπέκτασις, ἀποκοπή, ἐξαλλαγή), and (2) in reference to the use of metaphor, etc. (b 17).

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-835

ὅσον διαφέρει: Isocrates 87 c

καίτοι μ᾿ οὐ λέληθεν ὅσον διαφέρουσι τῶν λόγων εἰς τὸ πείθειν οἱ λεγόμενοι τῶν ἀναγιγνωσκομένων.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-836

ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπῶν θεωρείσθω: because these metrical licences are so marked a feature in the epic diction (see on b 7). The proof here is not unlike that by which Isocrates 191 A shows the literary value of metre:

οἱ μὲν μετὰ μέτρων καὶ ῥυθμῶν ἅπαντα ποιοῦσιν, οἱ δ' οὐδενὸς τούτων κοινωνοῦσιν· τοσαύτην ἔχει χάριν, ὥστ᾽ ἂν καὶ τῇ λέξει καὶ τοῖς ἐνθυμήμασιν ἔχῃ κακῶς, ὅμως αὐταῖς ταῖς εὐρυθμίαις καὶ ταῖς συμμετρίαις ψυχαγωγοῦσι τοὺς ἀκούοντας.

γνοίη δ᾽ ἄν τις ἐκεῖθεν τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῶν· ἣν γάρ τις τῶν ποιημάτων τῶν εὐδοκιμούντων τὰ μὲν ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς διανοίας καταλίπῃ, τὸ δὲ μέτρον διαλύσῃ, φανήσεται πολὺ καταδεέστερα τῆς δόξης ἧς νῦν ἔχομεν περὶ αὐτῶν.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-837

16 τῶν ὀνομάτων ; i. e. the normal words, the words themselves, as distinct from the ἐπεκτάσεις, etc., of them (see above on 28).

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-838

18 ἰδεῶν. For ἰδέα = εἶδος, 'species', see Waitz, Org. 2 p. 416 , and Bon. Ind. 338 b34. . In De caelo 1. 7 Aristotle says, within the space of a few lines, πεπερασμένων εἰδῶν (274a32) and ἰδέας πεπερασμένας (b2) without perceptible difference of meaning.

1458b

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-839

ἓν δὲ μόνον ὄνομα. A verb taken by itself, i. e. apart from a subject, may be termed an ὄνομα (see on 20, 1457 10).

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-840

21 κυρίου εἰωθότος. Though κύριον and εἰωθὸς ὄνομα are often used as synonyms, there is a certain difference between them, as the εἰωθὸς ὄνομα may be a metaphor. ἐσθίει in the line of Aeschylus (b23) is the word in general use ( τὸ εἰωθός), but it is a metaphor, and therefore not a κύριον ὄνομα (see on 21, 1457b1) in the stricter sense of the term. By comparison with θοινᾶται, however, it is the κύριον ὄνομα. Aristotle gets out of the difficulty by terming it the κύριον εἰωθός, the usual κύριον, because it has by custom and use come to be treated as a κύριον ὄνομα, and is no longer felt to be a metaphor.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-841

22 εὐτελές. The epithet is applied to a certain kind of word in Rhet. 3. 7, 1408a13 (see on κόσμος, 21, 1457b2), and in the passage from Dionysius quoted above on 20.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-842

Αἰσχύλος: Nauck, TGF. p. 81 and 618 .

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-843

24 θοινᾶται, which is not uncommon in poetry, is regarded by Aristotle as a γλώττα (see on 21, 1457b4). It is explained in Hesychius,

θοινᾶται· εὐωχεῖται

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-844

25 $2 νῦν δὲ μ᾽ ἐὼν κτέ.: Od. 9. 515

νῦν δέ μ᾽ ἐὼν ὀλίγος τε καὶ οὐτιδανὸς καὶ ἄκικυς

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-845

ἀεικής. The traditional text of the Poetics has ἀειδής, and that of Homer ἄκικυς—with an ancient variant, however, ἀεικής. The restoration of ἀεικής in the quotation, as the reading which Aristotle must have had before him, is believed to be confirmed by the Arabic Version. ἀειδής is open to two objections: (1) it is the word actually used in b27 in Aristotle's metaphrasis of the Homeric line; (2) it is also a late word, and in the sense which it seems to bear here, that of 'unsightly' or 'ugly' (= δυσειδής), not to be found in pre-Aristotelian Greek. On the other hand, if the old poetical word ἀεικής had to be interpreted as an epithet of a person, ἀειδής in its later sense might very well be chosen to represent it.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-846

29 δίφρον ἀεικέλιον κτέ.: Od. 20. 259 . Several of the manuscripts of the Odyssey read παραθείς in lieu of καταθείς.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-847

ἠιόνες βοόωσιν: . 17. 265.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-848

κράζουσιν: comp. Demosthenes 18. 132

βοῶν ὁ βάσκανος οὗτος καὶ κεκραγώς

b31

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-849

Ἀριφράδης is perhaps the Ariphrades whose name occurs in Aristophanes, and who is said to have been a κιθαρῳδός by profession ( Bergk, De rel. com. Att. p. 232 ). It is not necessary to suppose him to have given expression to this criticism in a book.

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-850

32 τοὺς τραγῳδοὺς: i. e. the tragic actors, who are made responsible for what the poet puts into their mouth. It will be observed that the expressions singled out for censure are taken apparently from the dialogue of Tragedy; there would have been no point in saying that the language of the choral part was παρὰ τὴν διάλεκτον. A similar use of the word τραγῳδοί is found, a few years after Aristotle's time, in Diphilus, fr. 30 Kock

& τόνδ᾽ ἐποπτεύουσα καὶ κεκτημένη Βραυρώνος ἱεροῦ θεοφιλέστατον τόπον, Λητούς Διός τε τοξόδαμνε παρθένε, ὡ ς οἱ τραγῳδοί φασιν, οἷς ἐξουσία ἔστιν λέγειν ἅπαντα καὶ ποιεῖν μόνοις

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-851

τῇ διαλέκτῳ, the spoken, as distinct from the written language. διάλεκτος has the same sense in 4, 1449a 26

πλεῖστα γὰρ ἰαμβεῖα λέγομεν ἐν τῇ διαλέκτῳ τῇ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

, and in Rhet. 3. 1, 1404a 33

τῶν ὀνομάτων ἀφείκασιν ὅσα παρὰ τὴν διάλεκτόν ἐστιν

. The ordinary meaning of the term in Aristotle is either 'speech' (i. e. articulate language) or 'mode of speech'.

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-852

34 ἐγὼ δέ νιν: Sophocles O. C. 986 . The rest of the instances in the text were no doubt taken from existing plays (v. Nauck, TGF. p. 856 ).

1459a4

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-853

ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰρημένων: the ἐπεκτάσεις, ἀποκοπαί, and ἐξαλλαγαὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων mentioned in 1458 b a before the digression (1458b5 ἠγνόει 1459a4).

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-854

5 καὶ διπλοῖς ὀνόμασι καὶ γλώτταις is a sort of afterthought. Aristotle remembers that, as artifices of poetic expression, these are in just the same position as the forms of language he has been considering, and admit of the same justification.

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-855

πολὺ δὲ μέγιστον. In the Rhetoric metaphor is shown to hold an equally important place in the diction of oratory ( Rhet. 3. 2, 1404 b 32 sqq. ).

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-856

6 μεταφορικὸν: comp. the eulogy of Empedocles as a master of poetic expression in fr. 70 (Teubn.) from the dialogue περὶ ποιητῶν:

καὶ ῾Ομηρικὸς ὁ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ δεινὸς περὶ τὴν φράσιν γέγονε, μεταφορικός τ᾽ ὧν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς περὶ ποιητικὴν ἐπιτεύγμασι χρώμενος

. With this use of μεταφορικός, i. e. as applied to a person, Vahlen compares that of ἐνθυμηματικός in Rhet. 1. 1, 1354 b 22 , etc., and of συλλογιστικός in Top. 8. 14, 163b 30 .

εὐφυΐας τε σημεῖον. εὐφυία means a gift of nature, i. e. an aptitude not to be acquired by education or study; see on 17, 1455 a 32 , and comp. Eth. N. 3. 7, 1114b 6

φῦναι δεῖ ὥσπερ ὄψιν ἔχοντα ᾗ κρινεῖ καλῶς καὶ τὸ κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν ἀγαθὸν αἱρήσεται. καὶ ἔστιν εὐφυής, ᾧ τοῦτο καλῶς πέφυκεν. τὸ γὰρ μέγιστον καὶ κάλλιστον καὶ πα᾿ ἑτέρου μὴ οἷόν τε λαβεῖν μηδὲ μαθεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ οἷον ἔφυ τοιοῦτον ἕξει, καὶ τὸ εὖ καὶ τὸ καλῶς τοῦτο πεφυκέναι ἡ τελεία καὶ ἀληθινὴ ἂν εἴη εὐφυία

. The originality shown in metaphor is noted also in Rhet. 3. 2, 1405a 9

καὶ λαβεῖν οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτὴν πα᾿ ἄλλου

. This power, according to Aristotle, depends on a rapid and intuitive perception of similarity in difference, i. e. of the resemblances between things not obviously alike; comp. Rhet. 3. 11, 1412 b 10 ;

δεῖ δὲ μεταφέρειν ... ἀπὸ οἰκείων καὶ μὴ φανερῶν, οἷον καὶ ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ τὸ (τὸ) ὅμοιον καὶ ἐν πολὺ διέχουσι θεωρεῖν εὐστόχου

. For the kinds of similarity underlying metaphors see 21, 1457 b 7 .

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-857

εὖ μεταφέρειν. Aristotle is apparently setting aside far-fetched metaphors ( Rhet. 3. 2, 1405a 35 ; 3. 3, 1406 b 8 ), in which the underlying resemblance is not so real and clear as it should be.

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-858

8 τὸ τὸ ὅμοιον θεωρεῖν. For other instances of concurrence of identical forms of the article see Soph. el. 13, 173 b 15 ; Meteor. 1. 3, 341a 30 ; De resp. 2, 471a 7 ; Metaph. Ν 2, 1089 a 14 .

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-859

τῶν δ᾽ ὀνομάτων κτἑ. A very similar distinction is made in Rhet. 3. 3, 1406 a 1 :

χρησιμωτάτη ἡ διπλῆ λέξις τοῖς διθυραμβοποιοῖς· οὗτοι γὰρ ψοφώδεις· αἱ δὲ γλῶτται τοῖς ἐποποιοῖς· σεμνὸν γὰρ καὶ αὔθαδες· ἡ μεταφορὰ δὲ τοῖς ἰαμβείοις· τούτοις γὰρ νῦν χρῶνται

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-860

9 τοῖς διθυράμβοις: comp. the fr. of Philodemus published by Gomperz (Vienna Academy, Sitzungsberichte 123 p. 66):

τὸ μακροσύνθετον ἀνιᾶν μὲν ἐν τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ ἢ τοῖς ἔπεσι ... ἄλυπον δ᾽ ἐν τῷ διθυράμβῳ

.— Demetrius De eloc. 91

ληπτέον δὲ καὶ τὰ σύνθετα ὀνόματα, οὐ τὰ διθυραμβικῶς συγκείμενα, οἷον θεοτεράτους πλάνας, οὐδὲ ἄστρων δορύπυρον στρατόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐοικότα τοῖς ὑπὸ τῆς συνηθείας συγκειμένοις

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-861

10 τοῖς ἡρωικοῖς: comp. 23, 1459 b 34 .

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-862

12 τοῖς ἰαμβείοις: i. e. the tragic dialogue (v. 4, 1449a 24 ).

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-863

λέξιν μιμεῖσθαι. Instead of its usual sense of diction or language, λέξις in this passage must mean (like διάλεκτος in 1458b32) the spoken as distinct from the literary language. The present statement, therefore, is in harmony with that in Rhet. 3. 1, 1404a 33 , where Tragedy is said to have learnt to reject words outside the ordinary spoken language ( ὅσα παρὰ τὴν διάλεκτόν ἐστιν). With this use of λέξις we may compare that of λέξις, λεκτικὸν μέτρον, and λεκτικὴ ἁρμονία in 4, 1449a 23–8 ; and also that of λόγος in Rhet. 3. 1, 1404a 30

ἐκ τῶν τετραμέτρων εἰς τὸ ἰαμβεῖον μετέβησαν διὰ τὸ τῷ λόγῳ τοῦτο τῶν μέτρων ὁμοιότατον εἶναι τῶν ἄλλων

. Goulston renders λέξις here by vulgaris sermo; Bonitz ( Ind. 427b 31 ) by sermo pedestris, on the assumption that it stands for ψιλὴ λέξις, as it no doubt sometimes does. In 4, 1449a 23

λέξις

is the opposite of 'song'.

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-864

13 ἐν λόγοις has been taken to mean 'in common speech, or conversation' ('in familiari colloquio', Goulston), 'in prose' ('oratio pedestris', Bon. Ind. 433 b 20), and 'in speeches' ('in orationibus', Tyrwhitt). Though it is not always possible to determine the exact meaning of a word like λόγος (v. on 4, 1449a 17), the balance of probability is rather in favour of Tyrwhitt's 'in orationibus'. Aristotle's meaning would seem to be this, that the tragic dialogue (ἐν ἰαμβείοις) is limited to the same species of words as oratory (ἐν λόγοις)—those found in the language of common life ( λέξις), viz. the κύριον, the μεταφορά, and the κόσμος. The appropriateness of the κύριον and μεταφορά for oratory is distinctly affirmed in the Rhetoric, and for the same reason, that they are in common use: Rhet. 3. 2, 1404b 31

τὸ δὲ κύριον καὶ τὸ οἰκεῖον καὶ μεταφορὰ μόναι χρήσιμοι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ψιλῶν λόγων λέξιν· σημεῖον δέ, ὅτι τούτοις μόνοις πάντες χρῶνται, πάντες γὰρ μεταφοραῖς διαλέγονται καὶ τοῖς οἰκείοις καὶ τοῖς κυρίοις

(comp. Isocrates 190 E ). The reference in the text to the language of 'speeches' may serve to remind us of the fact that even in Aristotle's time the theory of literary prose was still studied mainly in connexion with oratory, and as part of the art of Rhetoric. According to the canon here laid down by Aristotle, the highly-coloured diction of Aeschylus would be inappropriate in Tragedy; and he tells us elsewhere that it was eschewed by the dramatists of his time: Rhet. 3. 1, 1404a 33

τῶν ὀνομάτων ἀφείκασιν [i. e. the tragedians] ὅσα παρὰ τὴν διάλεκτόν ἐστιν, οἷς δ᾽ οἱ πρῶτον ἐκόσμουν ... ἀφείκασιν

. From the days of Euripides in fact (comp. Aristoph. Ran. 939 ) the language of Tragedy had been approximating to that of ordinary life; and in Aristotle's age there was probably no very serious difference between it and that of the Comedy of the period.

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-865

14 κόσμος: see on 21, 1457b2 . The parallel in the Rhetoric (3. 2, 1404 b 31, quoted above) ignores the κόσμος.

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-866

15 τῆς ἐν τῷ πράττειν μιμήσεως. A tragedy is something to be acted, an epic something to be recited or read. This makes a fundamental distinction between them, though Aristotle admits that as a work of literature a tragedy is quite possible without performance on a stage (6, 1450 b18; 26, 1462 a12, 17) .

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

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-38

2.1 Omme tous ceux qui imitent, imitent des actions.]¹

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-39

2.1 Car les mœurs ne peuvent être diftinguées que par ces deux qualitez.]²

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-40

2.1 Ou meilleurs par rapport à nous, ou plus méchans, ou ſemblables.]³

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-41

2.2 Polygnotus peignoit les hommes meilleurs.]⁴

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-42

2.2 Pauſon les peignoit plus méchans.]⁵

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-43

2.4 Les mèmes differences ſe trouvent auſſi dans la danſe, dans les airs de flute, dans les pieces de lyre, &c.]⁶

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-44

2.4 Dans tous les ouvrages en profe, ou en vers.]⁷

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-45

2.5 Par exemple, Homere a fait les hommes meilleurs.]⁸

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-46

2.5 Cleophon les a fait tels qu'ils font.)⁹

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-47

2.5 Hegemon de Thaſos qui a été l'Inventeur des parodies.]¹⁰

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-48

2.5 Parodies.]¹¹

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-49

2.5 Nicochares Auteur de la Deliade.)¹²

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-50

2.6 Il en est de mème des Poëtes qui ont compoſe des Dithyrambes & des Nomes.)¹³

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-51

2.6 C'est ainsi que Timothée & que Philoxene ont imité les Perſes & les Cyclopes.]¹⁴

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-52

2.6 Philoxene.]¹⁵

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-53

2.7 Et c'est cela même qui conſtitue la difference, qui eft entre la Tragedie & la Comedie.]¹⁶

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-54

2.7 Car la premiere repreſente les hommes meilleurs.]¹⁷

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-55

2.7 Et l'autre plus méchans.]¹⁸

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-56

3.1 A troisième difference conſiſte en la manière dont on fait ces imitations.]¹⁹

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-57

3.2 Soit en faiſant un récit, ou en joüant ſoy-même quelqu'autre perſonnage.]²⁰

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-58

3.4 Que j'expliqueray par ces trois mots avec quoy, quoy & comment.]²¹

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-59

3.4 De ſorte qu'au ſecond égard Sophocle reſſemble à Homere dans ſon imitation.]²²

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-60

3.4 Et au troiſième il reſſemble à Ariſtophane.]²³

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-61

3.4 C'eſt pourquoy on a ſoûtenu que les pieces de theatre ont été appellées dramatiques, du mot drame, qui ſignifie action.]²⁴

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-62

3.5 Car les Megariens de ce pays.]²⁵

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-63

3.5 Soûtenant qu'elle eſt née dans leur état populaire.]²⁶

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-64

3.5 Les Megariens de Sicile l'ont auſſi revendiquée.]²⁷

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-65

3.5 Parce que le Poëte Epicharmus plus ancien que Chionides, & que Magnes étoit Sicilien.]²⁸

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-66

3.5 Et quelques Doriens du Peloponeſe.]²⁹

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-67

3.6 Ce qui prouve, diſent-ils, que la Comedie n'a pas été ainſi appellée du mot Comazein, comme le prétendent les Atheniens.]³⁰

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-68

3.6 Parce que les premiers Comediens, n'étant pas receus dans la Ville.]³¹

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-69

3.7 Ils ſoûtiennent auſſi qu'au lieu que les Atheniens diſent Prattein, pour dire, faire, ils diſent chez eux Dran.]³²

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-70

3.7 Cela ſuffit pour les differences de l'imitation, leur nombre & leur nature.]³³

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-71

4.1 L y a deux cauſes principales, & toutes deux fort naturelles, qui ſemblent avoir produit la Poësie.]³⁴

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-72

4.2 Car ils different des autres animaux, en ce qu'ils ſont tous très-portez à l'imitation.]³⁵

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-73

4.2 Que par ſon moyen ils apprenent les premiers élemens des Sciences.]³⁶

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-74

4.2 Et que toutes les imitations leur donnent un ſingulier plaiſir.]³⁷

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-75

4.4 C'eſt que les Philoſophes ne ſont pas les ſeuls qui aiment à apprendre, & que cette paſſion eſt égalemeut naturelle à tous les autres hommes.]³⁸

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-76

4.4 Quoyqu'ils n'apprenent pas tous également.]³⁹

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-77

4.6 Le plaiſir qu'ils ont alors, ne vient pas de la beauté del'imitation, mais de celle de l'art ou du mélange, & de la vivacité des couleurs, &c.]⁴⁰

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-78

4.7 Si l'imitation nous eſt naturelle, le nombre & l'harmonie ne le font pas moins.]⁴¹

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-79

4.7 Sous le mot de nombre, je comprens auſſi les vers qui évidemment en font partie.]⁴²

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-80

4.7 Car ceux qui ſe trouverent le plus de talent pour l'une & pour l'autre.]⁴³

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-81

4.7 Luy donnerent peu à peu la naiſſance par des eſſais faits ſur le champ.]⁴⁴

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-82

4.8 Mais elle changea bien-tôt de forme ſelon le different naturel des Poëtes.]⁴⁵

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-83

4.9 Il ne nous reſte aucun Poëme de cette ſorte.]⁴⁶

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-84

4.10 Par exemple, ſon Margites.]⁴⁷

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-85

4.10 Où l'on a auſſi employé le vers ïambe, comme le plus propre pour les railleries.]⁴⁸

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-86

4.10 C'eſt pourquoy on appelle preſentement ces Poëmes du nom de ce vers.)⁴⁹

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-87

4.10 Parce que ce n'eſt que des invectives continuelles.]⁵⁰

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-88

4.11 Et comme Homere a tenu ſans contredit le premier rang dans le Poëme heroïque & tragique.)⁵¹

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-89

4.12 C'eſt le ſeul qui merite le nom de Poëte, non ſeulement parce qu'il a bien écrit.]⁵²

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-90

4.12 Mais encore parce qu'il a fait des imitations dramatiques.]⁵³

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-91

4.12 Il a été auſſi le premier qui a donné, comme un crayon de la Comedie, en changeant en plaiſanteries les railleries piquantes des premiers Poëtes.]⁵⁴

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-92

4.12 En effet ſon Margites a avec la Comedie le même rapport que ſon Iliade & ſon Odyßée ont avec la Tragedie.]⁵⁵

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-93

4.13 Les autres Poëtes qui vinrent après luy, & qui étoient naturellement portez à l'un ou à l'autre de ces deux genres de Poëſie, ſelon qu'ils avoient plus ou moins de force.]⁵⁶

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-94

4.13 Au lieu de faire des ïambes.]⁵⁷

25. mvp-aristotle-comment-95

4.13 Quitterent les vers heroïques.]⁵⁸

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-96

4.13 Ces deux dernieres ſortes d'ouvrages leur ayant paru plus nobles.]⁵⁹

27. mvp-aristotle-comment-97

4.14 Or d'examiner preſentement ſi la Tragedie eſt dans ſa perfection & ſi elle a receu la forme qui luy convient.]⁶⁰

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-98

4.14 Et par rapport à elle, & par rapport au theatre.]⁶¹

29. mvp-aristotle-comment-99

4.15 La Tragedie donc & la Comedie, étant nées des impromptu dont j'ay parle.]⁶²

30. mvp-aristotle-comment-100

4.15 Et l'autre à ces chanſons obſcenes.]⁶³

31. mvp-aristotle-comment-101

4.15 Qui autoriſées par la Coûtume & par les Loix, ſe chantent encore de notre temps dans pluſieurs Villes.]⁶⁴

32. mvp-aristotle-comment-102

4.15 Chacun ajoutant quelque choſe à leur beauté à meſure qu'on découvroit ce qui convenoit à leur caractere.]⁶⁵

33. mvp-aristotle-comment-103

4.16 Pour la Tragedie aprés beaucoup de changemens.]⁶⁶

34. mvp-aristotle-comment-104

4.16 Quand elle eut tout ce qui luy étoit propre.)⁶⁷

35. mvp-aristotle-comment-105

4.16 Eſchyle fut le premier qui mit deux Acteurs ſur la Scene, Car il n'y en avoit qu'un avant luy.]⁶⁸

36. mvp-aristotle-comment-106

4.16 Il diminua les chants du chœur.]⁶⁹

37. mvp-aristotle-comment-107

4.16 Il inventa l'idée d'un principal perſonnage.]⁷⁰

38. mvp-aristotle-comment-108

4.16 Sophocle ajoûta un troiſième Acteur aux deux d'Eſchyle.]⁷¹

39. mvp-aristotle-comment-109

4.16 Orna la Scene de belles décorations.)⁷²

40. mvp-aristotle-comment-110

4.17 Enfin elle ne receut que fort tard la grandeur & la gravité qui luy étoient convenables.]⁷³

41. mvp-aristotle-comment-111

4.17 Qu'elle avoit retenu de ces pieces ſatyriques d'où elle ſortoit]⁷⁴

42. mvp-aristotle-comment-112

4.18 Le vers ïambe trimetre ſucceda au vers tetrametre dont elle s'étoit toujours ſervie, parce qu'elle étoit toute ſatyrique, & pleine de danſes, & de mouvement.]⁷⁵

43. mvp-aristotle-comment-113

4.19 Mais aprés que la diction qui luy étoit propre fut établie.]⁷⁶

44. mvp-aristotle-comment-114

4.19 Car l'iambe eſt de tous les vers le plus propre pour la converſation.]⁷⁷

45. mvp-aristotle-comment-115

4.19 Et tres rarement des hexametres, qui ne nous échapent jamais, que lorſque nous franchiſſons les bornes du diſcours ordinaire, & que nous changeons d'harmonie & de ton.]⁷⁸

46. mvp-aristotle-comment-116

4.20 Le nombre des Epiſodes s'augmenta auſſi avec le temps.]⁷⁹

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-117

5.1 La Comedie eſt, comme je l'ay deja dit, une imitation des plus méchans hommes. Quand je dis méchans, ce n'eſt pas dans toutes ſortes de vices, mais ſeulement dans le ridicule.]⁸⁰

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-118

5.2 2. Car le ridicule eſt proprement un défaut, une difformité ſans douleur, & qui ne va point à la deſtruction du ſujet où il ſe trouve.]⁸¹

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-119

5.2 3. Nous appellons un viſage ridicule.]⁸²

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-120

5.3 4. Mais la Comedie a été inconnuë, parce qu'elle ne fut pas cultivée dès le commencement, comme la Tragedie.]⁸³

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-121

5.3 5. Car le Magiſtrat ne commença que fort tard à donner des chœurs comiques.⁸⁴

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-122

5.3 6. Ceux qui joüoient alors étoient des Acteurs libres & volontaires.]⁸⁵

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-123

5.4 7. Mais depuis que la Comedie eut commencé à prendre quelque forme, on ſçait les Poëtes qui y ont travaillé.]⁸⁶

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-124

5.4 8. On ignore ceux qui ont employé les premiers les maſques, fait des prologues, & augmenté le nombre des Acteurs.]⁸⁷

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-125

5.4 9. Fait des prologues.)⁸⁸

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-126

5.5 10. Epicharmus & Phormys s'aviſerent les premiers de former des ſujets.]⁸⁹

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-127

5.5 11. Et par conſequent cette manière vint de Sicile.]⁹⁰

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-128

5.6 12. Crates fut le premier des Atheniens qui le ſuivit, en renonçant aux railleries groſſieres qui regnoient auparavant.]⁹¹

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-129

5.6 13. En renonçant aux railleries groſſieres qui regnoient auparavant.]⁹²

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-130

5.6 14. Aux railleries groſſieres.)⁹³

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-131

5.7 15. L'Epopée a cela de commun avec la Tragedie.]⁹⁴

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-132

5.7 16. En ce qu'elle eſt un diſcours en vers.]⁹⁵

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-133

5.7 17. Et une imitation des actions des plus grands perſonnages.]⁹⁶

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-134

5.8 18. Et elle eſt differente en ce qu'elle n'employe qu'une ſeule & mème ſorte de vers.]⁹⁷

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-135

5.8 19. Qu'elle eſt une pure narration.)⁹⁸

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-136

5.8 20. Et qu'elle a plus d'étendue.]⁹⁹

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-137

5.8 21. Car la Tragedie tâche autant qu'il eſt poſſible de ſe renfermer dans le tour d'un Soleil, ou de changer peu ce temps.]¹⁰⁰

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-138

5.8 22. Au lieu qu'il n'y a point de temps preſcrit à l'Epopée.]¹⁰¹

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-139

5.9 23. Mais il faut dire qu'il n'y en avoit pas non plus pour la Tragedie dans ſes commencemens.]¹⁰²

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-140

5.11 24. Celuy qui jugera bien d'une Tragedie, & qui connoîtra bien ſeurement ſi elle eſt bonne ou mauvaiſe, pourra auſſi juger d'une Epopée.]¹⁰³

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-141

6.2 1. La Tragedie eſt donc une imitation d'une action grave.]¹⁰⁴

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-142

6.2 2. Entiere.]¹⁰⁵

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-143

6.2 3. Et qui a une juſte grandeur.]¹⁰⁶

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-144

6.2 4. Dont le ſtyle eſt agreablement aſſaiſonné.]¹⁰⁷

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-145

6.2 5. Et qui ſans le ſecours de la narration, par le moyen de la compaſſion & de la terreur, acheve de purger en nous ces fortes de paſſions, & toutes les autres ſemblables.]¹⁰⁸

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-146

6.2 6. Et qui ſans le ſecours de la narration.]¹⁰⁹

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-147

6.2 7. Par le moyen de la terreur & de la compaſſion.]¹¹⁰

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-148

6.2 8. Acheve de purger en nous ces fortes de paſſions & autres ſemblables.]¹¹¹

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-149

6.3 9. F'appelle, un ſtyle agreablement aſſaiſonné, un ſtyle qui a le nombre, le vers, & l'harmonie.]¹¹²

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-150

6.4 10. Et j'ajoûte, mais differemment dans toutes ſes parties, because que le vers regne ſeul dans les unes, & le nombre & l'harmonie dans les autres.]¹¹³

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-151

6.5 11. Cette imitation étant faite par des gens qui agiſſent, il s'enfuit de là neceſſairement, que la décoration de la Scene eſt en quelque ſorte une partie de la Tragedie.]¹¹⁴

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-152

6.6 12. Comme la mélodie & le diſcours avec quoy on fait cette imitation. F'appelle diſcours, la compoſition même des vers, & mélodie la muſique, dont toute la force eſt connue.]¹¹⁵

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-153

6.7 13. Comme c'eſt une imitation de quelque action.]¹¹⁶

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-154

6.7 14. Et que ceux qui agiſſent ſont neceſſairement tels par les mœurs & par les ſentimens.]¹¹⁷

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-155

6.7 15. N'y ayant point d'autre caractere qui puiſſe diſtinguer les actions.]¹¹⁸

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-156

6.7 16. Et que ce ſont les deux cauſes du bonheur & du malheur des hommes.]¹¹⁹

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-157

6.8 17. Car j'appelle icy Fable, la compoſition des choſes.]¹²⁰

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-158

6.8 18. Les mœurs ſont ce qui marque les qualitez de ceux qui agiſſent.]¹²¹

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-159

6.8 19. Et les ſentimens ſont les diſcours, par leſquels ils font connoître quelque action, ou découvrent leur penſée.]¹²²

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-160

6.10 20. De ces ſix il y en a deux qui regardent le moyen.]¹²³

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-161

6.10 21. Une qui regarde la maniére.]¹²⁴

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-162

6.10 22. Et trois qui regardent le ſujet.]¹²⁵

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-163

6.11 23. Il n'y a preſque point de Poëte, pour ainſi dire, qui n'employe ces ſix parties dans ſes pieces tragiques.]¹²⁶

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-164

6.11 24. Il eſt vray auſſi qu'elles ſe trouvent toutes, dans toutes ſortes de ſujets.]¹²⁷

25. mvp-aristotle-comment-165

6.12 25. Mais la plus conſiderable, c'eſt la fable ou la compoſition des choſes.]¹²⁸

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-166

6.12 26. Car la Tragedie eſt une imitation, non pas des hommes, mais de leurs actions.]¹²⁹

27. mvp-aristotle-comment-167

6.12 27. De leur vie & de leur bonheur ou de leur malheur.]¹³⁰

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-168

6.12 28. Qui conſiſtent dans l'action.]¹³¹

29. mvp-aristotle-comment-169

6.12 29. La fin même que les hommes ſe propoſent eſt toûjours une action, & non pas une qualité.]¹³²

30. mvp-aristotle-comment-170

6.12 30. On a telles ou telles qualitez par les mœurs.]¹³³

31. mvp-aristotle-comment-171

6.12 31. Et l'on eſt heureux ou malheureux par les actions.]¹³⁴

32. mvp-aristotle-comment-172

6.13 32. Mais ils ajoûtent les mœurs à cauſe des actions.]¹³⁵

33. mvp-aristotle-comment-173

6.13 33. De ſorte que les actions & la fable ſont la fin de la Tragedie.]¹³⁶

34. mvp-aristotle-comment-174

6.13 34. Or en toutes choſes, la fin eſt ce qu'il y a de plus impor-tant.]¹³⁷

35. mvp-aristotle-comment-175

6.14 35. Ajoutez à cette verité, qu'il ne sçauroit y avoir de Tra-gedie ſans action, & qu'il y en peut avoir ſans mœurs.]¹³⁸

36. mvp-aristotle-comment-176

6.15 36. En effet il n'y a point de mœurs dans les pieces de la plupart des Poëtes Modernes.]¹³⁹

37. mvp-aristotle-comment-177

6.15 37. On peut dire même en general, que l'on trouve preſque entre tous nos Poëtes, la même difference qui eſt entre les Peintres Zeuxis & Polygnote.]¹⁴⁰

38. mvp-aristotle-comment-178

6.15 38. Ce dernier exprimoit parfaitement les mœurs.]¹⁴¹

39. mvp-aristotle-comment-179

6.15 39. Et on n'en trouve aucun indice dans les ouvrages de l'autre.]¹⁴²

40. mvp-aristotle-comment-180

6.16 40. D'ailleurs ſi quelqu'un s'aviſoit de faire une piece, où il y eût de ſuite pluſieurs discours, dans leſquels les mœurs ſeroient parfaitement exprimées, & où il y eût encore une belle diction & de beaux ſentimens.]¹⁴³

41. mvp-aristotle-comment-181

6.16 41. On peut aſſeurer qu'il n'auroit pas encore attrapé ce qui eſt le propre de la Tragedie.]¹⁴⁴

42. mvp-aristotle-comment-182

6.16 42. Et qui auroit un ſujet bien conſtitué & bien conduit.]¹⁴⁵

43. mvp-aristotle-comment-183

6.17 43. C'eſt que les moyens les plus efficaces, dont la Tragedie ſe ſert pour toucher & pour plaire, ce ſont les peripeties & les reconnoiſſances.]¹⁴⁶

44. mvp-aristotle-comment-184

6.18 44. Ceux qui entreprenent de faire une Tragedie, trouvent bien plus de facilité à réuſſir dans le ſtyle & dans les mœurs, qu'à bien bâtir le ſujet.]¹⁴⁷

45. mvp-aristotle-comment-185

6.18 45. Et c'eſt une experience que preſque tous les anciens Poëtes ont faite.]¹⁴⁸

46. mvp-aristotle-comment-186

6.20 46. Les mœurs viennent enſuite.]¹⁴⁹

47. mvp-aristotle-comment-187

6.20 47. Car ſi quelqu'un jettoit confuſement & pêle-mêle, les plus belles couleurs ſur une toile, il ne feroit pas le même plaiſir que le ſimple crayon d'un portrait.]¹⁵⁰

48. mvp-aristotle-comment-188

6.20 48. En un mot, la Tragedie eſt une imitation d'une action, & par conſequent elle eſt principalement une imitation de perſonnes qui agiſſent.]¹⁵¹

49. mvp-aristotle-comment-189

6.21 49. Après les mœurs viennent les ſentimens, c'eſt-à-dire, la faculté d'exprimer les choſes qui ſont du ſujet.]¹⁵²

50. mvp-aristotle-comment-190

6.21 50. Les choſes qui ſont du ſujet, & celles qui luy conviennent.]¹⁵³

51. mvp-aristotle-comment-191

6.22 51. Or tout ce qui regarde le diſcours, dépend de la Rhetorique & de l'uſage commun.]¹⁵⁴

52. mvp-aristotle-comment-192

6.23 52. Les anciens Orateurs parloient communement & ſimplement.]¹⁵⁵

53. mvp-aristotle-comment-193

6.24 53. Les mœurs ſont ce qui découvre l'inclination de celuy qui parle, & le parti qu'il prendra.]¹⁵⁶

54. mvp-aristotle-comment-194

6.24 54. Dans les choſes où il ne ſeroit pas aiſé de reconnoître ce qu'il veut ſuivre ou éviter.]¹⁵⁷

55. mvp-aristotle-comment-195

6.24 55. C'eſt pourquoy tous les diſcours, qui ne font pas ſentir d'abord à quoy ſe reſoudra celuy qui parle, ſont ſans mœurs.]¹⁵⁸

56. mvp-aristotle-comment-196

6.25 56. Les ſentimens ſont ce qui explique ce qui eſt, ou ce qui n'eſt pas.]¹⁵⁹

57. mvp-aristotle-comment-197

6.26 57. La quatriéme choſe, & qui regarde uniquement le diſcours, c'eſt la diction.]¹⁶⁰

58. mvp-aristotle-comment-198

6.26 58. Et qui a autant de force dans la proſe que dans les vers.]¹⁶¹

59. mvp-aristotle-comment-199

6.27 59. Aprés la diction vient la muſique, qui eſt le plus grand de tous les agrémens que la Tragedie puiſſe employer.]¹⁶²

60. mvp-aristotle-comment-200

6.28 60. La décoration eſt auſſi fort divertiſſante.]¹⁶³

61. mvp-aristotle-comment-201

6.28 61. Mais elle ne regarde pas proprement l'art du Poëte, & ne fait point partie de la Poësie.]¹⁶⁴

62. mvp-aristotle-comment-202

6.28 62. Et d'ailleurs tout ce qui regarde la décoration eſt bien plus du reſſort des Ouvriers & des ingenieurs, que de celuy des Poëtes.]¹⁶⁵

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-203

7.2 1. Car il y a telle choſe qui fait un tout & qui cependant n'a pas une juſte étenduë.]¹⁶⁶

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-204

7.3 2. F'appelle donc un tout, ce qui a un commencement, un milieu, & une fin.]¹⁶⁷

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-205

7.4 3. Le commencement, c'eſt ce qui ne ſuppoſe rien neceſſairement avant ſoy.]¹⁶⁸

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-206

7.4 4. Et qui exige aprés ſoy quelque choſe qui eſt, ou qui doit être.]¹⁶⁹

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-207

7.5 5. La fin eſt tout le contraire.]¹⁷⁰

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-208

7.6 6. Et le milieu, c'eſt ce qui ſuppoſe quelque choſe qui doit préceder, & qui exige quelque choſe qui doit ſuivre.]¹⁷¹

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-209

7.7 7. Ceux donc qui veulent bien dreſſer un ſujet, ne peuvent ny commencer ny finir par tout où il leur plaît.]¹⁷²

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-210

7.8 8. Ajoûtez à cela que tout ce qu'il y a de beau parmy les animaux, & parmy les autres Êtres, ſi il eſt compoſé de parties, doit avoir non ſeulement un ordre, mais encore une grandeur juſte & raiſonnable.]¹⁷³

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-211

7.8 9. S'il eſt compoſé de parties.]¹⁷⁴

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-212

7.9 10. C'eſt pourquoy rien de fort petit ne peut être beau.]¹⁷⁵

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-213

7.9 11. Parce que la veuë ſe confond dans un objet qu'on voit en un moment preſque inſenſible.]¹⁷⁶

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-214

7.10 12. Rien de trop grand ne peut être beau non plus.]¹⁷⁷

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-215

7.10 13. De même il faut que les ſujets dramatiques, ayent une étenduë que la memoire puiſſe retenir ſans peine.]¹⁷⁸

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-216

7.11 14. Or la meſure préciſe de cette grandeur, pour ce qui regarde la durée de la repreſentation, & de l'attention du ſpectateur, ne peut être decidée par des regles certaines & fixes.]¹⁷⁹

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-217

7.11 15. Car s'il falloit joüer, par exemple, cent Tragedies dans un jour, il faudroit meſurer le temps de chacune à la Clepſydre.]¹⁸⁰

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-218

7.11 16. Comme on dit que cela ſe pratiquoit autrefois.]¹⁸¹

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-219

7.12 17. Et aſſeurer que plus une piece aura d'étenduë, plus elle ſera belle dans ſa grandeur; pourvu qu'elle ne croiſſe que juſqu'à ce que le ſujet puiſſe être vû tout enſemble, ſans que la veuë s'égare ny ſe confonde.]¹⁸²

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-220

7.12 18. C'eſt-à-dire, qu'une piece pour avoir ſa juſte étenduë, doit occuper autant de temps qu'il en faut neceſſairement, ou vray-ſemblablement, pour bien amener tous les incidens.]¹⁸³

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-221

8.1 1. E ſujet doit être an, & non pas, comme pluſieurs penſent, qu'il ſuffiſe qu'il ſoit d'un ſeul homme, car il luy arrive une infinité de choſes, &c.¹⁸⁴

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-222

8.1 2. Car, comme on voit tous les jours une infinité d'accidens, de la plupart desquels, on ne peut rien faire qui ſoit un, il arrive de mème, que les actions d'un mème homme, ſont en ſi grand nombre & ſi differentes, &c.]¹⁸⁵

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-223

8.2 3. C'eſt pourquoy il me ſemble que tous les Poëtes qui ont fait, ou l' Heracleide, ou la Theſeide, ou pluſieurs autres Poëmes ſemblables, ſe ſont fort trompez.]¹⁸⁶

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-224

8.3 4. Homere, qui a excellé en tout ſur les autres Poëtes, me paroit avoir parfaitement connû ce défaut, ou par les lumières naturelles d'un heureux génie, ou par les regles de l'art.]¹⁸⁷

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-225

8.3 5. Par exemple, il n'a pas mêlé la bleſſure qu'il receut ſur le Parnaſſe, avec la folie qu'il feignit, lorſque les Grecs aſſembloient leur Armée.]¹⁸⁸

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-226

8.3 6. Avec la folie qu'il feignit, lorſque les Grecs aſſembloient leur Armée.]¹⁸⁹

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-227

8.3 7. Car de ce que l'une eſt arrivée, il ne s'enfuit, ny neceſſairement ny vray-ſemblablement, que l'autre doive arriver.]¹⁹⁰

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-228

8.3 8. Mais il a employé tout ce qui pouvoit avoir raport à une ſeule & mème action, comme eſt celle de ſon Odyſſée. Il en a uſé de mème dans ſon Iliade.]¹⁹¹

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-229

8.4 9. Comme donc dans toutes les autres imitations, ce que l'on imite eſt un, il faut de mème que dans la Tragedie.]¹⁹²

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-230

8.4 10. Et que ſes parties ſoient tellement liées les unes avec les autres, que ſi l'on en tranſpose, ou que l'on en ôte une ſeule, le tout ſoit entierement, ou changé, ou détruit.]¹⁹³

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-231

8.4 11. Car tout ce qui peut être mis ou omis, ſans faire un changement ſenſible, ne peut être partie d'une action.]¹⁹⁴

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-232

9.1 Il eſt aisé de voir que ce n'est pas le propre du Poëte, de dire les chofes, comme elles font arrivées, mais comme elles ont på ou du arriver neceffairement ou vray-semblablement.¹⁹⁵

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-233

9.1 Neceffairement ou vray-femblablement.¹⁹⁶

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-234

9.2 Car l'Historien & le Poëte ne different pas entr'eux, en ce que l'un écrit en profe, & l'autre en vers.¹⁹⁷

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-235

9.2 Mais ils different en ce que l'Hiſtorien écrit ce qui eft arrivé, & le Poëte ce qui a pû ou dû arriver.¹⁹⁸

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-236

9.3 C'est pourquoy la Poësie eft plus grave & plus morale que l'Histoire, parce que la Poëfie dit les chofes generales, & l'Hiſtoire raporte les choses particulieres.¹⁹⁹

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-237

9.4 Une choſe generale, c'eſt ce que tout homme d'un tel, ou d'un tel caractère a dû dire, ou faire vrayſembllablement ou neceffairement.²⁰⁰

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-238

9.4 Ce qui est le but de la Poësie, lors mème quelle impofe les noms à ſes perſonnages.²⁰¹

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-239

9.5 C'eſt ce qui est déja rendu ſenſible dans la Comedie, car les Poëtes Comiques, après avoir dreſſé leur ſujet fur la vray-Semblance, imposent aprés cela à leurs personnages tels noms qu'il leur plait.²⁰²

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-240

9.5 Ils n'imitent pas les Poëtes ſatyriques, qui ne s'attachent qu'aux choses particulieres.²⁰³

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-241

9.6 Il est vray que les Poëtes Tragiques ſe ſervent des véritables nams.²⁰⁴

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-242

9.6 Mais la raison de cela, est que tout ce qui eſt poſſible, eft croyable.²⁰⁵

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-243

9.7 Il arrive neanmoins fort ſouvent que dans les Tragedies, on se contente d'un ou de deux noms connus, & que tous les autres font inventez.²⁰⁶

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-244

9.7 Il y a mème des pieces, où pas un nom n'est connu.²⁰⁷

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-245

9.7 Car dans la Tragedie d'Agathon, qu'il a appellée, la fleur.²⁰⁸

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-246

9.7 Dans cette piece tous les noms font feints, comme les chofes.²⁰⁹

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-247

9.8 C'est pourquoy il n'est pas neceffaire de s'attacher Scrupuleuſement à ſuivre toujours les fables receuës, d'où l'on tire ordinairement les ſujets des Tragedies.²¹⁰

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-248

9.8 Cela feroit ridicule.²¹¹

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-249

9.8 Car ce qui est connù, l'est de peu de personnes, & cependant il divertit tout le monde également.²¹²

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-250

9.9 Il eſt donc évident par-là, que le Poëte doit être l'Auteur du ſujet, encore plus que des vers, fur tout, puiſqu'il n'est Poete que par l'imitation, & qu'il imite des actions.²¹³

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-251

9.10 Et quand même il luy arriveroit d'étaler fur la Scene des incidens véritables, il n'en meriteroit pas moins le nom de Poëte.²¹⁴

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-252

9.10 Car rien n'empèche que les incidens, qui font arrivez véritablement, n'ayent toute la vray-femblance & toute la poſſibilité que l'art demande.²¹⁵

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-253

9.11 De toutes les fables & actions simples, les Epiſodiques font les plus imparfaites; j'appelle Epiſodique, une fable qui a des Epiſodes qui ne ſont pas liez les uns avec les autres, ny neceſſairement ny uray-femblablement.²¹⁶

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-254

9.11b Et les bons y tombent par trop de complaisance pour les Acteurs; car, comme il y a toûjours des jalouſſes entre les differentes Troupes des Comediens.²¹⁷

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-255

9.11c La Tragedie n'est pas seulement l'imitation d'une action entiere, mais encore d'une action, qui excite la terreur & la compafion.²¹⁸

25. mvp-aristotle-comment-256

9.11c Or ces deux paſſions viennent de la ſurpriſe.²¹⁹

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-257

9.11c Quand les chofes naiſſfent les unes des autres contre notre attente.²²⁰

27. mvp-aristotle-comment-258

9.12 Car le merveilleux se trouve bien plus dans celles-là, que dans celles qui arrivent fans deſſein & aux l'aventure.²²¹

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-259

9.12 Car mème de toutes les choses que la fortune conduit, celles qui paroiſſent arriver à deffein, & par une conduite particulière, font toûjours plus ſurprenantes & plus merveilleuses.²²²

29. mvp-aristotle-comment-260

9.12 Ce qui arriva à Argos par la Statüe de Mitys, qui tomba ſur ſon meurtrier, & le tua fur la place, au milieu d'une grande Fète.²²³

30. mvp-aristotle-comment-261

9.12 Car il ſemble que cela n'arriva point du tout par accident.²²⁴

31. mvp-aristotle-comment-262

9.13 Il s'enfuit donc de-là neceſſairement, que les fables où l'on obſervera cette conduite, feront toûjours les plus belles.²²⁵

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-263

10.2 Appelle ſimples, les actions, , qui étant, comme on l'a déja dit, continues & unies finiſſent ſans reconnoiſſance & ſans péripetie.]²²⁶

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-264

10.3 Et j'appelle implexes, celles qui ont, ou la péripetie, ou la reconnoiſſance, ou toutes les deux.]²²⁷

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-265

10.4 Or l'une & l'autre doivent naitre de la conſtitution mème du ſujet, de telle manière, que ce qui précede les produiſe, ou neceſſairement ou vray-ſemblablement.]²²⁸

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-266

10.4 Car il y a une tres grande difference entre des Incidens qui naiſſent les uns des autres, & des Incidens qui viennent ſimplement les uns aprés les autres.]²²⁹

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-267

11.1 A Péripetie est un changement de fortune en une fortune contraire contre ce qu'on avoit attendu.]²³⁰

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-268

11.2 Comme dans l'Edipe de Sophocle, celuy qui vient pour luy annoncer une nouvelle fort agreable, & qui doit le délivrer des frayeurs, &c.]²³¹

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-269

11.3 Et comme dans la Lyncée de Theodecte.)²³²

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-270

11.4 La reconnoiſſance est, comme ſon nom même le témoigne, un changement qui faiſant paſſer de l'ignorance à la connoiſſance, produit, ou la haine ou l'amitié dans ceux que le Poete a deſſein de rendre heureux ou malheureux.]²³³

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-271

11.5 La plus belle de toutes les reconnoiffances est celle qui ſe trouve avec la péripetie, comme dans l'Edipe.]²³⁴

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-272

11.6 Il y a pluſieurs autres ſortes de reconnoiſſances; car il arrive ſouvent qu'on reconnoît des choſes inanimées, & ce qu'il y a de plus commun.]²³⁵

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-273

11.6 On reconnoît, par exemple, ce qu'une perſonne a fait, ou ce qu'elle n'a pas fait.]²³⁶

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-274

11.7 Mais celle dont je viens de parler eſt la plus propre à la REMARQUES. fable & à l'action.]²³⁷

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-275

11.7 Car cette reconnoiſſance accompagnée de la péripetie produira immanquablement, ou la compaſſion ou la terreur, dont la Tragedie eſt l'imitation, &c.]²³⁸

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-276

11.8 La ſimple eſt, quand une perſonne eſt reconnuë par une autre qu'elle connoît.)²³⁹

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-277

11.8 Et la double, quand il faut que deux perſonnes qui ne ſe connoiſſent point, viennent à ſe reconnoître, comme dans l'Iphigenie d'Euripide.]²⁴⁰

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-278

11.9 Outre ces deux parties de la fable, qui regardent le ſujet, il y en a encore une troisième que j'appelle la paſſion.]²⁴¹

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-279

11.10 J'appelle paſſion, une action qui détruit quelque perſonnage.]²⁴²

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-280

11.10 Comme font les morts evidentes & certaines.]²⁴³

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-281

12.1 Prés avoir expliqué les parties qui conſtituent la forme & la qualité de la Tragedie.]²⁴⁴

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-282

12.1 Il faut parler de celles qui conſtituent ſa quantité, & qui ſubſiſtent ſeparément.]²⁴⁵

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-283

12.2 La Tragedie a quatre parties principales, le Prologue, l'Epiſode, l'Exode, & le Chœur.]²⁴⁶

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-284

12.3 Et ce dernier ſe partage encore en trois parties, qu'on appelle Parodos, Staſimon & Commoi.]²⁴⁷

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-285

12.4 Le Prologue est toute cette partie de la Tragedie qui précede l'entrée du Chœur.]²⁴⁸

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-286

12.5 L' Epiſode est tout ce qui est entre les chants du Chœur.]²⁴⁹

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-287

12.6 L' Exode est tout ce qui est dit après que le Chœur a ceßé de chanter pour ne plus reprendre.]²⁵⁰

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-288

12.7 Le Parodos eft le premier discours de tout le Chœur.]²⁵¹

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-289

12.8 Le Staſimon est tout ce que le Chœur chante, quand il a pris poſſeſſion du Theatre, & qu'il s'est comme incorporé dans l'action.]²⁵²

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-290

12.8 Ce chant est sans anapeste & ſans trochée.]²⁵³

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-291

12.9 Commoi, ſont les regrets que font enſemble le Chœur & les Acteurs.]²⁵⁴

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-292

13.2 C'Eſt une conſequence neceſſaire, qu'il ne faut pas choiſir un tres honnète homme, pour le faire tomber de la proſpé-rité dans l'adverſité.]²⁵⁵

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-293

13.3 Il est évident encore qu'il ne faut pas prendre un méchant homme pour le faire paſſer d'un état malheureux dans un état heureux, car il n'y a rien qui ſoit moins Tragique.]²⁵⁶

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-294

13.3 Et on ne voit là aucun des effets de la Tragedie.]²⁵⁷

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-295

13.3 Car outre qu'il n'excite ny la terreur ny la compaſſion, il ne fait aucun plaifir.]²⁵⁸

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-296

13.4 Bien plus on ne doit pas repreſenter les malheurs d'un tres méchant homme; véritablement une telle representation peut faire quelque plaisir, mais elle ne produira ny la crainte, ny la pitié.]²⁵⁹

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-297

13.4 Car la premiere naît des malheurs de nos ſemblables.]²⁶⁰

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-298

13.4 Et l'autre des miſères de ceux qui meritoient un meilleur fort.]²⁶¹

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-299

13.5 Il ne reſte donc que celuy qui tient le milieu, & qui n'étant ny vertueux ny juſte dans un ſouverain degré, ne s'attire pas non plus ſes malheurs par ſes méchancetez & par ſes crimes.]²⁶²

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-300

13.5 Il faut choiſir parmy ceux qui font dans une fortune éclatante & dans une grande réputation, quelque perſonnage illuſ-tre.]²⁶³

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-301

13.5 Qui ſe ſoit rendu malheureux par quelque faute involontaire.]²⁶⁴

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-302

13.5 Comme Edipe.]²⁶⁵

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-303

13.5 Thyeste.]²⁶⁶

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-304

13.6 Il s'enſuit de-là neceſſairement, qu'une fable doit être ſimple & non pas double.]²⁶⁷

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-305

13.6 Comme quelques gens l'ont prétendu.]²⁶⁸

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-306

13.6 Que ſi on n'en trouve pas un qui ſoit preciſément tel, il faut choiſir celuy qui est plutôt bon que méchant.]²⁶⁹

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-307

13.7 Ce que nous voyons aujourd'huy, eſt une preuve évidente de cette verité. Les Poëtes mettoient d'abord ſur le Theatre avec ſuc-cez toutes ſortes de ſujets ; mais preſentement leurs plus belles pie-ces, font celles dont les ſujets ne font pris que dans un petit nom-bre de familles.]²⁷⁰

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-308

13.7 Comme dans celles d'Alcmaon, d'Edipe, d'oreste, de Me-leagre de Thyeſte, & de Telephus.]²⁷¹

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-309

13.7 Meleagre.]²⁷²

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-310

13.7 Telephus.]²⁷³

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-311

13.7 Et de tous les autres qui ont fait ou fouffert des chofes terribles.]²⁷⁴

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-312

13.7 Qui ont fait ou fouffert des choses terribles.]²⁷⁵

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-313

13.8 Qui ont fait ou fouffert des choses terribles. On a formé ſur ce paſſage de grandes difficultez, ſans les réſoudre. Tâchons de ne laiſſer aucun ſcrupule là deſſus. Il ſemble d'abord qu'Ariſtote auroit dû dire, qui ont fait & ſouffert des choſes terribles, puiſqu'il a dit plus haut, que la Trage-die ne doit imiter que l'action d'un homme qui s'eſt attiré de grands malheurs par un crime involontaire; c'eſt-à-dire, qui a ſouffert des choſes terribles, aprés en avoir fait, ſans le vouloir; mais il n'y a rien là qui ſe contrediſe. Ari-ſtote ſe ſervy de la disjonctive, ou, pour marquer la dif-ference des actions des hommes qui peuvent fournir des ſujets de Tragedie. Dans les uns ce qu'ils font eſt plus re-marquable & plus violent que ce qu'ils ſouffrent; & telle eſt l'action d'Atrée: Dans les autres, ce qu'ils ſouffrent eſt plus terrible & plus touchant que ce qu'ils ont fait; & telle eſt l'action d'Œdipe. Il faut donc que le Poëte s'accommode de l'une ou de l'autre de ces deux ſortes d'actions, pourvû qu'il obſerve toûjours cette regle inviolable que le princi-pal perſonnage s'attire ſes malheurs par des fautes invo-lontaires.]²⁷⁶

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-314

13.9 C'est pourquoy tous ceux qui blament Euripide de ce qu'il suit ces maximes dans ſes Tragedies, & que la plupart de ſes pieces ont une catastrophe funeste, se trompent infiniment.]²⁷⁷

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-315

13.9 Et que la plupart de ſes pieces ont une catastrophe funeſte.]²⁷⁸

25. mvp-aristotle-comment-316

13.10 En voicy une preuve incontestable, c'est que dans les diſputes publiques & ſur le Theatre, ces fortes de Tragedies paroiſſent toûjours les plus tragiques & les plus touchantes.]²⁷⁹

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-317

13.10 Dans les Disputes publiques & ſur le Theatre.]²⁸⁰

27. mvp-aristotle-comment-318

13.10 Si rien d'étranger n'en trouble & n'en gate la repreſenta-tion.]²⁸¹

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-319

13.10 Et le même Euripide, quoique d'ailleurs peu exact & peu chatié dans la conduitte & dans la diſpoſition de ſes ſujets, pa-roit le plus tragique de tous les Poëtes.]²⁸²

29. mvp-aristotle-comment-320

13.11 La fable à laquelle je donne le ſecond rang, quoyque d'au-tres luy ayent donné le premier; c'est celle qui a une double con-titution.]²⁸³

30. mvp-aristotle-comment-321

13.11 Comme l'Odyſſée]²⁸⁴

31. mvp-aristotle-comment-322

13.12 Ceux qui l'ont preferée à la premiere, l'ont fait appara-ment, à cause de la foibleſſe des ſpectateurs au goût & aux ſou-haits desquels les Poëtes ſe conforment d'ordinaire.]²⁸⁵

32. mvp-aristotle-comment-323

13.13 Mais le plaisir que donne cette Fable, n'est pas à beau-coup prés si propre à la Tragedie qu'à la Comedie.]²⁸⁶

33. mvp-aristotle-comment-324

13.13 En effet on voit à la Comedie des ennemis auſſi irreconcilia-bles qu'Oreste & qu' Egiſthe, devenir à la fin fort bons amis.]²⁸⁷

34. mvp-aristotle-comment-325

13.13 Et fe retirer ſans qu'il y ayt de côté ny d'autre, un goute de ſang répandu.]²⁸⁸

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-326

14.1 LE terrible & le pitoyable peuvent naitre du ſpectacle de la décoration; mais ils peuvent naitre auſſi de la ſuite des Incidens, & cela est beaucoup mieux.]²⁸⁹

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-327

14.2 Car il faut que la fable ſoit composée, de maniere que celuy qui ne fait qu'entendre les choses qui arrivent, quoyqu'il ne les voye pas, fremiſſe pourtant à ce recit.]²⁹⁰

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-328

14.3 C'est à quoy l'addreſſe du Poëte n'a point de part, cela depend bien plus de ceux qui fourniſſent les decorations &c.]²⁹¹

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-329

14.4 Ceux qui ne cherchent pas le terrible par la decoration, mais qui cherchent le monstrueux, s'éloignent encore beaucoup du but de la Tragedie.]²⁹²

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-330

14.5 Car la Tragedie n'est pas faite pour nous donner indiffe-remment toute forte de plaisir, mais feulement celuy qui luy est propre.]²⁹³

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-331

14.5 Ce plaisir, c'est celuy qui, par l'imitation, nait de la compaſſion & de la terreur.]²⁹⁴

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-332

14.5 Et par conſequent il eſt clair que le Poëte doit produire en nous ce plaisir par le moyen des choses qu'il reprefente.]²⁹⁵

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-333

14.6 Tout ce qui arrive, arrive ou entre des amis, ou entre des ennemis ou entre des personnes indifferentes.]²⁹⁶

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-334

14.7 Un ennemy qui tuë ou qui va tuer ſon ennemy, n'excite d'autre pitié que celle qui nait du mal mème.]²⁹⁷

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-335

14.9 Mais lorsque de pareils malheurs arrivent entre des amis.]²⁹⁸

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-336

14.9 Qu'un frere tue ou va tuer ſon frere.]²⁹⁹

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-337

14.9 Un fils ſon pere.]³⁰⁰

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-338

14.9 Une mere ſon fils, ou un fils ſa mere.]³⁰¹

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-339

14.9 Ou qu'ils font quelque chose de semblable.]³⁰²

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-340

14.9 Voilà ce qu'il faut chercher.]³⁰³

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-341

14.10 Voilà pourquoy il ne faut pas changer les fables déja re-ceües, par exemple, il faut que Clytemneſtre ſoit tuée par Ore-ſte, & Eriphyle par Alcmcon.]³⁰⁴

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-342

14.11 Mais le Poëte doit inventer luy-mème, en ſe ſervant, comme il faut des fables receües.]³⁰⁵

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-343

14.12 On peut repreſenter des actions qui ſe font par des gens qui agiſſent avec une entiere connoiſſance, & qui sçavent ce qu'ils font.]³⁰⁶

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-344

14.12 Euripide l'a ſuivie lorſqu'il a repreſenté Medée tuant ſes enfans.]³⁰⁷

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-345

14.13 On peut auſſi faire agir des gens qui ne connoiſſent pas l'atrocité de l'action qu'ils commettent, & qui après l'avoir com-miſe, viennent à reconnoitre la liaiſon & l'amitié qui étoit en-tr'eux, & ceux ſur qui ils ſe ſont vangez.]³⁰⁸

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-346

14.13 La mort d'Eriphyle tuée par Alcmæon dans le Poëte Aſtydamas.]³⁰⁹

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-347

14.13 Et la bleſſure d'Vlyſſe par Telegonus.]³¹⁰

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-348

14.14 Enfin on peut faire qu'une personne, qui par ignorance va commettre un tres grand crime, le reconnoît avant que de l'exe-cuter.]³¹¹

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-349

14.15 Il est vray que cela renferme une quatrième manière.]³¹²

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-350

14.16 Qui est lorſqu'une perſonne va commettre un crime, le voulant & le ſçachant, & ne l'execute point; mais cette manière eſt la plus mauvaiſe de toutes.]³¹³

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-351

14.16 Caroutre que cela est horrible & ſcelerat, il n'y a rien de tragique, parce que la fin n'a rien de touchant.]³¹⁴

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-352

14.16 Sophocle s'en est ſervi une feule fois dans ſon Antigone, où Hæmon tire l'épée contre ſon pere Creon pour le tuer.]³¹⁵

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-353

14.17 Dans ces occafions il vaut encore mieux que le crime s'exe-cute, comme dans la premiere maniére.]³¹⁶

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-354

14.18 La seconde manière est encore préferable à celle-là, je veux dire, lorſque celuy qui commet le crime, le commet par ignorance & le reconnoît aprés l'avoir commis.]³¹⁷

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-355

14.19 qu' Euripide a ſuivie dans ſon Creſphonte, où Merope reconnoît ſon fils dans le moment qu'elle va le tuer.)]³¹⁸

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-356

14.19 Et dans fon Iphigenie, où cette Princeſſe reconnoît fon frere, lorſqu'elle en va faire un ſacrifice.]³¹⁹

25. mvp-aristotle-comment-357

14.19 C'est ainsi que dans l'Hellé Phryxus reconnoît ſa mere ſur le point qu'il va la livrer à ſes ennemis.]³²⁰

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-358

14.20 La raiſon de cela est que les premiers Poëtes en cherchant des ſujets, ne les ont pas tirez de leur Art, mais de la for-tune.]³²¹

27. mvp-aristotle-comment-359

14.20 Voilà pourquoy les Poëtes d'aujourd'huy font forcez d'a-voir recours à ces mêmes familles, dans lesquelles la fortune a permis que tous ces grands malheurs foient arrivez.]³²²

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-360

14.21 En voilà affez fur la Constitution, ſur la Nature, & ſur la Qualité des fables, ou des ſujets de Tragedie.]³²³

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-361

15.1 LA premiere & la plus importante, qu'elles soient bon-nes. Il y a des mœurs dans un discours, ou dans une action, comme je l'ay déja dit, lorsque l'un & l'autre, font connoître l'inclination, ou la réſolution telle qu'elle est; mau-vaiſe fi elle est mauvaiſe, & bonne, fi elle est bonne.]³²⁴

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-362

15.3 Qucyque communément les femmes ſoient plutôt mauvai-ſes que bonnes.]³²⁵

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-363

15.3 Et que les valets ſoient abſolument méchans.]³²⁶

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-364

15.4 La ſeconde qu'elles ſoient convenables.]³²⁷

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-365

15.4 La vaillance eſt une vertu morale ; mais elle ne convient point à une femme.]³²⁸

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-366

15.5 La troisième qu'elles foient ſemblables.]³²⁹

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-367

15.5 Car autre choſe est des mœurs ſemblables, & des mœurs ou bonnes ou convenables, comme cela a été dit.]³³⁰

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-368

15.6 La quatrième enfin qu'elles soient égales.]³³¹

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-369

15.6 Et ſi l'original d'aprés lequel nous avons tiré notre imitation eft inégal dans ſes mœurs, nous devons le faire partout éga-lement inégal.]³³²

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-370

15.7 On péche contre la bonté des mœurs, quand elles ne font pas neceffaires.]³³³

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-371

15.7 Telles font les mœurs de Menelas dans l'Oreste d'Euri-pide.]³³⁴

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-372

15.8 Les lamentations d'Ulyſſe dans la Scylla du mème Poë-te, & tout le discours de ſa Menalippe dans la piece qui porte ce nom, péchent contre la convenance, car il n'y a rien de plus indécent.]³³⁵

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-373

15.9 Le même Poëte a peché contre l'égalité dans ſon Iphige-nie en Aulide, car l'Iphigenie ſuppliante qu'on voit au commen-cement, n'est pas la même que l' Iphigenie courageuse qu'on voit à la fin.]³³⁶

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-374

15.10 Or dans les mœurs, comme dans la diſpoſition du ſujet, il faut toûjours chercher, ou le neceſſaire, ou le vray-ſembla-ble.]³³⁷

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-375

15.10 De ſorte que les choſes arrivent les unes aprés les autres, ou neceſſairement ou vray-ſemblablement.]³³⁸

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-376

15.10b Il est donc évident par là que le denoüement du ſujet doit ètre tiré du sujet même.]³³⁹

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-377

15.10b Sans qu'on y employe le ſecours d'une machine, comme dans la Medée.]³⁴⁰

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-378

15.10b Ou comme dans l'Iliade ſur le retour des Grecs.]³⁴¹

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-379

15.10c Si l'on ſe ſert d'une machine, il faut que ce ſoit toujours hors de l'action de la Tragedie, ou pour expliquer les choſes qui ſont arrivées auparavant, & qu'il n'eſt pas poſſible que l'hom-me ſçache, ou pour avertir de celles qui arriveront enſuite, & dont il eſt neceſſaire qu'on ſoit inſtruit.]³⁴²

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-380

15.10c Car nous ſommes tous perſuadez que les Dieux peuvent tout voir.]³⁴³

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-381

15.10d Il faut absolument que dans tous les Incidens qui compo-ſent la fable il n'y ayt rien qui ſoit ſans raiſon.]³⁴⁴

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-382

15.10d Ou, ſi cela est impoſſible, on doit faire en ſorte que ce qui eſt ſans raiſon, ſe trouve toûjours hors de la Tragedie, comme Sophocle l'a ſagement obſervé dans ſon Œdipe.]³⁴⁵

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-383

15.11 Puisque la Tragedie est une imitation de ce qu'il y a de plus excellent parmy les hommes, nous devons imiter les bons Peintres, qui en donnant à chacun ſa veritable forme, & en les faiſant ſemblables, les reprefentent toûjours plus beaux.]³⁴⁶

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-384

15.11 Il faut tout de mème qu'un Poète qui veut imiter un homme colére & emporté, ou quelqu'autre caractère ſemblable, ſe remette bien plus devant les yeux ce que la colére doit faire vray-ſemblablement, que ce qu'elle a fait.]³⁴⁷

25. mvp-aristotle-comment-385

15.11 Et c'est ainsi qu' Agathon & Homere ont formé le cara-ctere d'Achille.]³⁴⁸

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-386

15.12 Il faut obferver toutes ces chofes, & outre cela fatisfaire à toutes celles que demandent les deux ſentimens qui font inſepa-rables de la Poëſie, & qui en font les feuls juges.]³⁴⁹

27. mvp-aristotle-comment-387

15.12 Car il arrive tres ſouvent qu'on péche de ce côté-là.]³⁵⁰

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-388

15.12 Mais il en a été affez parlé dans les Traitez que nous avons donnez ſur cette matière.]³⁵¹

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-389

16.1 NOus avons déja expliqué plus haut ce que c'est que la reconnoiſſance.]³⁵²

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-390

16.1 La premiere qui est la plus ſimple & fans aucun art, & dont la plupart des Poëtes ſe ſervent faute de genie, eft celle qui ſe fait par les marques.]³⁵³

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-391

16.2 Ces marques font, ou naturelles, comme la lance empreinte ſur le corps des Thebains.]³⁵⁴

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-392

16.2 Et comme l'étoile dont Carcinus ſe'ſt ſervy dans ſon Thyeſte.]³⁵⁵

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-393

16.2 Carcinus.]³⁵⁶

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-394

16.3 Ou comme le petit berceau dans la piece appellée Tyro.]³⁵⁷

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-395

16.4 Ces marques peuvent être employées avec plus ou moins d'art, comme on peut le voir dans la reconnoiſſance d'Ulyſſe par la cicatrice de ſa bleſſure; car il est reconnu par sa nourriſſe au-trement que par les bergers.]³⁵⁸

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-396

16.5 Comme celle qui se fait dans l'Odyſſée, quand on lave les pieds à Ulyſſe.]³⁵⁹

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-397

16.6 La seconde espece de reconnoiſſance est celle qui est imagi-née par le Poëte, voilà pourquoy elle eſt ſans art.]³⁶⁰

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-398

16.6 C'est ainsi que dans l'Iphigenie d'Euripide, Oreſte ayant reconnu sa fœur par le moyen d'une Lettre, est reconnu d'elle à certaines enſeignes qu'il luy donne.]³⁶¹

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-399

16.6 Eſt reconnu à certaines enſeignes qu'il luy donne.]³⁶²

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-400

16.6 Car le Poëte avoit la liberté de faire reconnoître Oreſte à Iphigenie par tels autres ſignes qu'il auroit voulu, & qu'Ore-ſte auroit pû porter.]³⁶³

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-401

16.7 La voix que Sophocle a donnée à une Navette dans ſon Terée eſt de la même nature.]³⁶⁴

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-402

16.8 La troiſième eſpece eſt celle qui ſe fait par la memoire, lorſqu'un objet renouvelle en nous quelque ſouvenir qui produit la reconnoiſſance, comme dans les Cypriaques de Dicæogene, où celuy qui voit un Tableau ſe met à pleurer, & ſes pleurs le font reconnoître.]³⁶⁵

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-403

16.8 Ou comme chez Alcinous, Ulyſſe entendant un joüeur de harpe, & ſe ſouvenant de ſes travaux paſſez, ne pût retenir ſes larmes, & fut reconnu.]³⁶⁶

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-404

16.9 La quatrième eſpece de reconnoiſſance eſt celle qui ſe fait par le raiſonnement, comme dans les Coephores, où Electre rai-ſonne de cette manière; Il eſt venu icy un homme qui me reſſem-ble, perſonne ne me reſſemble qu'Oreste, donc Oreste eſt venu.]³⁶⁷

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-405

16.9 Ou comme dans l'Iphigenie du Sophiſte Polyides, où Ore-ſte fait ce raiſonnement, comme ma ſœur a été immolée à Dia-ne, il faut donc auſſi que je luy ſois immolé.]³⁶⁸

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-406

16.9 Dans le Tydée de Theodecte, Adraſte fait ce raiſonnc-ment, Lajus étoit allé pour avoir des nouvelles de ſon fils, il fut tué en chemin, celuy-cy eſt ſon petit fils, c'est donc le fils d'Œdipe.]³⁶⁹

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-407

16.9 Et dans les Phincides, ces malheureuſes filles voyant le lieu...]³⁷⁰

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-408

16.10 Il y a encore une cinquième eſpece de reconnoiſſance, qui ſe fait auſſi par un raiſonnement qui eſt ſuivi d'une fauſſe con-ſequence que tire le ſpectateur, comme dans le faux Ulyſſe.]³⁷¹

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-409

16.11 La plus belle de toutes les reconnoiſſances eft celle qui naît des Incidens mêmes, & qui produit une tres grande ſurpriſe par des moyens vray-ſemblables, comme dans l'Œdipe de Sophocle, & dans l' Iphigenie d'Euripide.]³⁷²

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-410

16.11 Car il est tres vray-ſemblable & tres naturel qu'Œdipe ſoit curieux.]³⁷³

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-411

16.11 Et ces fortes de reconnoiſſances font les ſeules qui ſe font ſans le ſecours des ſignes, ou inventez ou étrangers.]³⁷⁴

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-412

16.12 Après celles-là, les meilleures font celles qui ſe font par le raiſonnement.]³⁷⁵

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-413

17.1 IL faut d'abord dreſſer tout le plan de ſon ſujet, le mettre par écrit le plus exactement qu'il eſt poſſible, & le faire paſſer tout entier devant ſes yeux ; car en voyant ainſi nous-mèmes tres clairement toutes ſes parties, comme ſi nous étions preſens à l'action, nous trouverons bien plus ſeurement ce qui ſied, &c.]³⁷⁶

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-414

17.2 C'est le reproche qu'on fait à Carcinus. Ce Poëte dans le plan de ſon ſujet, faiſoit ſortir Amphiaraüs du Temple ſans qu'on le vit, & il ne prit pas garde à ce défaut, parce qu'il n'avoit pas fait paſſer le tout devant ſes yeux.]³⁷⁷

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-415

17.2 Mais quand la piece fut portée ſur le Theatre, elle tomba, les ſpectateurs ne pouvant ſouffrir qu'on leur voulût perſuader qu'Amphiaraüs étoit ſorti veritablement, lorſqu'ils n'en a-voient rien vû.]³⁷⁸

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-416

17.3 Il faut encore, autant qu'il eſt poſſible, que le Poëte en compoſant, imite les geſtes & l'action de ceux qu'il fait parler.]³⁷⁹

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-417

17.3 Dans ces occaſions il vaut encore mieux que le crime s'exēcute, comme dans la premiere maniére.]³⁸⁰

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.]³⁸¹

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-419

17.7 Cette fable étant faite, on donne les noms aux perſonna-ges, & on épiſodie l'action.]³⁸²

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-420

17.7 Mais il faut bien prendre garde que les Epiſodes ſoient pro-pres.]³⁸³

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-421

17.8 Comme dans Oreste, la fureur qui le fait prendre, & la délivrance par les expiations.]³⁸⁴

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-422

17.9 Dans le Poëme Dramatique les Epiſodes ſont courts ; mais l'epopée est étendüe & amplifiée par les ſiens.]³⁸⁵

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-423

17.10 En effet le ſujet de l'Odyſſée, par exemple, est fort long.]³⁸⁶

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-424

17.10 Un homme eſt abſent de ſon païs pluſieurs années, Neptu-ne le perſecute, &c.]³⁸⁷

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-425

17.11 Voilà ce qui est propre, le reſte ſont les Epiſodes.]³⁸⁸

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-426

18.1 TOutē Tragedie est composée d'un nœud & d'un de-noiement. Les Incidens qui arrivent du dehors, & tres ſouvent même une partie de ceux que le Poëte tire de ſon ſujet, font le nœud, le reste est le denoiement.]³⁸⁹

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-427

18.2 F'appelle le nœud toute cette partie de la Tragedie, de-puis le commencement jusqu'à l'endroit où les choses changent de face.]³⁹⁰

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-428

18.2 Et j'appelle le denoiement tout ce qui est depuis l'endroit, où ce changement a commencé, juſqu'à la fin.]³⁹¹

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-429

18.3 Par exemple, dans le Lyncée de Theodecte, tout ce qui arrive juſqu'aprés la prise de ce jeune Prince, c'est le nœud, & le denoüement commence à l'endroit, où cet enfant fait des re-grets ſur ſa mort.]³⁹²

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-430

18.4 Il a été dit que la Tragedie a quatre parties, il y a auſſi quatre especes de Tragedies.]³⁹³

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-431

18.6 Comme les Ajax & les Ixions.]³⁹⁴

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-432

18.7 La troiſième la morale, comme les Phthiotides & le Pe-lee.]³⁹⁵

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-433

18.8 Et la quatrième enfin, comme les Phorcydes, le Prome-thée.]³⁹⁶

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-434

18.8 Comme les Phorcydes.]³⁹⁷

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-435

18.8 Et tout ce qui ſe paſſe dans les Enfers.]³⁹⁸

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-436

18.9 Il faut tacher de réüſſir dans ces quatre eſpeces, ou au moins dans la plus grande partie & dans les plus importantes.]³⁹⁹

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-437

18.9 Sur tout aujourd'huy, où l'on ne cherche qu'à critiquer les Poetes.]⁴⁰⁰

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-438

18.9 Car ſur ce qu'il y a eu des hommes excellens dans chacun de ces genres.]⁴⁰¹

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-439

18.10 14. Il me semble auſi qu'il n'est pas juste de prétendre qu'une piece eft la même qu'une autre, ou qu'elle est differente, lorſque le sujet est le même ou qu'il est different. Il est à mon avis plus raisonnable de dire cela des pieces qui ont le même nœud & le mème denoiement, où dont le nœud & le denoüement font tout autres.]⁴⁰²

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-440

18.11 15. La plupart des Poëtes après avoir fort bien fait le nœud de leurs pieces, font fort mal le denoüement; mais il faut reüſſir également dans l'un & dans l'autre.]⁴⁰³

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-441

18.13 16. Sur toutes things, il faut ſe ſouvenir, comme on l'a déja dit ſouvent, de ne pas faire de la Tragedie un Tiſſu Epique, j'appelle Tiſſu Epique, un Tiſſu de plusieurs fables, comme fi quelqu'un mettoit toute l'Iliade dans une ſeule Tragedie.]⁴⁰⁴

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-442

18.14 17. Dans l'Epopée chacune de ces parties reçoit sa juſte grandeur, à cause de l'étenduë de ce Poëme; mais dans la Tragedie il en arrive tout autrement qu'on n'avoit penſe.)⁴⁰⁵

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-443

18.15 18. Et l'on peut se convaincre de cette verité par le mauvais fuccez qu'ont eu tous ceux qui ont mis, par exemple, toute la ruine de Troye dans une seule piece, & qui n'ont pas traité ce fujet-là par parties.]⁴⁰⁶

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-444

18.15 19. Comme Euripide a fait ſa Niobe on ſa Medée, ou comme Efchyle.]⁴⁰⁷

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-445

18.15 20. Car ou ils ont vû tomber leurs pieces, ou ils ont été vaincus.]⁴⁰⁸

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-446

18.16 21. Et c'eſt là uniquement ce qui a été cauſe du malheur d'Agathon.]⁴⁰⁹

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-447

18.16 22. Car d'ailleurs tous ces Poëtes font merveilleux dans les peripeties & dans les denoüemens ſimples)⁴¹⁰

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-448

18.16 23. Qui ne laiſſent pas d'ètre tragiques, & de faire plaiſir.)⁴¹¹

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-449

18.17 24. Car le Tragique & l'agreable se trouvent, lorſqu'on voit, par exemple, qu'un homme ſage, mais méchant, est trompé, comme un Siſyphe; ou qu'un vaillant homme, mais injuste, est vaincu.]⁴¹²

25. mvp-aristotle-comment-450

18.18 25. Tout cela cft dans la vray-femblance.]⁴¹³

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-451

18.18 26. Car comme dit Agathon, il y a de la vray-ſemblance qu'il arrive pluſieurs choses contre la vray-femblance.]⁴¹⁴

27. mvp-aristotle-comment-452

18.19 27. Il faut auſſi que le Chœur joüe le rôle d'un Acteur, qu'il faſſe une partie du tout, & qu'il contribuë au progrez de Paction.]⁴¹⁵

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-453

18.19 28. Comme dans Sophocle, & non pas comme dans Euripide.]⁴¹⁶

29. mvp-aristotle-comment-454

18.20 29. Dans tous les autres Poëtes, c'est encore pis; car les Chœurs n'appartiennent pas plus aux sujets qu'ils traitent qu'à toute autre Tragedie; c'est pourquoy ils ne chantent plus que des chansons inferees.]⁴¹⁷

30. mvp-aristotle-comment-455

18.20 30. Agathon est le premier qui a introduit ce mauvais uſage.]⁴¹⁸

31. mvp-aristotle-comment-456

18.20 31. Cependant quelle difference peut-on mettre entre chanter des chansons inferées, & tranſporter de longs recits d'une piece dans une autre, ou un Epiſode entier.]⁴¹⁹

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-457

19.1 1. Pour ce qui est des sentimens, on peut voir ce qui en a été dit dans nos Livres de la Rhetorique ; car ils font proprement du reſſort de ſon art.]⁴²⁰

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-458

19.5 2. Il eſt donc évident que dans les ſujets du Poëme drama-tique, les Poëtes doivent ſe ſervir des mèmes lieux que les Orateurs.]⁴²¹

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-459

19.6 3. Il y a pourtant cette difference entre les choses dont ils traitent , que les unes ſans le ſecours de l'art font naturellement telles qu'on veut les faire paroître, & que les autres font rendues telles par l'adreſſe de celuy qui parle.]⁴²²

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-460

19.6 4. Car que reſteroit-il à faire pour luy, fi toutes les chofes étoient touchantes par elles-mêmes ſans l'aide de ſes discours.]⁴²³

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-461

19.7 5. Pour ce qui est de la diction, il y en a une partie qui eft pour le Spectacle & pour le Theatre; c'est la prononciation & le geſte; mais cela regarde proprement l'art des Comediens, ou de ceux qui font une ſemblable profeſſion.]⁴²⁴

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-462

19.7 6. Mais cela regarde proprement l'art des Comediens, ou de ceux qui font une semblable profeſion.]⁴²⁵

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-463

19.7 7. Car c'est à eux d'enſeigner ce que c'est qu'un commandement, une priere, une ſimple narration, une menace.]⁴²⁶

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-464

19.8 8. En effet, qu'on obſerve, ou qu'on viole ces regles, cela ne fait rien pour la Poësie, qui de ce côté–là n'a à craindre aucun reproche digne de confideration.]⁴²⁷

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-465

19.8 9. Par exemple, qui eſt-ce qui s'aviſera jamais de recevoir la Critique de Protagoras, qui accuſe Homere d'avoir fait aux Muſes un commandement, au lieu d'une priere, ſous pretexte qu'il a dit par l'imperatif: Muſe chante-moy la colére.]⁴²⁸

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-466

20.1 1. L , Es LEs parties de la diction proprement dite, font huit.]⁴²⁹

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-467

20.2 2. La lettre est un ſon indiviſible, non pas quelque ſon que ce foit, mais celuy qui est articulé & intelligible.]⁴³⁰

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-468

20.3 3. Les lettres ſe diviſent en voyelles, demy-voyelles, & muetes.]⁴³¹

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-469

20.3 4. La demy-voyelle est celle qui pour se faire entendre, emprunte la voix d'une voyelle qui la précede.]⁴³²

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-470

20.4 5. Il y a encore entr'elles une autre difference qui ſe tire, on ou de la conformation de la bouche, & des autres endroits qui ſer-vent à la prononciation. ]⁴³³

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-471

20.4 6. Ou de ce qu'elles font afpirées, ou douces ]⁴³⁴

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-472

20.4 7. Breves ou longues, graves ou aigues, ou circonflexes.]⁴³⁵

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-473

20.4 8. Mais il ne convient de traiter en détail de toutes ces dif-ferentes qualitez des lettres, que dans les traitez qui enſeignent l'art de faire des vers.]⁴³⁶

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-474

20.5 9. La fyllabe est un ſon qui ne ſignifie rien, & qui est compo- Fée compoſée d'une muete & d'une voyelle.]⁴³⁷

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-475

20.6 10. La conjonction eſt un ſon qui ne ſignifiant rien par luy-mème, ne fait ny n'empèche que chacun des autres avec lesquels elle se trouve, n'ait sa fignification, mais qui les détermine tous à n'en avoir qu'une feule, & ne fait qu'un ſeul & mème ſon de tous les differens ſons qu'elle unit.]⁴³⁸

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-476

20.6 11. Elle ſe met d'ordinaire à la fin, ou au milieu, & quelque-fois au commencement.]⁴³⁹

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-477

20.7 12. L'article est un ſon, qui ne ſignifiant rien par luy-mème, ſert ſeulement à montrer le commencement ou la fin du discours]⁴⁴⁰

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-478

20.8 13. Le nom est un ſon composé, qui fignifie quelque choſe ſans marquer le temps, & dont les parties qui le compoſent ne fignifient rien ſeules.]⁴⁴¹

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-479

20.8 14. Car même dans les noms doubles, chaque nom ſeparé n'a aucune fignification, comme Theodore.]⁴⁴²

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-480

20.9 15. Mais le verbe a cet avantage ſur le nom qu'il marque le temps, ce que le nom ne fait pas.]⁴⁴³

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-481

20.10 16. Le cas est dans les noms & dans les verbes.]⁴⁴⁴

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-482

20.11 17. L'oraiſon, ou le diſcours, eſt un ſon compoſe qui fignifie, & dont quelques parties ſeparées ont leur ſignification.]⁴⁴⁵

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-483

20.12 18. Car il ne faut pas s'imaginer que l'oraiſon ſoit toujours un composé de noms & de verbes, comme la définition de l'homme.]⁴⁴⁶

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-484

20.13 19. On appelle l'oraiſon, une, en deux manières.]⁴⁴⁷

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-485

21.1 1. Ly a deux fortes de noms, les fimples & les doubles. Les ſimples font ceux qui ſont compoſez de parties qui ne fignifient rien; & les douoles font ceux qui ſont formez d'un mot qui fignifie, & d'un autre qui ne fignifie rien, ou de deux mots qui ont chacun leur fignification.]⁴⁴⁸

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-486

21.2 2. D'un mot qui ſignifie, & d'un autre qui ne fignifie rien.]⁴⁴⁹

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-487

21.3 3. Il y a dulfi des noms triples & quatruples.]⁴⁵⁰

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-488

21.3 4. Comme on en trouve pluſieurs dans les Poëtes Dithyrambiques.]⁴⁵¹

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-489

21.4 5. Tout nom est, ou propre ou étranger.]⁴⁵²

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-490

21.5 6. Le nom propre eſt celuy dont tout le monde fe fert dans un mème lieu.]⁴⁵³

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-491

21.6 7. L'étranger eft celuy qui est en uſage ailleurs.]⁴⁵⁴

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-492

21.6 8. D'où il s'enfuit qu'un mème nom peut être propre & étranger par raport à differentes perſonnes.)⁴⁵⁵

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-493

21.6 9. Car le nom Sigunon, qui eſt un mot propre pour les Cypriens, est un mot étranger pour nous.]⁴⁵⁶

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-494

21.7 10. La metaphore est un tranſport d'un nom qu'on tire de ſa ſignification ordinaire. Il y a quatre fortes de metaphore.]⁴⁵⁷

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-495

21.8 11. J'appelle metaphore du genre à l'eſpece, comme dans ce vers d' Homere.]⁴⁵⁸

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-496

21.9 12. La metaphore de l'eſpece au genre, comme dans cet endroit du même Poëte, certainement Vlyſſe a fait dix mille bonnes actions.]⁴⁵⁹

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-497

21.10 13. La metaphore de l'eſpece à l'efpece conſiſte dans la reſſem-blance.]⁴⁶⁰

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-498

21.10 14. Comme ſi en parlant d'un homme qui dans l'esperance, &c.]⁴⁶¹

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-499

21.11 15. Enfin la metaphore analogique eſt, lorſque de quatre termes, le ſecond a le mème raport au premier, que le quatrième au troisième.]⁴⁶²

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-500

21.12 16. Quelquefois mème on ajoûte la chose à laquelle ſe fait le raport, & qu'on met à la place de celle qui est propre.]⁴⁶³

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-501

21.12 17. On dira donc en parlant d'un Bouclier, que c'est la Coupe de Mars.]⁴⁶⁴

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-502

21.14 18. Il arrive quelquefois qu'on tombe ſur des choses qui n'ont point de terme analogique; mais on ne laiſſe pas de s'en ſervir de la même manière.)⁴⁶⁵

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-503

21.15 19. On ſe ſert encore d'une autre manière de cette metaphore. quand après le nom metaphorique, on ajoûte une Epithete qui nie quelqu'une des qualitez qui luy ſont propres.)⁴⁶⁶

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-504

21.17 20. Le nom inventé eſt celuy que le Poëte, &c.]⁴⁶⁷

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-505

21.17 21. Le nom inventé est celuy que le Poëte crée luy-même, & qui étoit auparavant inconnu.]⁴⁶⁸

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-506

21.18 22. Les noms alongez ſont ceux, où l'on met une voyelle longue, au lieu d'une breve.]⁴⁶⁹

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-507

21.19 23. Les mots racourcis ſont ceux à qui l'on ote une ſyllabe, comme

κρῖ

pour

κρίμνον

.]⁴⁷⁰

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-508

21.21 24. Il y a encore une autre difference entre les noms, les uns font masculins, & les autres feminins, & les autres neutres.]⁴⁷¹

25. mvp-aristotle-comment-509

21.26 25. On n'en trouve que trois qui se terminent en

μέλι

κόμμι

πέπερι

.]⁴⁷²

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-510

21.26 26. Et cinq en

.]⁴⁷³

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-511

22.1 1. L A vertu de l'expreſſion conſiſte dans la netteté & dans la nobleſſe. Celle qui eft compofée de mots propres est tres claire; mais elle est baffe.]⁴⁷⁴

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-512

22.2 2. Comme on le voit dans la Poësie de Cleophon & de Sthenelus.]⁴⁷⁵

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-513

22.4 3. Mais si on n'employoit par tout que de ces fortes de termes, on feroit, ou des énigmes, ou des barbariſmes, les metaphores trop frequentes degenereroient en énigme.]⁴⁷⁶

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-514

22.4 4. Et les mots tirez des Langues étrangères produiroient le barbariſme avec l'obscurité.]⁴⁷⁷

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-515

22.5 5. Car l'Enigme conſiſte proprement à dire les choses de manière, que l'expreſſion les faſſe paroitre impoſſibles; & c'est ce qu'on ne peut faire par la fimple compoſition des mots, il n'y a que les metaphores qui ayent la vertu de faire l'Enigme.]⁴⁷⁸

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-516

22.5 6. Comme on le voit dans cet Enigme celebre, j'ay vû un homme qui avec du feu colloit de l'airain ſur un homme.]⁴⁷⁹

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-517

22.8 7. Mais il y a un moyen tres ſeur de la rendre, & noble & claire, c'est de ſe ſervir de mots alongez, racourcis, ou changez.]⁴⁸⁰

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-518

22.9 8. C'est pourquoy ceux qui condamnent cette forte d'expreſſion, & qui blament Homere de s'en étre ſervi, le font ſans raiſon, comme l'ancien Euclide.]⁴⁸¹

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-519

22.9 9. En ſuivant cette mème methode dans ſes vers.]⁴⁸²

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-520

22.10 10. Mais de ſe ſervir toujours de ces façons de parler, c'est cette affectation qui fait le ridicule, & non pas la chose meme.]⁴⁸³

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-521

22.11 11. Car il y a une mesure qui est commune à toutes ces differentes especes, & qu'il ne faut jamais paſſer.]⁴⁸⁴

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-522

22.11 12. Cela eft fi vray, que si l'on ſe ſervoit de la mème maniére des metaphores, de mots étrangers, &c.]⁴⁸⁵

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-523

22.12 13. Pour étre convaincu de la beauté que donnent à la diction ces expreſſions figurées, pourvû qu'elles foient convenables, bien placées & avec meſure, il ne faut que prendre des vers d'un Poëme Epique, ou d'une Tragedie, & y changer les termes.]⁴⁸⁶

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-524

22.13 14. Eſchyle faiſoit dire par ſon Philoctete, cet ulcere qui mange mes chairs.]⁴⁸⁷

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-525

22.13 15. Dans la plupart des vers d'Homere, ſi au lieu des termes recherchez & metaphoriques, on s'aviſoit de mettre les ter-mes propres, on détruiroit toute leur beauté.]⁴⁸⁸

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-526

22.14 16. Il s'eſt auſſi trouvé un Ariphrades qui a voulu ſe moquer des Poëtes tragiques.]⁴⁸⁹

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-527

22.16 17. Il est fort beau & fort difficile de ſe ſervir convenable-ment & à propos de toutes les figures que nous venons d'expli-quer, comme des mots doubles, des mots étrangers, &c. mais il eft beaucoup plus beau & plus difficile d'employer heureusement la metaphore.]⁴⁹⁰

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-528

22.16 18. En effet c'eſt la ſeule choſe qu'on ne peut emprunter d'ailleurs, & qui marque un heureux naturel & un beau genie; car de bien faire ce tranſport d'une chose à l'autre, c'est voir d'un coup d'œil ce qu'il y a de ſemblable dans des ſujets tres differens.]⁴⁹¹

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-529

22.18 19. Les mots doubles conviennent particulierement aux Dithyrambes.]⁴⁹²

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-530

22.19 20. C'est-à-dire, les mots propres, la metaphore & l'orne-ment.]⁴⁹³

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-531

22.20 21. Ce que nous venons de dire ſuffit pour la Tragedie, & pour l'imitation qui conſiſte dans l'action.]⁴⁹⁴

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

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-12

NOTE 12.

2.2 P. 68. POLYGNOTUS—PAUSON—DIONYSIUS.

Polygnotus and Pauson are also mentioned by Aristotle in his 8th book De Rep. cap. v. where, speaking of Painting with a view to education, he says, that

"young men should not be permitted to contemplate the works of PAUSON, but those only of POLYGNOTUS, and of other artists who excelled in moral expression."

¹ It seems probable, from this passage, that the pictures of Pauson were not only of a ludicrous, but also of a licentiousness cast. To what a degree the abuse of this art was carried in Aristotle's time, appears from another passage, [ Rep. lib. vii. cap. xvii. ] in which he says, the magistrate should suffer no

"licentious and indecent paintings or statues,"

such as would endanger the morals of youth: but the exception that follows is curious;—

"Unless,"

he adds,

"in the temples of some DEITIES OF THAT CHARACTER, whose legal and established worship consists in ludicrous and wanton rites."

While I am upon this subject, I cannot forbear adding a singular passage of Euripides , where Hippolytus , vindicating himself, and asserting his chastity, says, with a naïveté that, I fear, would hardly be received with decent gravity by a modern audience;—

Λεχους γαρ, ἐις τοδ᾽ ἡμερας, ἁγνον δεμας. Ουκ οἰδα ΠΡΑΞΙΝ ΤΗΝΔΕ, πλην λόγῳ κλύων, ΓΡΑΦΗΙ ΤΕ ΛΕΥΣΣΩΝ· οὐδε ταυτα γαρ σκοπειν Προθυμα ειμι, ΠΑΡΘΕΝΟΝ ΨΥΧΗΝ ἐχων

Hippol. v. 1003.

I am a stranger to the couch of love;

Nor know I of its rites more than the tale

May have informed me, or the Painter's pencil

Presented to mine eye; yet on such picture

Dwells not mine eye delighted, for my mind

Is as a virgin's pure.—

[Mr. Potter's Translation, v. 1060.]

The Pauson mentioned by Aristotle was probably the same painter, whose poverty only is recorded by Suidas , and of whose wit we have a curious specimen in Ælian . ³

OF DIONYSIUs, too, very little is known. That he excelled in natural representation and exact resemblance—in exhibiting men, such as he saw them, without ideal grace on the one hand, or exaggerated deformity on the other is known, I believe, only from this passage of Aristotle. Dacier says this account is confirmed by Ælian ; but I think he is mistaken. It appears to me, that the

μεγεθα

of which Ælian speaks, as the only difference between the paintings of Polygnotus and those of Dionysius, is literal, not figurative, magnitude. ⁴ He says only, that the pictures of Dionysius, except, that they were on a small scale, were exact imitations of Polygnotus, in the expression of passions and manners, the attitudes of the figures, the lightness and transparency of the draperies, and every other circumstance. ⁵ It is not easy to see how Dionysius could copy so exactly,

ἐἰς ἀκριβειαν

, the expre- sion, and the forms, or attitudes, of Polygnotus, without copying, at the same time, his greatness of manner, and his improvement of that nature which he imitated; ⁶ for these seem entirely to depend upon those two circumstances, the expression of the countenance, and the airs and attitudes of the figures.

It seems, therefore, doubtful, whether Aristotle and Ælian speak of the same person. There must, in all probability, have been more painters than one, of that name; which was so common, that the writers so called, alone, furnished Meursius with matter for a whole book.—The pictures of Dionysius the Colophonion are mentioned by Plutarch as being painted with considerable strength of pencil, [

ίσχυν ἐχοντα και τονον

,] but in a manner which appeared forced and laboured, [

εκβεβιασμενον

,] and which he opposes to the freedom and facility of Nicomachus , who seems to have been the Fà Presto of the ancient painters. ⁷ This fault, so likely to be that of the artist who aims at an exact and scrupulous resemblance of the nature that is before his eyes, may, perhaps, afford some presumption, that Plutarch and Aristotle speak of the same painter.

What Aristotle says of these three styles of picturesque imitation, is easily applied to modern times. The productions, indeed, of these ancient artists, were perishable and of short duration;—

At "genus immortale manet:"

these specific characters have subsisted, and probably will subsist, in every period of the art. For the name of Polygnotus , it is obvious enough to substitute that of RAPHAEL , or other masters of the higher Italian schools.

"When a man,"

says Mr. Richardson , with that simplicity of enthusiasm, which gives so amusing a singularity to his writings ⁸—

"When a man enters into that awful gallery at Hampton-court, ⁹ he finds himself amongst a sort of people superior to what he has ever seen, and very probably to what those really were."

¹⁰ This is exactly the

βελτιονας καθ ἡμας

of Aristotle.

"Michael Angelo,"

says the same author,

"no where saw such living figures as he cut in marble."

—The Flemish and Dutch schools will supply plenty of substitutes for the Dionysii of ancient painting—those, who, like Protogenes ,

"in picturâ verum esse, non verisimile, volunt."

¹¹ Rembrandt must occur to every body. Even Rubens

"took his figures too much from the people before him."

¹²

As for the Pausons, the buffoons of the art, they are to be seen in the windows of every print-shop. We must not, however, confound with these

"Tom Browns of the mob,"

as Mr. Walpole calls them, the moral humour of Hogarth , or the sportive, but harmless, exaggerations of Mr. Bunbury . Hogarth , indeed, in general, and in his greatest works, seems rather to belong to the highest class of the exact imitators of vulgar nature—

των ΦΑΥΛΩΝ

. His Country-dance, however, may be mentioned as an example, and an admirable one, of exaggerated comic imitation, in which men are made, in some degree at least,

"worse than they are"

—

XEΙΡΟΥΣ ἐκαζε

. And if any man can look at this print, or at the Family-piece, the Coffee-house Patriots, or the Long Story, of Mr. Bunbury , without feeling a high degree of that pleasure which arises from the perception of strong humour, he must, I think, be still more unprovided with a sense of the ridiculous, than even that Crassus , who is recorded to have laughed once, though once only, in his life. ¹³

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-13

NOTE 13.

2.4 P. 68. WITH THE MUSIC OF THE FLUTE AND OF THE LYRE.

Thus PLATO , in the very language of Aristotle,—

τα περι της ρυθμες και πασαν μεσικην ἐσι τροπων μιμηματα ΒΕΛΤΙΟΝΩΝ και ΧΕΙΡΟΝΩΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ

. A modern reader, that is, a person who reads an antient author with modern ideas, might be inclined to to ask, how men are to be represented as better, or worse, than they are, or how, indeed, represented at all, in a harpsichord lesson, or a solo for a German flute? But the same reader, supposing him in any degree conversant with music, would surely be at no loss to conceive, that it admits of the difference of serious and comic expression; and admits of it in various degrees, from the highest elevation and dignity of style, down to the coarse and vulgar jollity of the gavot, or the hornpipe. Now the meaning of Aristotle, put into modern musical language, amounts, I apprehend, to no more than that. Suppose, then, the music, in these different styles, to be accompanied by words, relating the actions, or imitating the speech, of low, or elevated characters; we might say, that the music was expressive of such actions, or characters; the antients would have said, that it imitated them. On the contrary, suppose this music merely instrumental, we should, in general, only say, that it was grand, and sublime, or comic, mean, vulgar, &c. But the antients, from the close, and almost inseparable connection of their Music with Poetry, and particularly with the most imitative sort of Poetry, the Dramatic¹⁴; and partly, also, from the nature of their Music itself, would, in this case likewise, have retained much the same language, and would have considered this Music as imitative of the manners and passions of exalted, or vulgar characters, or even as representing those characters themselves.—But the different ideas, or rather, the different language, of the antients and the moderns on this subject, I have considered more fully, and endeavoured to account for, in the Second Dissertation .¹⁵

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-14

NOTE 14.

2.5 P. 68. CLEOPHON, AS THEY ARE.—

It may be worth while to remark, that the character Aristotle gives of the diction of Cleophon—that it was of the common and familiar kind, without Poetic elevation¹⁶—corresponds with the account here given of the general object of his Poetry, the exact delineation of common nature and common life. He who means to represent men as they are, will also, of course, represent their language nearly as it is.

The only Poet of this name, of whom, I believe, any account is given, is recorded as a Tragic Poet¹⁷: but Aristotle undoubtedly alludes here to a Poem of the narrative kind. In another part of his works he mentions a Poem of Cleophon, called MANDRABULUS.¹⁸ From the proverbial expression—

ἐπι Μανδραβέλε χωρει το πραγμα

(

"worse and worse, like the affairs of Mandrabulus"—

) in Lucian ,¹⁹ and the account of its origin in Suidas ,²⁰ and Hesychius , it seems very improbable that the Poem was a Tragedy. We may rather conclude it to have been of a comic cast; and it seems no unreasonable conjecture, to suppose, that it might be of the narrative kind; modelled, perhaps, in some respects, upon the MARGITES of Homer . At least, the two heroes seem to have been of kindred characters.

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-15

NOTE 15.

2.5 P. 68. HEGEMON INVENTOR OF PARODIES.

See Athenæus, p. 698, 699 , and 406, 407 . And Fabric. Biblioth. Gr. lib. ii. cap. vii. —The Athenians were delighted with this sort of fun—of all expedients to raise a laugh, the cheapest, and, at the same time, the most infallible. HOMER was the great and inexhaustible resource of these Parodists. The best and most considerable specimen remaining, of this kind of Poem, seems to be the Homeric description of an Attic supper by Matron, a great Parodist, and a great eater, in Athenæus, lib. iv. cap. v. Isaac Casaubon calls it,

"Carmen ingeniosum, et leporis ac venustatis plenissimum."

The first three lines may serve as a specimen:—

Δείπνα μοι ἐννεπε, Μεσα, πολυτροφα και μάλα πολλα²¹, Ἃ Ξενοκλης ῥητωρ ἐν Αθηναις δενπνισεν ἡμας, Ηλθον γαρ κέμκεισε, πολυς δε μοι ἐσπετο λιμα.²²

The Poem, it must be confessed, has some pleasantry, and much dexterity of comical perversion. We cannot wonder at its effect upon a people, who had all Homer in their memories. It is easy to conceive the roar of the Athenian upper gallery, when, in the description of the cook, bringing in the supper, they heard this line:

Τῳ δ' αρα τεσσερακοντα μελαιναι ΧΥΤΡΑΙ ἑποντος.²³

Sometimes the Parody depended on a pun; of which Athenæus gives, with great complacence, a curious example, in a scrap from a Parody of Eubæus , describing a quarrel between a barber and a potter. The barber, whose wife, it seems, the other attempts to force from him, addresses the potter in the language of Nestor:—

Μητε συ τονδ , ἀγαθα περ ἐων, ἀποαιρεο ΚΟΥΡΗΝ, Μητε συ, ΠΗΛΕΙΔΗ.

See IL. L. 275, &c. —where the joke depends on the allusion to

ΠΗΛΟΣ

, mud, or clay; and, probably, to the trade of the speaker, in the word

κερην

; or, perhaps, to the instrument of his art, which we may suppose the actor of the Parody to have brandished at his adversary.—But I do not mean to take to myself the honour of this illustration of an Attic joke. It is to be found in the Poetics of J. C. Scaliger .—See Athen. p. 699. B.

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-16

NOTE 16.

2.5 P. 68. THE DELIAD.—

The conjecture of Castelvetro ,

την ΔΕΙλιαδα

, (which might be rendered,

The Poltroniad

,) was certainly ingenious, but, I think, unnecessary. Dacier's account is probably right; and both his idea, and the common reading, seem to receive some support from the similar national titles that are preserved of other pieces of this Poet; such as,

Κρητες

Λάκωνες

Λημνιαι

.—See Suidas and Fabricius .

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-17

NOTE 17.

2.6 P. 68. SO, AGAIN, WITH RESPECT TO DITHYRAMBICS AND NOMES.

The expression, in this passage, is too general, and too little is known of the examples mentioned in it, to admit of perfect satisfaction, with respect to any thing farther than its general meaning; i. e. that both Dithyrambic and Nomic Poetry admitted the same differences in the objects of their imitation. For so, I think, the sense requires us to understand²⁴; not, that the imitation of heroic characters was appropriated to the one, and that of light characters to the other. Both these species of Poetry were hymns; and though the Dithyrambic, or hymn to Bacchus, might, indeed, from its wild and free character, be privileged with a greater latitude and variety of imitation, yet I know of no authority that will warrant our going so far, as to suppose, that they were essentially distinguished from each other in this respect, like Tragedy and Comedy.

The construction of the Greek I understand to be this:—

μιμησαιτο ἂν τις, ὡς Τιμοθεού και Φιλοξενο [sc. ἐμιμησαντο] Περσας και Κυκλωπας

. I am astonished, that any commentators should have taken either of the compositions here mentioned for dramas; an idea totally repugnant to the plain sense of the whole passage, and to the evident purpose for which these examples are cited. With respect to the

Περσαι

, the passage of Pausanias may be regarded as decisive;—

Πυλαδε ἀδοντο Τιμόθεει ΝΟΜΟΝ, τε Μιλησία, ΠΕΡΣΑΣ

Paus. Arcad. —And the Poem began with an hexameter verse which is there quoted. Yet Fabricius calls it a Tragedy. The Poem of Philoxenus here meant must, clearly, have been either a Nome, or a Dithyrambic Poem; most probably, the latter. Philoxenus is recorded as a Dithyrambic Poet; and Aristotle's illustration will be more complete, if we understand him to exemplify in each of the kinds of Poetry in question. It is by no means certain, that the Cyclops of Philoxenus mentioned by Athenæus , Ælian , and others, is the piece here alluded to: and, if it were, which, undoubtedly, appears rather probable, I know of no sufficient proof that it was a Drama, as it has been repeatedly called. If Ælian is to be regarded, it certainly was not; for he calls it

μελος

—a term appropriated to Lyric Poetry.—

του ΚΥΚΛΩΠΑ ἐργασατο, των ἑαυτε ΜΕΛΩΝ το καλλισον

.²⁵

I mentioned, in the conclusion of NOTE 1 . a problem of Aristotle, from which it appears, that the Dithyrambic Poetry was not originally imitative, but became so by degrees. It is the 15th of the Harmonic Problems, Sect. 19. It is there said, that the Dithyrambs, after they became imitative, laid aside the antistrophical form, (i. e. the division into corresponding stanzas²⁶,) in which, before, they had been composed.²⁷ And the reason assigned for this is, that, originally, these Dithyrambic hymns were performed by chorusses of gentlemen, [

ἐλευθερο

] who could not sing in the style of artists, and professors: [

ἀγωνιστικως οἶδειν

:] the words were, therefore, set to the simplest kind of melody,²⁸ such as that, in which the same air is repeated to similar stanzas, as in our ballads.²⁹ But afterwards, it seems, the performance of these hymns, like that of the Nomes, was left to professed musicians, the

ἀγωνισαι

, or masters of the art, who contended with each other in trials of skill, and who were, of course, to exert all their imitative powers. The symmetry of strophe and antistrophe, and the simplicity of air regularly repeated, were ill adapted to this purpose, which required length, variety, and frequent changes of metre, melody, rhythm, mode, genus, &c.³⁰ in conformity to the various subjects of imitation, and transitions of expression.³¹ This account, which affords some little glimpse of curious information, with respect both to the Nomic and Dithyrambic hymn, is confirmed, as far as the latter is concerned, by Dionysius Halicarn. De Structura Orat. Sect. 19 . He there traces the progress of all this Lyric corruption, and names TIMOTHEUS and PHILOXENUS as the principal authors of these licentious and wicked innovations—

"for, in the time of the old Poets,"

he says,

"the Dithyrambic ode was an orderly and regular composition."

³²

Plutarch , too, in the Dialogue Περι Μεσικης , speaks exactly the same language. Timotheus and Philoxenus are there repeatedly stigmatized as corrupters of the good old music; and the

ладаρειο

and

Σιμονίδειο τροπο

, is opposed to the

Φιλοξενεις

,³³ with a zeal similar to that, with which, in modern music, we sometimes hear the style of Corelli and Geminiani opposed and preferred to the heterodox novelties of Haydn and Boccherini .³⁴

The manner, in which Aristotle, in this Problem, speaks of the Nomes, when compared with his expressions relative to the Dithyrambics, rather leads one to suppose, that the former were not, even originally, composed in the antistrophic form³⁵: the least, however, that can be inferred from it, is, that they discarded that form, and, consequently, became complicated, artificial, and imitative, long before a similar revolution took place in the Dithyrambic Poetry and Music. I may, also, observe that the variety of imitation, and changes of expression, clearly attributed by Aristotle to the Nomes, seem to confirm what I said above—that they did not exclude the same variety, in the objects of their imitation, which the Dithyrambic Poem confessedly admitted.

I will just add, that this Problem of Aristotle throws light upon a passage in his Rhetoric , which has embarrassed his commentators. He there [ lib. iii. cap. 9. ] compares the diction that is divided into periods, to the Antistrophic Odes

"of the old Poets:"

but, the

λεξις ειρομενη

, in which the sentence has no other unity than that which copulatives give it³⁶, nor any other measure than the completion of the sense, and the necessity of taking breath³⁷, or, as Cicero , in few words, so admirably describes it,

"illa sine intervallis loquacitas perennis et profluens"

³⁸—this Aristotle compares to what he calls the

αναβολαι

in Dithyrambic Poetry; meaning, I think, evidently, the long, irregular, protracted Odes of the more modern Dithyrambic Poets; such as those, of which he speaks in the Problem. For the word,

Αναβολη

, here, does not, I believe, signify exordium, proæmium, as usually understood, but was, probably, the name by which these

ὠδαι μακραι και πολυειδεις

were distinguished, and opposed to the old and simple Dithyrambic in stanzas.

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.³⁹ 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.⁴⁰ 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 .⁴¹

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.

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-19

NOTE 19.

3.4 P. 69. ELEVATED CHARACTERS

Gr. ΣΠΟΥΔΑΙΟΥΣ. The adjective

Σπουδαιοι

, and its opposite,

Φαυλος

, are words of considerable latitude. They, each of them, comprehend a number of different, though related, ideas, for which we have not, that I know of, any common word. Propriety itself, therefore, requires of a translator that, which, at first view, seems contrary to propriety—that he should render each of those words differently in different places. To have translated

σπεδαίες

here,

"good,"

"virtuous,"

as it may generally be translated, would only have been giving an English word with a Greek idea, which none but readers of Greek would have affixed to it.

The Greeks appear to have applied the word,

ΣΠΟΥΔΑΙΟΝ

, to whatever was, on any account,

ἀξιων σπεδης

—whatever was respectable, important, admirable, serious, valuable, &c. as opposed to

ΦΑΥΛΟΝ

, which was applied, not to vice only, but to whatever was contemptible, trifling, light, ordinary, ridiculous—or, as we say in familiar English, good for nothing. ⁴² Hence the various senses of both these words in the Greek writers, according as they were applied to persons, and things, that were the objects of esteem, or contempt, on different accounts. Sometimes, therefore,

σπεδαίο

may be rendered by

"good;"

sometimes by

"serious, earnest,"

&c.—Sometimes, as in this passage, and in the definition of Tragedy, by

"elevated,"

"important,"

&c.⁴³

Some kind of virtue, in the extended sense given to the word

ΑΡΕΤΗ

by the ancient writers on morals, was, indeed, always implied in the epithet

Σπεδαι

; but it included such good qualities, and endowments, as we do not usually call virtues; or, at least, such as we never include in our idea of a virtuous man: as, wisdom, courage, eloquence, &c.⁴⁴—Thus Aristotle himself;

το δε ΣΠΟΥΔΑΙΟΝ είναι, εστι το ΤΑΣ ΑΡΕΤΑΣ ἐχειν

.⁴⁵ And what are these virtues?—they are

"all laudable habits."

—

των ἐξεων τας ΕΠΑΙΝΕΤΑΣ, ΑΡΕΤΑΣ λεγομεν

.⁴⁶

The subject of Criticism is necessarily connected, in some degree, with that of Ethics; and unless we understand well the moral language of any writer, we cannot be competent judges of his criticism.

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-20

NOTE 20.

3.5 P. 69. IN SUPPORT OF THESE CLAIMS THEY ARGUE FROM THE WORDS THEMSELVES.

Ποιεμενοι τα ὀνοματα σημειον

.—The participle,

ποιεμενοι

, should be applied, I think, to all the Dorians—not confined, as in Dacier's translation, to those of Peloponnesus. See Goulston's version, which appears to me to be right.

Aristotle begins by saying expressly, that the Dorians, in general, laid claim to both Tragedy and Comedy, on account of the term

ΔΡΑΜΑ

, which was a Doric word:—

∆ΙΟ

(i. e. from the term

Δραματα

, just before mentioned,)

ἀντιποιενται της τε Τραγωδίας και της Κωμωδίας ΟΙ ΔΩΡΙΕΙΣ

—He then mentions the peculiar claims of the Megarians to Comedy, and of the Dorians of Peloponnesus to Tragedy; throwing in, parenthetically, some other arguments on which the former also founded their title to the invention of Comedy: after which, he returns, at the word

ποιεμένοι

, to shew, how these people concurred in arguing from the etymology of the words themselves; all of them, from the word

δραμα

, as it was common to Tragedy and Comedy, and they, who laid claim to Comedy, both from that, and also from the derivation of the word

Κωμωδια

The construction, in this way, is, I confess, somewhat parenthetical and embarrassed; but the reader, who is accustomed to the style of Aristotle, will not, I believe, consider this as affording alone any sufficient presumption against the explanation here given.

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-21

NOTE 21.

4.3 P. 70. THE FIGURES OF THE MEANEST AND MOST DISGUSTING ANIMALS.

Θηρίων τε μορφας των ΑΤΙΜΟΤΑΤΩΝ

.—This reading is strongly supported by the arguments of Victorius, the authority of MSS, and the sense and purport of the passage itself, which seems to require instances of mean, or disgusting, rather than of terrible, objects. Thus too Plutarch , in the passages referred to by Victorius, which undoubtedly allude to this of Aristotle.—

Γεγραμμένην ΣΑΥΡΑΝ η ΠΙΘΗΚΟΝ, ἰδοντες ήδομεθα και θαυμαζομεν, ουχ ὡς καλον, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ὁμοιον ἐσιᾳ γαρ ἐ δυναται καλον γενέσθαι ΤΟ ΑΙΣΧΡΟΝ

κ. τ. αλ. And presently after—

και ΝΟΣΩΔΗ μεν ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΝ, και ΥΠΟΥΛΟΝ,

ὡς ἀτερπες θεαμα, φευγομεν

κ. τ. αλ.—See also his Sympos. Problems. lib. v. Prob. 1.

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-22

NOTE 22.

4.4 P. 70. TO LEARN IS A NATURAL PLEASURE.

To the same purpose, in his Rhetoric, lib. i. cap. xi. p. 537. Ed. Duval.

"Επει δε το ΜΑΝΘΑΝΕΙΝ τε ήδυ, και το θαυμάζειν, και τα τοιαυτα, ἀναγκη ήδεα ειναι, το τε μεμιμημενον, ώσπερ ΓΡΑΦΙΚΗ, και ΑΝΔΡΙΑΝΤΟΠΟΙΪΑ, και ΠΟΙΗΤΙΚΗ, και παν ὁ ἀν ἐυ μεμιμημενον , καν μη ή ήδὺ το μιμημα γαρ ἐπι τετῳ χαιρει, άλλα συλλογισμού ἐστι, ὅτι ΤΟΥΤΟ ΕΚΕΙΝΟ· ώστε ΜΑΝΘΑΝΕΙΝ τι συμβαινει."

⁴⁷

"And as it is by nature delightful to LEARN, to ADMIRE, and the like, hence we necessarily receive pleasure from imitative arts, as PAINTING, SCULPTURE, and POETRY, and from whatever is well imitated, even though the original may be disagreeable; for our pleasure does not arise from the beauty of the thing itself, but from the inference the discovery, that 'THIS IS THAT,' &c. so that we seem to LEARN something."

—

Μανθανειν

to learn, to know, i. e. merely to recognize, discover, &c. See Harris, On Music, Painting, &c. ch. iv. note (b) . The meaning is sufficiently explained by what follows. Dryden , who scarce ever mentions Aristotle without discovering that he had looked only at the wrong side of the tapestry, says—

"Aristotle tells us, that imitation pleases because it affords matter for a rea-

⁴⁸

soner to enquire into the truth or falsehood of imitation,"

&c.⁴⁹ But Aristotle is not here speaking of reasoners, or inquiry; but, on the contrary, of the vulgar, the generality of mankind, whom he expressly opposes to philosophers, or reasoners: and his

συλλογίζεσθαι

is no more than that rapid, habitual, and imperceptible act of the mind, that

"raisonnement aussi prompt que le coup d'œil,"

(as it is well paraphrased by M. Batteux ,) by which we collect, or infer, from a comparison of the picture with the image of the original in our minds, that it was intended to represent that original.

The fullest illustration of this passage is to be found in another work of Aristotle, his Rhetoric, lib. iii. cap. x. ,⁵⁰ where he applies the same principle to metaphorical language, and resolves the pleasure we receive from such language, into that which arises from the

μαθησις ΤΑΧEIA

—the exercise of our understandings in discovering the meaning, by a quick and easy perception of some quality or qualities common to the thing expressed, and the thing intended—to a mirror, for example, and to the theatre, when the latter is is called metaphorically,

"The mirror of human life."

⁵¹

In the Problems, Sect. 19, Prob. V. the same principle is applied to Music. The Problem is, Why we are more pleased with singing when we are acquainted with the air that is sung, than when it is new to us?—And one of the answers is,

ὅτι ἡδυ το μανθανειν

. i. e. to say, this is such a tune, or song, &c. And indeed the pleasure afforded by recognition, is no where, perhaps, more visibly illustrated, than in the raptures and rhythmical agitation of a popular audience, at the return of the leading air, in that species of infallible ear-trap, the RONDEAU.

I must add, as somewhat amusing, that Plato makes use of this principle to prove a dog to be a philosophical animal:

"for, (he argues,)

το φιλομαθες και φιλοσοφον, τ'αυτον

, the love of knowing, and the love of wisdom, are one and the same thing. Now dogs are delighted with knowing, simply, and disinterestedly; they fawn upon every one whom they know, and bark at the approach of every stranger;⁵² and that, without having ever experienced good from the one, or harm from the other."

⁵³

The philosophy of Aristotle here, though undoubtedly true, as far as it goes, will, I am afraid, to those who examine it, hardly appear to be perfectly satisfactory, or to reach the bottom of the subject. It is however to be considered, that what he has said, seems applicable chiefly to rude and unskilful spectators, and should, perhaps, be considered as a description of the effect of a picture or a statue upon children, and the multitude, who are little accustomed to view works of imitative art. And even with respect to them, the principle seems scarcely applicable but to portraits, and individual resemblances, such as may not be instantly recognized. When we look at a picture of that kind, we may not discover, till after a comparison of, at least, a few moments, that it is an imitation of this or that person; but, that it is an imitation of a man, we see at once and where there is not even a momentary ignorance, or doubt, I do not see how any information can be said to be acquired by the spectator, nor how, on the philosopher's own principles, (if I rightly understand him,) the pleasure conveyed by the imitation, can, in any sense, be resolved into that, which the mind receives from the exertion of its own powers in inferring, or discovering, the resemblance.

I say, on Aristotle's own principles, because, in the passage above referred to, where he explains himself more fully in applying the principle to metaphor, he expressly allows, that this pleasure of recognition, is not afforded by proper or common words, since they instantly suggest their meaning and cannot be mistaken.⁵⁴ Now a painting, considered as an imitation of a man, a horse, a house, in general, obviously answers in this respect, unless the imitation be grossly imperfect, to the common and familiar word; the one suggesting its original, as readily and immediately, as the other suggests its idea. ⁵⁵

Among Aristotle's illustrations of this physical principle of the pleasure of self-information, as it might be called, there are two short passages, in particular, which seem to be so explicit with regard to the nature of that pleasure, that I will venture to add to the length of this note by a transcript and translation of them both. They will, I think, satisfy the learned reader that I have not, in the foregoing remarks, misrepresented the philosopher's meaning. After having applied the principle to metaphor, he applies it in like manner to the enthymemes, or arguments, of the orator.

"Διο ἐτε τα ἐπιπολαια των ἐνθυμηματων ευδοκιμει (ἐπιπολαια γαρ λέγομεν τα παντι δηλα, και ῾Α ΜΗΔΕΝ ΔΕΙ ΖΗΤΗΣΑΙ·) ἐτε όσα ειρημενα ἀγνοκμενα ἐστι᾿ ἀλλ᾿ ὅσων, ἡ ἁμα λεγομενων ἡ γνωσις γινεται, και ει μη προτερον ὑπηρχεν, μικρον ύστερίζει ἡ διανοια γίνεται γαρ ῾ΟΙΟΝ ΜΑΘΗΣΙΣ· ἐκεινως δε, οὐδετερον."

⁵⁶

"For the same reason, we are pleased, neither with superficial arguments, (by which we mean such as are obvious to every one, and require no thought or search in the hearer;) nor with such as we do not understand when we have heard them; but, with those, which the mind apprehends, either while we hear them, (though not at first,) or in the moment after they are delivered:—for by these, we, in a manner, LEARN something: by the others, we learn nothing in either of these ways."

The other passage, in which the nature of the pleasure that Aristotle means is still more expressly marked, is this:

"Παντων δε των συλλογισμων θορυβειται μαλιστα τα τοιαυτα όσα ἀρχομενα ΠΡΟΟΡΩΣΙ, μη τῳ ἐπιπολης ἐἶναι ἁμα γαρ και ΑΥΤΟΙ ΕΦ ΕΑΥΤΟΙΣ ΧΑΙΡΟΥΣΙ προαισθανομενοι και ὅσων τοσετον ὑστεριζεσιν, ὡσθ άμα ειρημενων γνωρίζειν."

"Of all arguments, those are most applauded⁵⁷, of which the audience have no sooner heard the beginning, than they foresee the conclusion;—not, however, from their being trite and obvious; for they are pleased, [not only with the ingenuity of the speaker, but] at the same time, WITH THEMSELVES and their own sagacity. Those arguments, also, afford pleasure, which, the moment after they are delivered, we are no longer at a loss to apprehend."

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-23

NOTE 23.

4.4 P. 70. IN A MORE TRANSIENT AND COMPENDIOUS MANNER.

Επι βραχυ

:—literally,

"for a short time."

AS PLATO , Rep. iii. p. 396 ,

κατα βραχυ

, for a moment—

en passant

. Dacier's explanation—

Quoi qu'ils ne soient pas tous egalement propres à apprendre,

—is, surely, wide of Aristotle's purpose. None of the versions, that I have seen, seem to give the exact idea, except that of Heinsius :—

"Quamquam minor BREVIORQUE ad hos perveniat voluptas."

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-24

NOTE 24.

4.6 P. 70. FROM THE WORKMANSHIP.—

Δια την ΑΠΕΡΓΑΣΙΑΝ

—

"neatness"—"finishing,"

&c. In the following passages of PLATO , it is opposed to a slight sketch:—

και αυτων τετων [sc. δικαιοσυνης, σωφροσυνης, &c.] ἐχ ΥΠΟΓΡΑΦΗΝ δει, ώσπερ νυν θεασασθαι, άλλα την τελεωτάτην ΑΠΕΡΓΑΣΙΑΝ μη παριέναι

Rep. vi. p. 504 . So again, lib. viii. p. 548 , the verb,

ἀπεργαζεσθαι

, is opposed to

ὑπογραφειν

25. mvp-aristotle-comment-25

NOTE 25.

4.7 P. 70. METRE—A SPECIES OF RHYTHM.

Μορια

—parts. The following passage will ascertain the sense of the word in this place, and justify my version. Explaining the different senses in which the word

Mep

was used, Aristotle says,

ἔτι, εις το διαιρεθειη ἀν, ἄνευ τε Ποσε, και ταυτα ΜΟΡΙΑ λεγεται τετε διο τα ΕΙΔΗ, το ΓΕΝΟΥΣ φασιν είναι ΜΟΡΙΑ

.— Metaphys. lib. v. cap. 25. So, in this treatise, cap. 5. —

τε Αισχρε ἐστι το Γελοιον ΜΟΡΙΟΝ

—

"a part, or species, of the ridiculous."

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-26

NOTE 26.

4.7 P. 70. THOSE PERSONS, IN WHOM, ORIGINALLY, THESE PROPENSITIES WERE THE STRONGEST, &c.

It is obvious to remark here, that Aristotle, in this deduction of the art from the mimetic and musical instincts, includes verse in his idea of Poetry, which he, at least, considered as imperfect without it. All that he drops, elsewhere, to the disparagement of metre, must be understood only comparatively... An eminent writer has adjusted this matter... in his Dissertation On the idea of Universal Poetry .⁵⁸ What is there said, of

"the origin and first application of Poetry among all nations,"

will furnish the best comment I can give, upon the passage which is the subject of this note.

"Poetry is every where of the most early growth, preceding every other sort of composition; and being destined for the ear, that is, to be either sung, or at least recited, it adapts itself, even in its first rude essays, to that sense of measure, and proportion in sounds, which is so natural to us. The hearer's attention is the sooner gained by this means, his entertainment quickened, and his admiration of the performer's art excited. Men are ambi-

tious of pleasing, and ingenious in refining upon what they observe will please. So that musical cadences and harmonious sounds, which nature dictated, are farther softened and improved by art, till Poetry become as ravishing to the ear, as the images, it presents, are to the imagination. In process of time, what was at first the extemporaneous production of genius or passion, under the conduct of a natural ear, becomes the labour of the closet, and is conducted by artificial rules; yet still, with a secret reference to the sense of hearing, and to that acceptation which melodious sounds meet with in the recital of expressive words."

27. mvp-aristotle-comment-27

NOTE 27.

4.10 P. 71. MARGITES.

The scraps that have been preserved of this Poem, the Dunciad of HOMER , are so few, and so short, that it may be worth while, for the convenience of the reader, to collect them.—

Μεσαων θεράπων και ἐκηβολε Απολλωνα,

⁵⁹ —a line as likely to be found in one kind of Poem as in another... The other fragments are a little more interesting, as they give some idea of the hero of the Poem.

ΤΟΝΔ᾽ ἐτ᾿ ἀν σκαπτηρα θεοι θεσαν, ἐτ᾿ ἀροτηρα, Ουτ᾿ ἄλλως τι σοφον πασης δ ήμαρτανε τέχνης.

Preserved by Aristotle, Eth. lib. vi. cap. 7

Πολλ᾿ ἡπιστατο ἐργα, κακως δ ήπιστατο παντα.

Plato, Alcib. Secund. p. 147. Ed. Serrani.

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-28

NOTE 28.

4.12 P. 71. HIS MARGITES BEARS THE SAME ANALOGY TO COMEDY, AS HIS ILIAD AND ODYSSEY TO TRAGEDY.

Whenever Aristotle speaks of

COMEDY

, we must remember, that he speaks of the Old, or Middle Comedy, which was no other than what we should call farce, and to which his definition of Comedy was adapted:

μιμησις φαυλοτέρων

; that is, as he explains himself,

"an imitation of RIDICULOUS characters."

⁶⁰—This remark is necessary to explain what is here said of the Margites.

A Poem, which, as far we can form any idea of it, celebrated the blunders and absurdities of an idiot, cannot well be conceived to have been analogous to any thing, that would now be denominated a Comedy. It seems to verge to the very bottom of the dramatic scale;

"jusq' au bouffon; celui-ci sera l'extrême de la Comedie, le

plus bas degré de l'echelle, opposé au terrible qui est à l'autre bout."

⁶¹ The Bourgeois Gentilhomme of Moliere is certainly farce, however excellent in its way. But Mons. Jourdain is a very Ulysses, compared with Margites.

29. mvp-aristotle-comment-29

NOTE 29.

4.14 P. 72. BY SUCH SUCCESSIVE IMPROVEMENTS AS WERE MOST OBVIOUS.

Ὅσον ἐγινετο φανερον αυτης

—literally,

"so much of it as was manifest."

I doubt of the reading: but, taking it as it stands, I have given what appears to me to offer itself as the most natural and simple meaning of the expression, if not the only one that it will reasonably bear.

30. mvp-aristotle-comment-30

NOTE 30.

4.16 P. 72. ÆSCHYLUS-----ABRIDGED THE CHORAL PART.

The words are,

ΤΑ το χορό

. Aristotle would hardly have expressed himself thus, had he meant, as Madius , Bayle , and others, have understood, a retrenchment in the number of choral performers.

ΤΑ τε χορε

, the choral part, is opposed to

ΤΑ άπο σκηνης

, the dialogue, Prob. xv. of Sect. 19. It is singular, that Stanley should misunderstand this passage; and still more singular, that he should cite Philostratus , who is directly against him: for his words are,

συνεστειλε τες χορός, ΑΠΟΤΑΔΗΝ ΟΝΤΑΣ

"he contracted the chorusses, which were immoderately long."

⁶²

This is confirmed by one of Aristotle's Problems, referred to by Victorius. The Problem is,

Δια τι οι περι Φρυνίχον ἦσαν μαλλον μελοποιοι

; (meaning, I suppose, more Musicians than the dramatic Poets of his own time:) The answer is,

ή, δια το πολλαπλασια είναι τοτε τα μέλη ἐν ταις των μετρων τραγωδίαις

;⁶³ I believe the passage may be rectified by transposition—

πολλ. είναι τοτε τα μέλη των μέτρων ἐν τ. Τ.

Perhaps, too, we should read,

των ΤΡΙΜΕΤΡΩΝ

. But, even taking it as it stands, it may sufficiently answer our purpose, as it shews clearly enough how much the Lyric parts of Tragedy, before the time of Æschylus, wanted contraction.

The prolixity of the Tragic Chorus, we know, was sometimes trying to the patience of an Athenian audience. This is pleasantly glanced at by Aristophanes in his Ορνιθες: where the Chorus of birds, descanting on the convenience of wings, tell the spectators, that if they had wings, whenever, in the Theatre, they

"found themselves hungry, and were tired with the Tragic Chorus, they might fly home and eat their dinners, and fly back again, when the Chorus was over."

ΧΟΡ. Ουδεν ἐς᾿ ἀμεινον, ἐδ᾽ ἡδιον, φυσαι πτερα. Αυτιχ, ύμων των θεατων ἐι τις ὴν ὑποπτερο, Ειτα, πανων, τοις χοροισι των Τραγῳδων ήχθετο, Εκπετομενοι ἐν ἑτα ἠρισησεν, ἐλθων ὀικαδε, Κατ᾿ ἀν, ἐμπλησθεις, ἐφ ἡμας ἀυθις κατεπτατο.

v. 786.

31. mvp-aristotle-comment-31

NOTE 31.

4.16 P. 72. AND MADE THE DIALOGUE THE PRINCIPAL PART OF TRAGEDY.

—

Και τον λογον πρωταγωνισην παρεσκευασε.

Victorius, and others, have supposed Aristotle to mean the Prologue. But it seems to be a sufficient objection to this sense, that no example has been produced of the word

πρωταγωνισην

, used as merely synonymous to

πρωτο

; as signifying first only, not principal. Nor is it easy to discover any reason, why Aristotle should have recourse here to an unusual and ambiguous expression, when, presently after, in speaking of the improvements of Comedy [ cap. v. ], he makes use of the proper and established term,

προλογ

. There seem to be no words in the Greek language, of which the sense is more clearly fixed, than that of

πρωταγωνισης—πρωταγωνιζειν

. They occur frequently, and always, as far as I know, in the same sense, of principal—

primas agere

, &c. To this sense, therefore, I thought it necessary to adhere.

But I confess I cannot be satisfied with either of the explanations which have been given of the word

ΛΟΓΟΣ

. It appears strange to say, that Æschylus first introduced two actors, and then to add, as a distinct improvement, that he also first introduced a principal part or character:—unless we are to understand, what seems not very probable, that the two actors even of Æschylus himself were, at first, personages of equal dignity and importance in the drama... and that, afterwards, he was the first who corrected this error... and reduced the drama to unity of action by a proper subordination of characters. But, admitting this sense to be without difficulty, the expression of it, I think, is not.

Λόγος

, for a part in the drama,

role, personnage

, (as Dacier ,) character, &c. seems harsh, and unusual. At least, I know no example of it.

The difficulties which attend both the expression and the sense, in each of these interpretations, have almost convinced me, that the very construction of the words has been mistaken; and that the meaning is,

"he made the discourse, or dialogue, the principal part of Tragedy."

This is well connected with what precedes, and agreeable to the known history of the Tragic drama, in which, originally, the Chorus was the essential, and the Episodes, or dra- matic part, only the accessory. But Æschylus

"abridged the Chorus, and made the Episodic part the principal."

Λόγος

, here, may well be understood to mean what Aristotle elsewhere calls

λεξις

; the speaking, or recitative, part of Tragedy, whether delivered by one or more actors, as opposed to the

μέλη

, or Lyric part.⁶⁴

Παρεσκευασε

reddidit, effecit

, &c. as...

ευσεβεστερες τε και σωφρονεςέρες της συνοντας παρεσκευασεν

"magis pios et temperatos reddidit."

⁶⁵ And thus Aristotle himself, cap. xix.

ὅταν ἡ ἐλεεινα δεινα δεη παρασκευαζαν.

i. e. to make things piteous, terrible, &c. as in Goulston's version; and that of the accurate Piccolomini :—

"Quando occorre d'havere à far parere le cose, à miserabili, atroci,"

&c.⁶⁶ If the use of

πρωταγωνισης

as an adjective be an objection, it is one to which the other explanations are equally liable. On the whole, I have not scrupled to prefer this sense in my version.

32. mvp-aristotle-comment-32

NOTE 32.

4.16 P. 72. SOPHOCLES ADDED THE DECORATION OF PAINTED SCENERY.

To adjust exactly the rival claims of Æschylus and Sophocles with respect to the

oψις

, or decoration, of the Tragic stage, would be a desperate undertaking. Some accounts are so liberal to Æschylus, as scarce to leave his successors any room for farther improvements. They give him

"paintings, machinery, altars, tombs, trumpets, ghosts, and furies:"

—to which others add a very sin- gular species of Tragic improvement, the

"exhibition of drunken men."

—

την δε σκηνην ἐκοσμησε, και την όψιν των θεωμενων κατεπληξε τη λαμπρότητι - ΓΡΑΦΑΙΣ και μηχαναίς, βωμοις τε και τάφοις, σαλπιγξιν, ειδωλοις, ἔριννυσι.

⁶⁷—And Athenæus says,

πρωτου ἐκεινΘ----παρηγαγε την των ΜΕΘΥΟΝΤΩΝ ΟΨΙΝ ἐς τραγωδιαν.

p. 428. He adds an example. In the Tragedy called Καβειροι, he introduced

"Jason and his retinue drunk!"

The passage given by Dacier from Vitruvius is very general; it says only,

"scenam fecit."

⁶⁸ This may, or may not, include painting; which, indeed, rather seems to be implied, in what follows, about the improvements of Democritus and Anaxagoras , where the

"imagines ædificiorum in scenarum picturis"

are mentioned. But all this is far outweighed by the testimony of Aristotle, who here explicitly attributes the introduction of painted Scenery to Sophocles.

33. mvp-aristotle-comment-33

NOTE 33.

4.17 P. 72. IT WAS LATE BEFORE TRAGEDY----ATTAINED ITS PROPER DIGNITY.

—

Οιψε ἀπεσεμνωθη

:—and to

"late,"

we might add, imperfectly. For, what Horace says of the Roman Tragedy, is, in some measure, though perhaps not equally, applicable to the Greek:

in longum tamen ævum Manferunt, hodieque manent veftigia ruris.

Ep. ad Aug. v. 160. Prejudice aside, it cannot surely be said, that the Greek Tragedy, in the hands, at least, of Æschylus, Sophocles, or Euripides, ever attained its proper dignity. I do not speak of modern dignity; of that uniform, unremitting strut of pomp and solemnity, which is now required in Tragedy. This was equally unknown to the manners, and to the Poetry, of the antients. I speak only of such a degree of dignity as excludes, not simplicity, but meanness—the familiar, the jocose, the coarse, the comic. Now it cannot, I think, be said, with any truth, that these are thoroughly excluded in any of the Greek Tragedies that are extant: in some of them they are admitted to a very considerable degree.

In particular, something of this sort—of what the French call

mesquin

—is almost constantly to be found in the short dialogue of the Greek Tragedies; in that part, I mean, which the eye, when we turn over any Tragedy, easily distinguishes from the rest, by its being carried on in a regular alternation of single verses. In this

"close fighting"

of the dialogue, as Dryden calls it,⁶⁹ which seems to have retained something of the spirit of the old satyric diverbia, where...

VERSIBUS ALTERNIS opprobria rustica fundunt,

HOR. —in this part of the dialogue, we generally find... somewhat more than what Brumoy calls

"un petit vernis de familiarité ;"

⁷⁰ especially when these scenes are, as they often are, scenes of altercation and angry repartee.⁷¹ In the Iphigenia in Aulide of Euripides , Menelaus, in the struggle with the old messenger for the letter, threatens to break his head with his sceptre,

Σκηπτρῳ ταχ άρα σον καθαιμάξω καρα.

v. 311. Fairly rendered by Mr. Potter's verse—

"Soon shall thy head this sceptre stain with blood."

Unfairly dignified by Brumoy's prose—

"Prends garde qu'une mort prompte ne punisse ton audace."

Even Sophocles, who gave the Tragic tone, in general, its proper pitch, between the

ογκος

of Æfchylus, and the

ίσχνοτης

of Euripides,⁷² is by no means free from some mixture of this alloy in the language of his short dialogue. For example: in the scene between Ulysses and Neoptolemus in the Philoctetes, [v. 1250,] when Neoptolemus declares his resolution of restoring to Philoctetes his bow and arrows, at which Ulysses expresses his surprise by a repetition of the question,

Τι φης; τιν ειρηκας λογον;

—Neoptolemus replies,

"Would you have me tell you the same thing two or three times over?"

Δις τ'αυτα βέλει και τρις ἀναπολειν μ ἐπη;

v. 1238 [Oxford turn v. 1267]. In another scene... between Teucer and Menelaus, after a long altercation about the interment of Ajax, Menelaus says—

ὧν σοι φρασω τονδ᾽ ἐστιν ἐχι θαπτεον.

—to which Teucer replies—

Συ δ' ἀντακεσον τετον ὡς τεθαψεται.

Ajax, v. 1140 [Oxford turn v. 1159]. In plain English, but no plainer than the Greek—

"M. One thing I'll tell you—he shall not be buried. T. And I'll tell another thing—he shall be buried."

—Certainly this approaches very nearly to the language of a contest between two washer-women.⁷³

These may be reckoned among the passages, in which the spirit of Sophocles, according to the observation of a great critic,

σβεννυται άλογως πολλακις, και πίπτει άτυχεστατα

.⁷⁴ In the Antigone there is a scene of altercation between Creon, Ismene, and Antigone, in which, when Ismene, pleading for her sister, asks Creon whether he will put her to death, who was to become the wife of his son, his answer is—

ΑΡΩΣΙΜΟΙ γαρ χάτερων εισιν ΓΥΑΙ.

v. 569 [Oxford turn v. 576].

The prejudiced admirers of the antients are very angry at the least insinuation that they had any idea of our barbarous Tragi-Comedy. But after all, it cannot be dissembled, that, if they had not the name, they had the thing, or something very nearly approaching to it. If that be Tragi-Comedy, which is partly serious and partly comical, I do not know why we should scruple to say, that the Alcestis of Euripides is, to all intents and purposes, a Tragi-Comedy. I have not the least doubt, that it had upon an Athenian audience the proper effect of Tragi-Comedy; that is, that in some places it made them cry, and in others, laugh. And the best thing we have to hope, for the credit of Euripides , is, that he intended to produce this effect. For though he may be an unskilful Poet, who purposes to write Tragi-Comedy, he surely is a more unskilful Poet, who writes one without knowing it.

The learned reader will understand me to allude particularly to the scene, in which the domestic describes the behaviour of Hercules ; and to the speech of Hercules himself, which follows.⁷⁵ Nothing can well be of a more comic cast than the servant's complaint. He describes the hero as the most greedy⁷⁶ and ill- mannered guest he had ever attended, under his master's hospitable roof; calling about him, eating, drinking, and singing, in a room by himself, while the master and all the family were in the height of funereal lamentation. He was not contented with such refreshments as had been set before him;

ἐτι σωφρονως ἔδεξατο Τα προστυχοντα ξενια Αλλ ἐι τι μη φερομεν, ΩΤΡΥΝΕΝ φερεια

Then he drinks—

Ἕως ἐθερμην᾿ ἀυτον ἀμφιβασα φλοξ

—crowns himself with myrtle, and sings,

ΑΜΟΥΣ ΥΛΑΚΤΩΝ

—and all this, alone.

"Cette description,"

says Fontenelle ,

"est si burlesque, qu'on diroit d'un crocheteur qui est de confrairie ."

⁷⁷ A censure somewhat justified by Euripides himself, who makes the servant take Hercules for a thief:—

πανέργον ΚΛΩΠΑ και ΛΗΙΣΤΗΝ τινα.

The speech of Hercules ,

φιλοσοφεντου ἐν μεθῃ

, as the scholiast observes, (v. 776,)

"philosophizing in his cups,"

is still more curious. It is, indeed, full of the

φλοξ όνε

, and completely justifies the attendant's description. Nothing can be more jolly. It is in the true spirit of a modern drinking song; recommending it to the servant to uncloud his brow, enjoy the present hour, think nothing of the morrow, and drown his cares in love and wine:

ΟΥΤΟΣ τι σεμνον και πεφροντικού βλέπεις;⁷⁸ Ου χρη σκυθρωπον, κ. τ. αλ. ΔΕΥΡ ΕΛΘ᾽, ὅπως ἀν και σοφωτέρου γενη. Τα θνητα πραγματ οἰδας ἦν ἐχει φυσιν; ΟΙΜΑΙ μεν ΟΥ· ΠΟΘΕΝ ΓΑΡ; –ἀλλ᾿ ἀκει με. Βροτοις άπασι κατθανειν ὀφειλεται, Κεκ ἐστι θνητων όστις ἐξεπισταται Την άυριον μελλεσαν ἐι βιωσεται. Ευφραινε σαυτον ΠΙΝΕ! –τον καθ ήμεραν Βιον λογίζε σον, τα δ' άλλα, της τυχης. Τιμα δε και την πλειστον ήδιστην θεων ΚΥΠΡΙΝ βροτοισιν κ. τ. λ.

v. 773-812 [Oxford turn v. 783-812].

If any man can read this, without supposing it to have set the audience in a roar, I certainly cannot demonstrate that he is mistaken. I can only say, that I think he must be a very grave man himself, and must forget that the Athenians were not a very grave people. The zeal of Pere Brumoy in defending this Tragedy, betrays him into a little indiscretion. He says,

"tout cela à fait penser à quelques critiques modernes que cette piece etoit une Tragicomedie; chimere inconnu aux anciens. Cette piece est du gout des autres Tragedies antiques."

⁷⁹ Indeed they, who call this play a Tragi-Comedy, give it rather a favourable name; for, in the scenes alluded to, it is, in fact, of a lower species than our Tragi-Comedy: it is, rather, burlesque Tragedy; what Demetrius calls

τραγωδια παίζεσα

.⁸⁰ Much of the comic cast prevails in other scenes; though mixed with those genuine strokes of simple and universal nature, which abound in this Poet, and which I should be sorry to exchange for that monotonous and unaffecting level of Tragic dignity, which never falls, and never rises.

I will only mention one more instance of this Tragi-comic mixture, and that from Sophocles . The dialogue between Minerva and Ulysses , in the first scene of the Ajax, from v. 74 to 88 , is perfectly ludicrous. The cowardice of Ulysses is almost as comic as the cowardice of Falstaff . In spite of the presence of Minerva, and her previous assurance, that she would effectually guard him from all danger by rendering him invisible, when she calls Ajax out, Ulysses, in the utmost trepidation, exclaims—

Τι δρας, Αθανα; μηδαμως σφ' ἐξω καλει.⁸¹

Minerva answers—

Ου σιγ άνεξη, μηδε δείλιαν ἀρεις;⁸²

But Ulysses cannot conquer his fears:—

ΜΗ, ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΩΝ-ἀλλ᾽ ἐνδον ἀρκειτω μένων.⁸³

And in this tone the conversation continues; till, upon Minerva's repeating her promise that Ajax should not see him, he consents to stay; but in a line of most comical reluctance, and with an afide, that is in the true spirit of Sancho Pança :—

Μενοιμ᾿ ἀν ΗΘΕΛΟΝ Δ᾽ ΑΝ ΕΚΤΟΣ ΩΝ ΤΥΧΕΙΝ.

v. 88. No unprejudiced person, I think, can read this scene without being convinced, not only, that it must have actually produced, but that it must have been intended to produce, the effect of Comedy.⁸⁴

It appears, indeed, to me, that we may plainly trace in the Greek Tragedy, with all its improvements, and all its beauties, pretty strong marks of its popular and Tragi-comic origin. For,

Τρα-

γῳδια

, we are told, was, originally, the only dramatic appellation⁸⁵; and when, afterwards, the ludicrous was separated from the serious, and distinguished by its appropriated name of Comedy, the separation seems to have been imperfectly made, and Tragedy, distinctively so called, seems still to have retained a tincture of its original merriment. Nor will this appear strange, if we consider the popular nature of the Greek spectacles. The people, it is probable, would still require, even in the midst of their Tragic emotion, a little dash of their old satyric fun, and Poets were obliged to comply, in some degree, with their taste.⁸⁶

When we speak of the Greek Tragedies as correct and perfect models, we seem merely to conform to the established language of prejudice, and content ourselves with echoing, without reflection or examination, what has been said before us. Lord Shaftsbury , for example, talks of Tragedy's being

"raised to its height by Sophocles and Euripides, and no room left for further excellence or emulation."

⁸⁷ I should be sorry to be ranked in the class of those critics, who prefer that Poetry which has the fewest faults, to that which has the greatest beauties.⁸⁸ I mean only to combat that conventional and hearsay kind of praise, which has so often held out the Tragedies of the Greek Poets, as elaborate and perfect models, such as had received the last polish of art and meditation. The true praise of Æschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, is, (in kind at least, though not in degree,) the praise of Shakspeare; that of strong, but irregular, unequal, and hasty genius. Every thing, which this genius and the feeling of the moment could produce... these writers possess in great abundance: what meditation, and

"the labour and delay of the file"

only can effect, they too often want. Of Shakspeare, however, compared with the Greek Poets, it may justly, I think, be pronounced, that he has much more, both of this want, and of that abundance.

34. mvp-aristotle-comment-34

NOTE 34.

4.18 P. 72. ORIGINALLY, THE TROCHAIC TETRAMETER WAS MADE USE OF, &c.

As the Trochaic measure was still occasionally admitted, even in the improved and serious Greek Tragedy, and, in particular, occurs very frequently in the Tragedies of Euripides, it is natural to suppose, that a still more frequent use of it would be one of the characteristics of the fatyric drama, which seems to have been only a sort of revival, in an improved and regular form, of the old Trochaic Tragedy with its chorus of dancing fatyrs. It seems therefore somewhat remarkable, though I have not seen it noticed, that in the only fatyric drama extant, the CYCLOPS, and that written by Euripides, who has made so much use of this measure in his Tragedies, not a single Trochaic tetrameter is to be found.

35. mvp-aristotle-comment-35

NOTE 35.

4.19 P. 73. THE IAMBIC IS, OF ALL METRES, THE MOST COLLOQUIAL, &c.

Compare Rhet. lib. iii. cap. i. and cap. viii. Ed. Duval. And Demet. Περι Ἑρμ. Sect. 43.

36. mvp-aristotle-comment-36

NOTE 36.

4.19 P. 73. ----SELDOM INTO HEXAMETER, AND ONLY WHEN WE DEPART FROM THE USUAL MELODY OF SPEECH.

It has been thought strange, that Aristotle should introduce here the mention of hexameters, when he has been speaking only of Trochaic and Iambic verse, and is accounting for the adoption of the latter, in preference, not to the hexameter, but to the Trochaic tetrameter: and it has, therefore, been doubted, whether we should not read

τετραμετρα

⁸⁹. But the established reading, I believe, is right. The Trochaic tetrameter, Aristotle has, both here, and in his Rhetoric, characterized as

σατυρικον - τροχερον όρχης ικωτερον

and even

κορδακικωτερον

⁹⁰. He did not, I apprehend, consider it as being, in any degree,

λεκτικóν

. It was therefore entirely out of the question, when a metre proper for the general dialogue of Tragedy was to be sought for: but the bexameter was not so; and it might, without absurdity, be asked by an objector, as Castelvetro and Piccolomini have observed, why that species of verse was not adopted; especially as the Tragic Poets were the successors of the Epic, or Heroic, and Homer, according to Plato, was "the first of Tragic Poets"⁹¹. As its character was grave and stately, it might seem, on that account, well adapted to Tragedy, where, indeed, we actually find it occasionally introduced. But Aristotle objects to it as less proper, because, though

σεμνον

, it was at the same time, least

λεκτικον

. He allows, however, that it was not so remote from the rhythm of common speech, but that it might be casually produced, like the Iambic, though it rarely happened. He even goes so far, as to allow, in his concluding chapter, that Tragedy "might adopt the Epic metre."⁹²—All this seems to afford sufficient support to the common reading. The Heroic and Iambic feet are, in the same manner, considered together, Rhet. iii. 8.

λεκτικη άρμονια

, Aristotle means what Aristoxenus calls

ΜΕΛΟΣ λογωδες

⁹³. We must not suppose him to use the word

ἁρμονια

here, in that lax and general sense, in which we commonly apply it to the rhythm of speech, when we talk of the harmony of a verse or a period. He speaks with his usual accuracy. Speech, as well as Music, has its melody and its rhythm; and these, in speech animated by passion, are so modified, as to approach, more or less perceptibly, to musical melody and rhythm.⁹⁴ And what Aristotle here asserts, I think, is, that the Greeks seldom, or never, departed so far from the usual rhythm of speech, as to run into hexameter verse, except when they were led, by the same cause, to depart equally from its usual melody or tones.

37. mvp-aristotle-comment-37

NOTE 37.

4.20 P. 73. THE EPISODES WERE MULTIPLIED.

The mistakes, into which some commentators have been led by annexing to the term

Επεισοδιον

, as applied by Aristotle to Tragedy, the modern and Epic idea of a digression, "hors-d'œuvre, intermede, morceau d'attache", have been well pointed out by Le Bossu, Tr. du Poeme Ep. liv. ii. ch. iv. v. vi. . But he appears to me to have gone too far, and to have fallen into the opposite error, by extending the word even to the most essential parts of the general action, to which he will not allow the

ἐπεισοδια

to be, in any sense, added, united, &c.-but insists that they constitute that action, "comme les membres font la matiere des corps." With this idea, he had, indeed, some reason to call the word

ἐπασοδιον

, "terme trompeur;" for, in this application of it, all sight of its etymological sense is lost. By all that I can gather from an attentive comparison of all the passages in which Aristotle uses the word, there appears to me no reason to suppose, that he any where meant to apply it indiscriminately to all the incidents of a fable; and it is for this reason that I have no where ventured to render it by the word incident, which would have been too general. Le Bossu's definition is," Les Episodes sont les parties necessaires de l'action etendues avec des circonstances vraisemblables." -The death of Cato, for example, in the Tragedy of Addison, answers to this definition. But would Aristotle have called that an Episode? I can scarce think it. The most I can conceive is, that he might have applied the term

ἐπεισοδια

to the particular circumstances and detail of the action, which were the additions of the Poet's fancy. Le Bossu mentions, as an instance, the escape of Orestes by means of the ablution, in the Iphig. in Taur. of Euripides; which, he says, Aristotle calls an Episode. But, it is not the escape of Orestes, (

ἡ σωτηρια

) that Aristotle so denominates; this was an essential circumstance, and is expressly included by him in that general sketch of the plot, into which the

ἐπεισοδια

were afterwards to be worked: and one of these Episodes was the detail of the manner in which the escape was effected,

δια της καθάρσεως

. - See NOTE 143 .

The word

ἐπεισοδιον

is, I think, used by Aristotle only in two senses: 1. The technical sense, in which it is clearly defined to mean, all that part, or, rather, those parts, of a Tragedy, that are included between entire choral odes.⁹⁵ 2. It is evidently applied, in other passages, to the particular parts, subordinate actions, circumstances, or incidents, of the fable; but only, I think, to such, as were not essential parts of the Poet's plan or story, though they might be, and indeed ought to be, closely connected with it:-such, as, however important in the action, by contributing to promote the catastrophe, were yet no way necessitated by history, or popular tradition, or, in subjects of pure invention, by the Poet's general and determined plan, but depended on the invention or the choice of the Poet, who might, without any alteration in the

καθόλε λογώ

, as Aristotle calls it, of his drama, have conducted the action to its catastrophe by different means.

The word

ἐπεισοδιον

, then, appears to me never to be used by Aristotle but in its proper and derivative sense, of something more or less adventitious or accessory-something inserted, superadded, introduced, at pleasure, by the Poet. But the Epic Poem, from its extent of plan, and the variety requisite to its purpose, admits, and requires, subordinate actions of greater length and slighter relation to the principal action of the fable, than is consistent with the shorter compass, closer unity, and different end, of Tragedy. As the Episodes of Epic Poetry, therefore, had more distinctness, entireness, and projection from the subject, if I may so express myself, than those of Tragedy, this, as it was the most obvious, became in time almost the only, application of the term; till, at length, from the frequent abuse of this Epic privilege of variety, and the

μεταβαλλαν τον ἀκεοντα

, scarce any other idea was annexed to the word Episode, than that of digression, bors-d'œuvre, something foreign to the subject, or connected with it only by the slightest thread. Hence, too, in modern language, the word, I think, is applied only to entire actions of this additional, or digressive kind; not to the minuter circumstances or incidents which form the detail of an action. Thus, we call the whole story of Dido, in the Aneid, an Episode; but we should not give that name to any of the incidents by which the death of Turnus (an action essential to the fable,) is circumstantiated, though equally introduced and supplied by the Poet, and therefore equally, in Aristotle's sense,

ἐπεισοδια

. And so much, as to his use of this term, in general. Whether these remarks are well or ill founded, will best appear, when we come to apply them to the particular passages in which the word occurs. In that now before us, it is used, I think, in the second of the two senses I mentioned; and its best comment seems to be another passage, cap. xxiv. where the critic observes the advantage which the Epic Poem has in the variety of its Episodes, and assigns the want of that variety, as one common cause of ill success in Tragic writing: –

το γαρ ΟΜΟΙΟΝ ταχυ πληρεν ἐκπιπτειν ποια τας τραγωδίας

38. mvp-aristotle-comment-38

NOTE 38.

5.1 P. 73. THE RIDICULOUS-A SPECIES OF TURPITUDE OR DEFORMITY; SINCE IT MAY BE DEFINED, &C.

It has been asserted by some writers of eminence, that Aristotle here speaks, not of what is laughable or ludicrous, in general, but only of the ridiculous, in that particular sense of the word, in which it is distinguished from the merely risible, and implies laughter mixed with disapprobation or contempt. This, however, is certainly not what Aristotle has said; for the word

γελοιον

, which he uses, is as general as possible, and answers exactly to our word laughable. And it is in this general sense, justified, I think, by common usage, that I have used the word ridiculous in my version. For though in a philosophical speculation the distinction above-mentioned may be necessary for clearness, and is undoubtedly well founded, yet, in common language, the word ridiculous is never used with this nice appropriation, but applied, like its Latin original, to whatever excites laughter.

But it is objected, that, if Aristotle means the laughable in general, his account of the matter is false; because "men laugh at that, in which there is neither fault nor turpitude of any kind."⁹⁶ I answer, that this is true in English, but not true in Greek. Our word, turpitude, is confined, I think, to a moral sense, and I suppose is here so used by Dr. Beattie; and it is certainly true, that we laugh at many things that have in them no turpitude of that kind-nothing morally wrong. But the Greek word,

ΑΙΣΧΡΟΝ

, was a word of wide extent, and seems manifestly used here by Aristotle in its utmost latitude; comprehending every thing that is, in any degree, ugly or deformed, from atrocious villainy, the highest moral ugliness, to a ridiculous cast of features in an ugly face. It is the opposite to

ΚΑΛΟΝ

, which was used in a correspondent latitude of application. - The objections, which have been made to this passage, have chiefly, I think, been owing to this, that the objectors have not been sufficiently aware of the extensive signification in which the Greeks used the words,

καλον, αισχρον, –ἀρετη, κακια σπεδαιον, φαυλον-άμαρτημα

, &c. We trans- late the words of antient authors by words to which we annex different ideas, and then raise objections and difficulties from our own mistakes. The consequence of taking

αισχρον

here in the restrained sense of moral turpitude, has been, that those writers, who have so taken it, have been obliged to deny, that

γελοιον

means laughable, because the laughable in general could not truly be defined, "a species of moral turpitude."

It plainly was not Aristotle's design here to enter into an accurate inquiry about the nature of laughter, and the distinction of risible and ridiculous objects. This he had perhaps done, in that part of this mutilated treatise, which related to Comedy, and to which he himself refers in his Rhetoric.⁹⁷ His purpose, here, seems to have been, merely to support and explain his account of Comedy; i. e. that it was

μιμησις φαυλοτερων

, "an imitation of bad characters;" that is, as he immediately limits the sense of the general term

φαυλον

, of ridiculous, or laughable, characters. Such, he continues, are properly denominated

φαυλοι, κακοι

, bad, &c. because the laughable (

γελοιον

) is one species of the

αισχρον

, taken in its most general sense. "But to what species, or class," it was obvious to ask, "does it belong?"-To that class, it is answered, of things

αισχρα

, which are neither destructive nor painful: for these, exciting terror or pity, are the property of Tragedy. And he asserts, I think, plainly, that the laughable in general,

το γελοιον

, i. e. every thing that excites laughter, is

ἁμαρτημα ΤΙ και αισχα ἀνωδυνον και φθαρτικον

-is, in some respect or other, faulty, wrong, deformed, but neither painful nor pernicious. What follows, about a ridiculous face, is, I think, clearly, not an illustration merely, as Dr. Campbell understands it to be, but an instance.⁹⁸ This seems evident from Aristotle's using the very word

αισχρον

; (

προσωπον αισχρον

) which he would hardly have done, had he just before used the words

αισχρον

and

αισχ

, as Dr. Campbell and Dr. Beattie contend that he bas used them, in a moral sense only.

But it is objected "We can never suppose that Aristotle would have called distorted features 'a certain fault or slip.'" To call them a slip, would indeed found strangely; because that expression conveys the idea of something morally wrong. But when we say, that a very long nose, or a wide mouth, is a fault in a face, we use a very common expression; the word fault having, I think, the same latitude of application as the Greek word

ἀμαρτημα

It must be observed, however, that all Aristotle says is, that these two characters, deformity of some sort, and the absence of pain, or hurt, are to be found in every object of laughter: he neither says, nor implies, the converse that every thing so qualified is laughable. With respect to one of these characters the absence of pain or harm-there can be no doubt. It is only saying that we cannot laugh at that which shocks us. As to the other general character, deformity, ugliness, something wrong, &c. (

ἁμαρτημα ΤΙ και αισχα

) it seems to me, that these expressions, taken in that large sense, in which Aristotle plainly means to use them, amount to much the same as those used by modern philosophers to characterize the risible in general; such as, "incongruity, incongruous association, striking unsuitableness," "disproportion, inconsistence and dissonance of circumstances in the same object"⁹⁹. With respect to works both of nature, and of art," says the ingenious and philosophical author of the Elements of Criticism, "none of them are risible but what are out of rule, some remarkable defect or excess; a very long visage, for example, or a very short one. Hence nothing just, proper, decent, beautiful, proportioned, or grand, is risible."¹⁰⁰ This appears to me to be exactly the meaning, and to approach very near to the language, of Aristotle. For, of whatever may be thus characterized it surely may be said, that it has some species of fault, deformity, or distortion: in Aristotle's words,

ἁμαρτημα Τι και -αισχρον ΤΙ και ΔΙΕΣΤΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ

Aristotle's account, then, of the

γελοíον

, appears to be right, as far as it goes. It might, indeed, be objected to, as too general, had he given it as the result of an exact and particular analysis of the subject. But this, as I have already observed, was not his purpose in this place.

It is farther objected by Dr. Campbell, that to speak of laughter in general, "would have been foreign to Aristotle's purpose:" because, "laughter is not his theme, but Comedy; and laughter only so far as Comedy is concerned with it. Now the concern of Comedy reaches no farther than that kind of ridicule which relates to manners."¹⁰¹—Undoubtedly it was this kind of ridicule that Aristotle had principally in view. But I apprehend, that the Comedy here in question was concerned with the ridiculous or laughable in general. For Aristotle's notion of Comedy, as an excellent writer has observed, "was taken from the state and practice of the Athenian stage that is, from the old or middle Comedy, which answers to his description. The great revolution which the introduction of the new Comedy made in the drama, did not happen till afterwards."¹⁰² Now the old and middle Comedy, as I have before observed, were no other than what we should call Farce. To raise a laugh was so eminently their object, that the ridiculous (

το γελοιον

) is frequently used by Plato, as synonymous to Comedy, and substituted for it; as pity is also for Tragedy.¹⁰³ Nor was it even very "foreign to Aristotle's purpose" to instance in a ridiculous face; for that this also was an established source of fun in the Greek theatre, is well known from the curious account of the comic masks in Jul. Pollux; who says, particularly of those of the old Comedy, that they were ridiculous caricaturas of the persons represented:—

ἐπι το γελοιοτερον ἐσχηματισο

.¹⁰⁴ The Athenians were certainly not more delicate than Cicero, who thought, we know, that bodily deformities were "satis bella materies ad jocandum."¹⁰⁵ He, also, agrees perfectly with Aristotle, or rather follows him, in his account of the ridiculous: "Locus autem et regio quasi ridiculi TURPITUDINE ET DEFORMITATE QUADAM continetur."

39. mvp-aristotle-comment-39

NOTE 39.

5.4 P. 73. ITS POETS HAVE BEEN RECORDED.

The original is,

δι ΛΕΓΟΜΕΝΟΙ αυτης ποιηται μνημονευονται

: the only fair translation of which, I think, is,

"they who are called its Poets."

But as it seems not easy to find any reasonable meaning for this, I have not translated the word at all. The text is probably corrupt. Castelvetro conjectured, very ingeniously,

ΟΛΙΓΟΙ ΜΕΝ ΟΙ ΑΥΤΗΣ ποιηται

.—But this Greek,

όλιγοι οι ποιηται

, is, I fear, what the critics call,

πονηρκ κομματα

. I will venture to mention another conjecture that has occurred to me. The learned reader will dispose of it as he pleases. It seems not improbable that Aristotle wrote,

Ηδη δε σχηματα τινα αυτης ἐχεσης ΟΙΑ ΛΕΓΟΜΕΝ, ΟΙ αυτης, &c.

i. e.

"When it had acquired a certain form, such as we say,"

alluding to what he had said of Homer's suggesting, by his Margites, the true form, or idea, of Comedy, in which the ridiculous was substituted for the mere invective of the old Iambic, or Satyric form.

Τα της κωμωδίας ΣΧΗΜΑΤΑ πρωτο ὑπεδειξεν, ἐ ψογον, άλλα ΤΟ ΓΕΛΟΙΟΝ δραματοποιησας,

[cap. iv.] See, also, what he says immediately after, of the forms (

σχηματα

) of Tragedy and Comedy being

ἐντιμοτερα

, in higher credit and esteem, than those of the old satirical and encomiastic poems which preceded them: for this seems to accord with what he here says, that Comedy was neglected till it attained something of this its proper form, and aimed at its proper object, the ridiculous. The reader will see the connection :

Ἡ δε κωμῳδια, δια το ΜΗ ΣΠΟΥΔΑΖΕΣΘΑΙ ἐξ ἀρχης, ἐλαθεν. ——ΗΔΗ ΔΕ ΣΧΗΜΑΤΑ τίνα αυτης ἐχεσης ὉΙΑ ΛΕΓΟΜΕΝ, ΟΙ αυτης ποιηται μνημονευονται

.—This differs from the present reading only by the insertion of a single letter,

, which might easily have been omitted, from its resemblance to the

that follows.

40. mvp-aristotle-comment-40

NOTE 40.

5.4 P. 73. PROLOGUES.

We are not, I think, to look for a sense of the word

Προλογο

, as here applied to Comedy, different from that, in which it is applied, ch. xii.

[Transl. Part II. Sect. 10.]

to Tragedy. In both, it was that introductory part of the drama, the business of which was, to give the spectator, either directly, in its very outlet, or, more obliquely, in the course of it, so much information relative to the subject of the piece, as would enable him to follow the action without confusion. ¹⁰⁶ This we learn clearly from the following passage in that part of Aristotle's Rhetoric , where he explains and illustrates the oratorical exordium, by a comparison of it with that of the Epic Poem, and with the prologue of a drama. After giving, as examples, the openings of the Iliad and Odyssey, he goes on:—

και οι Τραγικοι δηλεσι περι το δραμα, καν μη ευθυς, ώσπερ Ευριπίδης, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ΤΩΙ ΠΡΟΛΟΓΩ γε ΠΟΥ δηλοι, ώσπερ και Σοφοκλης ---ΚΑΙ Ἡ ΚΩΜΩΔΙΑ ΩΣΑΥΤΩΣ

[Rhet. iii. 14.] . ¹⁰⁷—This clearly excludes the separate prologue, such as that of the Roman Comedy; and it is, also, irreconcilable with Dacier's idea, that by the prologue, in the passage we are considering, Aristotle meant what was afterwards called the Parabasis ; for this was merely an address from the Poet to the audience, through the mouth of the Chorus, occurring indifferently in any part of the play, and even, sometimes, at the end of it. ¹⁰⁸ It seems to differ from the prologue of the Roman Comedy, and of the modern drama, only in its being delivered by the Chorus, and in the body of the piece.

Tragedy, according to the usual account of it, seems to have consisted, at first, only of two parts, the

Χορικον

, and

Επεισοδίον

, and to have begun and ended with those choral songs, which were then esteemed the essential part of Tragedy. But, afterwards, these scanty fables,

μικροι μυθοι

, as Aristotle calls them, were drawn out to their proper size , not only by introducing a greater variety of episodic incidents , but by prefixing to the first choral song, (or to the first speech of the entire chorus, according to Aristotle's account of the Parode, cap. xii.) the introductory part called

Προλογού

, and adding, after the last, the concluding part called

Έξοδος

. The case was probably the same with Comedy. The Phallic songs, from which it received its birth, were, I suppose, regarded originally as the essential part of the Comic drama, in the same manner as the Bacchic hymns were of the Tragic. Aristotle plainly speaks of Comedy, as having gradually received similar additions and improvements to those of Tragedy ; and, among these, that of the

Προλογά

. That such an introductory part, or act, which should be, as Aristotle expresses it,

δειγμα λογε

, and

ὁδοποιησις τῳ ἐπιοντι

, was indeed still more necessary to Comedy than to Tragedy, is obvious from the very nature of the former drama.

The nature and office of the Greek prologue, and its two different manners, are, I observe, very exactly expressed by Terence in the conclusion of his separate prologue to the Adelphi ; as they are also very well exemplified in the two first scenes. Dehinc, ne expectetis argumenta fabulæ. Senes qui primi venient, hi, partem aperient, In agendo partem oftendent. That is, as I understand it, part of the plot they will open to you in the way of direct narration, like the prologues of Euripides, (as, in the soliloquy of Mitio,) and part they will discover in a more oblique and dramatic way, in the scene of action and dialogue that follows:

"In agendo partem oftendent."

I ventured, in a former note, to say, that the Greek Tragedy appeared to me to have retained, with all its improvements, some traces of its origin. Something of this may be perceived, I think, in the very opening of many of the Greek dramas: but especially in those of Euripides , whose inartificial prologues of explanatory narration, addressed directly to the spectators, remind us of the state of Tragedy previous to the introduction of the dialogue ; when it consisted only of a story told between the acts, (if I may so speak,) of the Dithyrambic Chorus, which was then the main body and substance of the entertainment. When I read the opening of the Hecuba:

ΗΚΩ, νεκρων κευθμωνα και σκοτε πύλας Διπων, ἐν᾿ Αδης χωρις ᾠκισται θεων, ΠΟΛΥΔΩΡΟΣ, Εκαβης παις γεγως της Κίσσέως Πριαμέτε πατρα κ. τ. αλ.

Hec. v. 1. ¹⁰⁹ —that of the Perfe of Æschylus :—

ΤΑΔΕ μεν Περσων των διχομενων Ελλαδ᾽ ἐις άναν πιστα καλείται.

Pers. v. 1. —or, even the—

ΑΥΤΟΣ ὧδ᾽ ἐληλυθα Ο ΠΑΣΙ ΚΛΕΙΝΟΣ ΟΙΔΙΠΟΥΣ ΚΑΛΟΥΜΕΝΟΣ

Oed. Tyr. v. 7. —of Sophocles , I cannot help thinking of the single actor of Thespis , announcing his own name and family, and telling the simple tale of his achievements or misfortunes.

This sort of direct explanation was afterwards, with much more propriety, taken from the persons of the drama, and consigned to the actors in a detached prologue, such as those of Plautus and Terence : a practice, which, if we did not know the attachment of Ben Jonson to every thing antient, we might suspect he meant to ridicule, by the pleasant use he has made of it in the prologue to his puppet-shew of Hero and Leander, in the Bartholomew Fair. "Gentles, that no longer your expectations may wander, Behold our chief actor, amorous Leander, With a great deal of cloth lapp'd about him like a scarf, For he yet serves his father, a dyer at Puddle-wharf," &c.

The next, and the last step, in the history of Prologues, was again to leave the argument, as it had been left by Sophocles, to the oblique information and gradual development of the action itself, and to make the separate prologue subservient to other purposes, unconnected with the subject of the drama. The worst of these purposes, and the greatest possible abuse of the term, is to be found in what is called the Prologue of the French Opera ; which is wholly composed of two ingredients, almost equally disgusting to a just poetical, or moral taste—allegory and adulation.

41. mvp-aristotle-comment-41

NOTE 41.

5.5 P. 73. EPICHARMUS AND PHORMIS FIRST INVENTED COMIC FABLES.

Dacier , here, raises unnecessary difficulties. His positive assertion, that, in the old and middle Comedy,

"Il n'y avoit rien de feint,"

is surprising. The slightest inspection of Aristophanes will confute it. Was it, then, a fact, that Socrates used to be suspended in a basket for the benefit of aerial meditation? and that Æschylus and Euripides weighed their verses in a pair of scales, to decide, by that means, a contest or superiority, after they were dead? &c.. ¹¹⁰

Μυθες ποιειν

, is clearly to invent plots or subjects; and whatever is invented, or feigned, is, in Aristotle's language,

καθολε

, or general, as opposed to a strictly historical plot, which is

καθ ἐκαστον

, particular. ¹¹¹ The expression, therefore, which Aristotle presently after uses, in speaking of Crates ,

ἀφεμενα της ιαμβικης ίδεας, καθολα ποιειν λογες μυθες

, I understand to be no more than the development of the shorter expression which preceded,

μυθες ποιειν

. He does not say, that Crates was the first Poet, but only the first Athenian Poet, who invented such comic subjects. The distinction seems clearly marked:

το μεν ἐν ἐξ ἀρχης ἐκ ΣΙΚΕΛΙΑΣ ἦλθε : ΤΩΝ ΔΕ ΑΘΗΝΗΣΙ, Κρατης πρωτο κ. τ. αλλ.

42. mvp-aristotle-comment-42

NOTE 42.

5.7 P. 74. EPIC POETRY AGREES SO FAR WITH TRAGIC, &C.

Of the corruption of this passage I have no doubt. It has been proposed to eject the words,

μετα λογε

. My suspicion rather falls upon the word

μετρε

; which, as it adds nothing but embarrassment to the sense, (

λογο

, speech, or words, being a general term, and including metre, as in ch. i. ) I have omitted. It appears to me, likewise, that the only meaning, which can reasonably be given to the expression,

μεχρι ΜΟΝΟΥ μετρα

, is—as far as metre alone; i. e.

"without considering the other means of imitation, melody and rhythm."

And, accordingly, some commentators, by

μετρον ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΝ

, understand verse alone, without music. But had this been Aristotle's meaning, he would probably have used the appropriated and clear word,

$\psi u\lambda ov$

. The proper and obvious sense of

μετρον άπλεν

, is, a simple, or single, kind of metre. ¹¹² This sense seems also supported by what he says of the metrical difference of the Epic and Tragic Poems, cap. xxiv. where melody and rhythm are not taken into the comparison, but the different kinds of metre only, and their being one, or many:—

ἐι γαρ τις ἐν ἀλλῳ τινι μετρῳ διηγηματικην μιμησιν ποιοιτο, ἐν ΠΟΛΛΟΙΣ, ἀπρεπες ἂν φαινοιτο.

And farther, that Aristotle did not mean to express by

μετρον άπλεν

, the exclusion of melody and rhythm, appears the more probable, because he sufficiently expresses this presently afterwards, when he says, that some of the parts of Tragedy were peculiar to it. Now these parts are no other than the decoration, (

oψις

), and the Melopæia, which included melody and rhythm.

On the whole, it seems not improbable, that the passage originally stood in some such way as this:

Ἡ μεν ἐν Εποποϊία τη Τραγω δια μέχρι μονα ΤΟΥ μετα λογε μιμησιΝ ἐἶναι σπεδαιων ἠκολεθησεν.

43. mvp-aristotle-comment-43

NOTE 43.

5.9 P. 74. THIS, AT FIRST, WAS EQUALLY THE CASE WITH TRAGEDY ITSELF.

It seems to have been taken for granted, without any foundation, by Dacier , and other commentators, that the modern rule, (for an antient rule it certainly is not,) of what is called the unity of time, was strictly adhered to in every period of the Greek drama: and this has led them, in this passage, to confound the length of the action, or fable, with that of the representation ; for these, where a strict unity of time is observed, are indeed the same. But Aristotle here says plainly, that in the earliest state of Tragedy, no rule at all, with respect to the time of the action, was observed ; that it was not only allowed to exceed

"a single revolution of the sun,"

but was

"indefinite (

ἀορις

like that of the Epic Poem. This evidently cannot be applied, without absurdity, to the time of representation. Yet so it is applied by Dacier in his note on this passage, p. 70.

But it appears farther, I think, from what is said, and plainly said, in this chapter, that, after all we have heard so often about this famous unity of time, the rule receives not the least support from Aristotle's authority. Every one, who knows how much stress has been laid by modern critics on the three dramatic unities, and happens not to be well acquainted with Aristotle's treatise on Poetry, would, I suppose, naturally take it for granted, that they are all explicitly laid down, and enforced by him, as essential and indispensable laws, in that famous code of dramatic criticism. But the fact is, that, of these three rules, the only one that can be called important—that of the unity of action—is, indeed, clearly laid down and explained, and, with great reason, considered by him as indispensable.

Of the two other unities, that of place is not once mentioned, or even hinted, in the whole book ; and all that is said, respecting the time of the action, is said in this chapter, and in these words:

"Tragedy endeavours, as far as possible, to confine its action within the limits of a single revolution of the sun, or nearly so."

¹¹³ Almost all the commentators seem agreed in understanding the expression,

μια περιοδου ήλιε

, to mean only an artificial day. But I own I could never yet perceive any good reason, why we should not permit Aristotle to mean what he seems, in plain terms, to say. If he meant only twelve hours, why did he prefer an expression so ambiguous, to say the least of it, as

μιαν περιοδον ήλιε

, to the clear and obvious expression of

μιαν ΗΜΕΡΑΝ

? —But, to wave this question, the utmost, which the most strenuous advocates for the unity of time can make of this passage, is this—that the Poet should endeavour, as far as possible, to confine the supposed time of the action to that of a single day, or nearly so. Now it seems allowed, that none of the Greek Tragedies extant could have taken up, in the representation, more than three or four hours. What Aristotle, therefore, here says, is so far from being a rule for the unity of time, that, on the contrary, it is saying as plainly as possible, that, in his view, it was no duty incumbent on the dramatic Poet even to aim at the observance of such a rule: for, had he thought otherwise, his mode of expression would, surely, have been very different. He would have proposed the strict unity of time—the exact coincidence of the actual time of representation with the supposed time of the action—as the point of perfection, at which the Poet was to aim: he would have said,

"Tragedy endeavours, as far as possible, to confine its action within the time of representation, or nearly so."

It is certain, indeed, that the nature of the drama, strictly and rigorously considered, would require, I will not say, to the perfection, but to the closeness, of its imitation, the exact coincidence here mentioned ; and it is on this foundation only, that any rule at all relative to time could be necessary, and that the dramatic Poet could, with any reason, be denied the privilege of the Epic. All I contend for is, that Aristotle has no where required such a coincidence ; that he has not even mentioned it; much less has he, either here, or in any other part of his work, enjoined it as a rule. His rule is, as generally understood,

"confine your action, as nearly as you can, to a single day;"

—or, as I think, in conformity to his plain words, it should be understood—

"to a single revolution of the sun, or twenty-four hours."

¹¹⁴

It may, perhaps, be objected, that Aristotle has not delivered this in the form of a rule ; that he only refers to fact, and to the usual practice of the dramatic Poets of his time.

"Tragedy endeavours,"

&c. But, surely, to mention the general practice of Poets with seeming approbation, or, at least, without a word to the contrary, is, in fact, to erect that practice, (as he has done on many other occasions throughout his treatise,) into a rule. It is sufficient for my purpose, that, at least, he has given no other rule. Moreover, what he here says of the practice of the Greek dramatists, seems somewhat adverse to the language of those modern critics, who so often appeal, if I mistake not, to that very practice, for the support of their rigorous unity of time. For, if his expression does not prove, that he thought the rule of a single revolution of the sun the only rule which the Poets ought to observe, it surely proves, because it actually says, that he thought it the only rule, which, in general, they did observe.

But what says Dacier ?

"Une Tragedie, pour être parfaite, ne doit occuper ni plus, ni moins de tems, pour l'action, que pour la representation; car elle est alors dans toute la vraisemblance. Les Tragiques Grecs L'ONT TOUJOURS PRATIQUE."

What he adds, it seems not very easy to comprehend:

"Et ils s'en font fait une loi si indispensable, que pour ne la pas violer, ils ont quelquefois violentè leurs incidens, d'une maniere que je ne conseillerois pas de suivre:"

i. e. in plain English, (for I can make nothing else of it,)

"they have so scrupulously adhered to the rule, that, sometimes, for the sake of observing it, they have been obliged to break it."

p. 118.

I believe, every reader, who, in perusing the Greek Tragedians, has taken the pains to examine this matter, must be sensible, that what Dacier so confidently asserts, of their constant adherence to this rule, is palpably false. I shall only mention one remarkable instance of the utter neglect of it, and that in SOPHOCLES ; who, in this, as in other respects, is usually regarded, I think, as the most correct and regular of the three Greek Poets whose Tragedies are in our hands. In his Trachiniae, v. 632, Lichas sets out to carry the poisoned garment to Hercules, whom he finds upon the Cenaean promontory, which is said to be about sixty Italian miles from the scene of the action. At v. 734, Hyllus, who was present when his father received the garment, arrives with the terrible relation of its effects. Thus, during the performance of about a hundred lines, a journey of about one hundred and twenty Italian miles is supposed to have been taken. For this, and other instances of the same kind, I must content myself with referring the reader to the sensible and well written Estratto della Poetica d'Aristotile , published among the posthumous works of Metastasio , and which did not fall into my hands till all my notes were written. It contains many ingenious and sagacious observations. The subject of the dramatic unities, in particular, is discussed at large, and, I think, in a very masterly and satisfactory way. And, with respect to the strict unities of time and place, he seems perfectly to have succeeded in shewing, that no such rules were imposed on the Greek Poets by the critics, or by themselves;—nor are imposed on any Poet, either by the nature, or the end, of the dramatic imitation itself. ¹¹⁵ It would be inexcusable to quit this subject without reminding the reader, that the unities of time and place, were long ago powerfully, and, in my opinion, unanswerably combated, as far as their principles are concerned, by Dr. Johnson, in his preface to Shakspeare, p. 20, &c.

44. mvp-aristotle-comment-44

NOTE 44. P. 75.

6.2 IN THE WAY, NOT OF NARRATION, BUT OF ACTION.

It is surprising, that so strange a phrase as

ειδων --- δρωντων

—

formis---agentibus

—should have passed as genuine with any Greek scholar. It is still more so, that the obvious opposition of

δρωντων

ἀπαγγελια

, and the no less obvious absurdity of opposing narration to pity and terror, (

δι' ἀπαγγελιας, ΑΛΛΑ δ᾽ ἐλεου και φοβου

) should have escaped the notice of any commentator.—I should write the passage thus; still considering it as imperfect:—

χωρις ἐκαστου των ειδων ἐν τοις μοριοις * * * [forte ΔΙΑ] δρωντων και ου δι' ἀπαγγελιας

¹¹⁶

* * * * ἀλλα δι' ἐλεου και φοβου, κ. τ. αλ.

Thus the word

δρωντων

will retain its proper sense, and the active imitation of the drama, which Aristotle every where makes its characteristic distinction, as opposed to the Epic, will be, as we might expect to find it, in a formal and exact definition of Tragedy, distinctly marked.

I will just observe, farther, that this mode of expression—

δρωντων ΚΑΙ ΟΥ δι' ἀπ.

is familiar to Aristotle. Here however it may be justified by the necessity of marking clearly the distinction between Dramatic and Epic Poetry. In other instances, as,

ἑτερως και μη τον αυτον τροπον.

cap. i.

ὡς τον αυτον και μη μεταβαλλοντα.

cap. iii.

ειδως και μη ἀγνοων.

Eth. Nic. v. 8. it seems hardly to admit of the same excuse. In the Poets we are less surprised to find it frequent. Victorius has pointed out Homer, Il. Z. 333.

ἐπει με κατ᾿ ἀισαν ἐνεικεσας, ἐδ᾽ ὑπερ αισαν.

—and Sophocles: Oed. Tyr. 58.

γνωτα, κ'ουκ ἀγνωτα μοι Προσηλθεθ' ίμειροντες.

If any man, in reading the ancients, can persuade himself to take such things for beauties, there is certainly no harm in it. The fact I take to be, that composition, even that of Poetry, was not yet so far improved and refined, as perfectly to exclude the inaccuracies and redundancies of popular and familiar speech.

45. mvp-aristotle-comment-45

NOTE 45. P. 75.

6.2 EFFECTING, THROUGH PITY AND TERROR, THE CORRECTION AND REFINEMENT OF SUCH PASSIONS.

Δι' ἐλεου και φοβου περαινουσα την των τοιουτων παθηματων καθαρσιν.

A history of the controversies which this obscure passage has excited among critics and commentators, and an exact statement and examination of the various explanations which have been given of it, would almost fill a volume. Among these, however, the opinions, that are worth regarding, or that can, with any show of probability, be deduced from Aristotle's expression, are, I think, reducible to two.

One is, that this purgation, or moderation, of the passions, is merely the effect of having them frequently excited, and of being familiarized with the occasions of them, in Tragic fiction; just as the passions of pity and terror are actually purged, or reduced to moderation, in a surgeon, a physician, or a soldier, by their being accustomed to those terrible or piteous objects that occasion them.

The other interpretation attributes the effect to the moral lesson and example of the drama: Tragedy purges the passions by the striking pictures it sets before us of the dreadful calamities occasioned by the unrestrained indulgence of them; by giving useful warnings, and preparing us to bear the ills of life with patience.

One, or the other, or both, of these meanings, have, I think, been attributed to Aristotle by the best commentators and critics. For the first, the reader may see Mr. Harris's Disc. on Music, Painting, &c. ch. v. note .— Heinf. De Trag. Const. cap. ii. p. 22, 23 . and Castelvetro, p. 117, 118 . For the second, Madius;— D'Alembert in his letter to Rousseau, Melanges, tom. ii. p. 414 .— Dryden, Obs. on the Æneid — Abbè Du Bos, Refl. sur la Poesie, tom. i. sect. 44, &c . For an explanation compounded of the two, Robortelli, Piccolomini, and Dacier, who, by the way, after declaring that all the explanations of former commentators

"servaient only to obscure the passage,"

and that the true sense was not to be found in any of them, proceeds to give us, as that true sense, and as his own discovery, exactly what had been said before him.

Let us first see what Aristotle says. He says, that Tragedy, by the means of pity and terror, effects the purgation (

καθαρσιν

) of such passions: i. e. of pity and terror and other passions of the same kind: for pity and terror seem clearly meant, by the expression, to be included in the effect. ¹¹⁷ And this, in my opinion, is sufficient to overturn the second of the explanations just mentioned; for, according to that, terror and pity are not both the means and the object of the purgation, as Aristotle, I think, asserts them to be, but they are the means only of purging other passions—those passions, whatever they may be, which are supposed to produce the calamitous events exhibited to our view. Indeed, according to this idea, the object is rather the vice that arises from passion, than the passion itself which is the cause of it. But, besides this objection, I do not see any reason to think, that the moral lesson of the drama, and the effects it might have in moderating our passions through the reflections it excites in us, were at all in Aristotle's thoughts ¹¹⁸.

The first of the two explanations seems far more admissible. I believe it made a part of his idea, but I doubt whether it was the whole of it. What was precisely his meaning, and the whole of his meaning, will never, I fear, be the subject of a perfect, Stoical

καταληψις

to any man. There is, however, one passage in Aristotle's works, which throws some little light upon this; enough, at least, to keep us from false interpretations, if not to lead us to the true. It is in the seventh chapter of his eighth book De Republica . The Abbé Batteux is the only commentator I know of, who has paid a proper attention to this passage; but as I do not perfectly agree with him, either as to the translation he has given, or the use he makes of it, I shall produce so much of the original as appears to be of any importance to our present purpose, and subjoin a translation, with some necessary remarks.

The object of Aristotle, in the chapter referred to, is, to examine what kinds of Music (i. e. of melody and rhythm,) are proper to be used in the education of youth. He mentions and approves a division, made by some philosophical writers of that time, of the different kinds of melodies, into Moral, Active, and Enthusiastic:

τα μεν ΗΘΙΚΑ, τα δε ΠΡΑΚΤΙΚΑ, τα δ' ΕΝΘΟΥΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΑ.

By the first of these we are to understand a manly, grave, and simple melody. The sense of

πρακτικα

is less clear; but I suppose it means a more complicated and imitative sort of melody, adapted to express human actions; for, in the 49th of the Harmonic Problems [Sect. 19.] it is said of the Hypo-Phrygian mode, that it had

ἠθος πρακτικον

, and was, on that account, used only in the dialogue and action of the drama, never in the choral part. ¹¹⁹ And the same epithet,

πρακτικον

, is applied, in this treatise, to the Iambic measure. ¹²⁰ As to enthusiastic, it wants no explanation. Aristotle then proceeds to observe, that "Music was to be used, not for one useful purpose only, but for several," which he enumerates; and one of them is—

ΚΑΘΑΡΣΕΩΣ ἐνεκα

: with respect to which he says—

τι δε λεγομεν την καθαρσιν, νυν μεν, άπλως παλιν δε, ΕΝ ΤΟΙΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΠΟΙΗΤΙΚΗΣ, ἐρουμεν σαφεστερον

: "What I mean by

Καθαρσις

, or purgation, I shall now explain only in a short and general way; but hereafter, in the books concerning Poetry, more explicitly and clearly."—And this, I suppose, he had done, in that part of this treatise which is lost.—He then proceeds thus:

Φανερον, ότι χρηστεον μεν πασαις ταις ἁρμονιαις, ου τον αυτον δε τροπον πασαις χρηστεον· άλλα προς μεν την παιδειαν, ταις ἠθικωταταις· προς δε ἀκροασιν [f. ΚΑΘΑΡΣΙΝ], ἐτερων χειρουργουντων, και ταις πρακτικαις, και ταις ἐνθουσιαστικαις. ὁ γαρ περι ἐνιας συμβαινει παθος ψυχας ἰσχυρως, τουτο ἐν πασαις ὑπαρχει, τῳ δε ήττον διαφερει και τῳ μαλλον. οἷον, ΕΛΕΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΦΟΒΟΣ. ἐτι δ᾽ ἐνθουσιασμος· και γαρ ὑπο ταυτης της κινησεως κατακωχιμοι τινες εισιν. ἐκ δε των ἱερων μελων ὁρωμεν τουτους, όταν χρησωνται τοις ἐξοργιαζουσι την ψυχην μελεσι, καθισταμενους, ώσπερ ΙΑΤΡΕΙΑΣ τυχοντας και ΚΑΘΑΡΣΕΩΣ. ταυτο δη τουτο ἀναγκαιον πασχειν και τας ἐλεημονας, και τους φοβητικους, και τους όλως παθητικους· τους δ᾽ ἄλλους, καθ᾽ όσον ἐπιβαλλει των τοιουτων ἐκαστῳ, και πασι γιγνεσθαι ΤΙΝΑ ΚΑΘΑΡΣΙΝ, και κουφιζεσθαι μεθ' ήδονης.

[ p. 458. Ed. Duval. ] ¹²¹

In this passage, for

ἀκροασιν

I have no doubt that we should read

καθαρσιν

. The similitude of the words is sufficient to account for the mistake of the transcriber; and the purport of the whole passage seems to require the correction. For Aristotle is here showing, in what manner the three different kinds of melody were to be applied to the different purposes, which he had just enumerated:

προς ΜΕΝ την ΠΑΙΔΕΙΑΝ, ταις ήθικ.

προς ΔΕ την ΚΑΘΑΡΣΙΝ,—ταις πρακτικαις,

&c. The opposition is clear. And so, afterwards, a third purpose is mentioned—

προς ΑΝΑΠΑΥΣΙΝ.

[p. 459.] The words immediately following,

ἐτερων χειρουργουντων

, probably contributed to this mistake. They allude to his doctrine, in the preceding chapter, that boys should not be allowed to practice or perform, themselves, any but the simplest kind of Music, and upon the sim- plest and easiest instruments, such as were not

δεομενα χειρουργικης ἐπιστημης.

[p. 457.] But this was not the character either of the active and enthusiastic melodies, of which he here speaks, or of the instrument used in the accompaniment of them ¹²².

I shall now give what I think a fair and literal version of the passage.—

"It is manifest then, that all the different kinds of melodies are to be made use of; not all, however, for the same purpose. For education, the most moral kind should be used: for PURGATION, both the active, and the enthusiastic; performed, however, by others. For those passions, which in some minds are violent, exist, more or less, in all; such as PITY, for example, and TERROR: and, again, enthusiasm; for with this passion some men are subject to be possessed: but when the sacred melodies, intended to compose the mind after the celebration of the orgic rites, have been performed, we see those men become calm and sedate, as if they had undergone a kind of purgation, or cure. And the case must necessarily be the same with those who are particularly liable to be moved by PITY, or TERROR, or any other passion; and with other men, as far as they are under the influence of any such passion; all of them experiencing a sort of PURGATION, and PLEASURABLE RELIEF."

From this passage, though far enough, I am sensible, from being perfectly clear and explicit, two things, at least, may, I think, be confidently deduced. 1. That whatever be the meaning of the term

καθαρσις

, or purgation, here, must also be its meaning in the treatise on Poetry; since to that work Aristotle refers for a fuller explanation of it. The only difference is, that here, the term is applied to the effect of imitative Music; there, to that of imitative Poetry; of that species of it, however, which depended, we know, upon Music, for a very considerable part of its effect. 2. It is plain, that, according to Aristotle's idea, pity was to be purged by pity, terror by terror, &c.; contrary to the second of the two explanations above mentioned. For Aristotle is here expressly speaking of the use of enthusiastic Music applied

προς καθαρσιν

; and he says, that men, agitated by enthusiasm, were purged or relieved from that enthusiasm by the

ἱερα μελη

, which were plainly enthusiastic melodies; i. e. such as imitated, or expressed, that passion, and were intended to calm the mind, which had been violently agitated and inflamed; not, as M. Batteux understands, by the sudden opposition of Doric, grave, and moral strains, [p. 280, 1.] but by pleasurable indulgence of the same passion in imitative Music:

κουφιζεσθαι μεθ᾽ ἡδονης.

These melodies were, probably, such as those of Olympus, which had been mentioned just before [cap. 5.] and of which Aristotle says, that they,

Ὁμολογουμενως ΠΟΙΕΙ ΤΑΣ ΨΥΧΑΣ ΕΝΘΟΥΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΑΣ.

Indeed, from the manner, in which the Music of Olympus is spoken of by Plato, and Plutarch, there is great reason to suppose, that these "sacred melodies" were no other, than the very melodies of that musician ¹²³.

With respect to this

καθαρσις

itself, Aristotle by no means gives us in this passage, nor, indeed, professes to give us, a full and satisfactory explanation of it. Some light, however, he has flung upon it by the expressions,

ἰατρεια

, and

κουφιζεσθαι μεθ᾽ ἡδονης

, which he uses as synonymous to

καθαρσις

: "Purgation, cure, pleasurable relief." The Abbé Batteux understands Aristotle to mean no more by this, than that the passions of terror or pity, which, when excited by real objects, are simply painful, or, at least, have a predominant mixture of pain, are, by imitation, and the consciousness of fiction, purged or purified from this alloy of the disagreeable and painful, and converted, on the whole, into an emotion of delight. His meaning may be clearer in his own words. Aristotle, he says, had established it as a principle—

"Que les objets désagréables plaisent quand ils sont imités, même lorsqu'ils le font dans la plus grande verité. En appliquant ce principe à la Tragedie, il s'ensuit, que c'est l'imitation qui est la cause du plaisir qu'elle produit, et non la nature des objets imités, puisque ces objets sont par eux-mêmes désagréables. C'est donc l'imitation qui ôte à la terreur et à la pitié l'accessoire désagréable qu'elles ont dans la realité: c'est l'imitation qui opere la purgation Tragique, en mettant les malheurs imités à la place des malheurs réels, et en séparant par ce moyen ce que la pitié et la terreur ont d'agréable, comme emotions, d'avec ce qu'elles ont de désagréable, quand elles font jointes à l'idée de malheurs réels."

¹²⁴ This account, which is exactly Fontenelle's solution of the pleasure arising from Tragic emotion ¹²⁵, is liable to a difficulty not easily, I think, surmounted. It confines Aristotle's meaning to the present pleasure of the emotion; it supposes all the purgation to consist merely in rendering the feeling of the passion pleasurable; not in any good effect which the habit of such emotion may produce, in correcting, refining, or moderating, such passions, when excited by real objects. Now, though it must be confessed, that Aristotle has not, in that short and professedly imperfect explanation given of the

καθαρσις

in the passage adduced, said any thing directly pointing to such effect, yet, I think, the whole turn and cast of his expression is such, as leads one naturally to conclude, that it was his meaning. The phrase,

κουφιζεσθαι μεθ' ήδονης

, does indeed appear to express the present effect only; but I can scarce conceive, that he would have used such a word as

καθαρσις

, and still less,

ΙΑΤΡΕΙΑ

, without a view to something beyond the pleasurable relief or vent of the moment; especially, in a chapter, where he is professedly enumerating and examining the uses of music ¹²⁶. Farther, the words,

ἐλεημονας, φοβητικους, παθητικους

, confirm this idea; being all words expressive of habitual excess, requiring correction and moderation ¹²⁷.

But, what still more strongly opposes the Abbé Batteux's idea, is, that Aristotle is here, as Heinsius and others have well observed, evidently combating the doctrine of Plato, whose great objection to Tragedy, was, that it feeds and inflames the passions ¹²⁸. It could be no answer to this, to allege, that the feeling of passion excited by Tragic imitation is pleasurable; for this is so far from being called in question by Plato, that it is the very foundation of his objection. The pleasure afforded by such Poetry is allowed by him in its utmost extent ¹²⁹. "Let its advocates," he says, "undertake to show us that it is not merely pleasurable, but USEFUL also, and we will lend a favourable ear to their apology; for we shall surely be gainers by the conviction." ¹³⁰ Now Aristotle, if I understand him rightly, undertakes this apology, and points out the utility required. And no one, I think, can reasonably doubt, that such was his intention, who has attended to the following passage of Plato:—

ἀπολαυειν ἀναγκη ἀπο των ἀλλοτριων εις τα οικεια· ΘΡΕΨΑΝΤΑ γαρ ἐν ἐκεινοις ΙΣΧΥΡΟΝ ΤΟ ΕΛΕΕΙΝΟΝ, ου ραδιον ἐν τοις ΑΥΤΟΥ ΠΑΘΕΣΙ ΚΑΤΕΧΕΙΝ

¹³¹. For, to this objection, there cannot well be a more direct and pointed answer, than Aristotle's assertion, as usually understood—that the habit of indulging the emotions of pity, or terror, in the fictitious representations of Tragedy, tends, on the contrary, to moderate and refine those passions, when they occur in real life.

But though the Abbé Batteux's idea of this purgation appears to me by no means to be the whole, it must, I think, be admitted as a part, and an essential part, of Aristotle's meaning. For the effect depends, not merely, as some commentators seem to suppose ¹³², on the having our passions frequently and habitually excited, but, on the having them so excited by fictitious representation. Pity and terror frequently excited by such objects and such events in real life, as the imitations of the Tragic scene set before us, would rather tend to produce apathy than moderation. Nature would struggle against such violent and painful agitation, and the heart would become callous in its own defence. We must be insensible, that we might not be wretched. It is far otherwise with fictitious passion. There, the emotion, though often violent in spite of the consciousness of fiction, is always, more or less, delightful. We indulge it, as one of the first of pleasures; and the effect of that indulgence, frequently repeated, is perhaps, that, while it moderates real passion by the frequency of similar impressions, it, at the same time, cherishes such sympathetic emotions, in their proper and useful degree, by the delicious feelings which never fail to accompany the indulgence of them in imitative representation.

The passions of savages, or of men in the first rude stages of civilization, are ferocious and painful. They pity, or they fear, either violently, or not at all. With them, there is hardly any medium between ungovernable agitation, and absolute insensibility.—Suppose such a people to have access, like the Athenians, to theatrical representations, and to have their passions kept in frequent and pleasurable exercise by fictitious distress; the consequence, I think, would be, that, by degrees, they would come to have more feeling, and less perturbation. Instead of sympathetic emotions rarely excited, painfully felt, and soon extinguished, they would gradually acquire a calm, lasting, and useful habit of general tenderness and sensibility. In polished society, where the passions are accustomed to be indulged in fiction, either in the theatre, or by reading, and the pain is converted, on the whole, into one strong and delightful feeling, by the charms of imitation, Poetry, Music, aided by the indistinct consciousness of fiction—these passions, even when excited by real objects, seem to retain, (at least, in cases where we are not too closely touched,) some tincture of the same pleasurable emotion, which attended them, when raised by works of imagination; they are more moderately and agreeably felt, more easily governed, and more gentle and polished in their expressions.

Such appears to me, on the whole, to be the most probable explanation of Aristotle's meaning: I must, at least, confess it to be the only reasonable meaning, that I am able to discover. How far it is true, and founded on solid observation, is another question, which I willingly submit to the philosophical and thinking part of my readers.

I cannot omit to observe, that the short explanation given by MILTON, in the introduction to his Samson Agonistes , appears to coincide exactly, as far as it goes, with my idea of the passage.—"Tragedy, as it was anciently composed, hath been ever held the gravest, moraleft, and most profitable of all other Poems: therefore said by Aristotle to be of power, by raising pity, and fear or terror, to purge the mind of those and such like passions; that is, to temper and reduce them to just measure, with a kind of delight, stirred up by reading or seeing those passions well imitated." One thing should be added. Aristotle's assertion must be considered relatively to his own times, and nation. He speaks of the effects of Tragedy on the people of Athens, who, as reading was then no popular occupation, had scarce any opportunity of indulging fictitious emotion, but at the Theatre, and who, we know, were there accustomed to indulge it perpetually. With us, the case is widely different. The doctrine, therefore, of Aristotle, that "Tragedy purges the passions," translated, if I may so speak, into modern truth, would perhaps amount only to this—that the habitual exercise of the passions by works of imagination in general, of the serious and pathetic kind, (such as Tragedies, Novels, &c.) has a tendency to soften and refine those passions, when excited by real objects in common life.

46. mvp-aristotle-comment-46

NOTE 46. P. 75.

6.4 IN SOME PARTS METRE ALONE IS EMPLOYED, IN OTHERS MELODY.

A passage of very tantalizing brevity. By

δια μετρων ΜΟΝΟΝ

, are we to understand, according to the obvious and literal meaning of the expression, that in some parts of Tragedy the verse was merely recited, spoken, as in modern Tragedy? —This contradicts what, by many writers, has been considered as a fact thoroughly established, that the Greek Tragedy was accompanied by musical instruments, and was therefore strictly musical, throughout: —for as to the dreams of the Abbé Du Bos, Rousseau, and others, about a noted declamation, a declamation accompanied by Music, yet not sung—this is too manifest an absurdity to stand in need of confutation. If, as Rousseau says, it is

"impossible to understand what the ancients have said about their theatrical declamation, without supposing this,"

would it not be better to say, at once, that we do not understand it, than to explain it into impossibilities?

As for the systematic Abbé Du Bos, he was set upon proving his point; and he proves it like a man resolved to prove it, by wresting all sorts of authors to his purpose, and translating them as he pleased. ¹³³ All we know clearly, is, that the ancient drama was accompanied, (in part, at least,) by musical instruments. I conclude, confidently, that since the instruments could not speak, the actors must sing—that their declamation must certainly have been, strictly speaking, musical, however simple; the chanting of the simplest plain chant, being as truly Music, i. e. as essentially distinct from speech, as the most refined melody of a modern opera.

If, then, the Greek Tragedy had a musical accompaniment throughout, it must have been sung throughout. But here, Aristotle says, as plainly as words can say it, that in some parts of Tragedy, "metre only" was employed: —

δια ΜΕΤΡΩΝ ἐνια ΜΟΝΟΝ

: that is, as it is necessarily implied, without the two other

ήδυσματα

, or seasonings, of Tragic language, just mentioned, melody and rhythm. ¹³⁴

Some commentators, I know, endeavour to evade the force of this expression, by saying, that Aristotle means, by

δια μετρων μονον

, only the noted declamation, which, being a sort of recitative, was not regarded as strictly musical, nor denominated

μελος

. And in support of this, it is alleged, that the word

λέξις

, Speech, is applied by him afterwards in a similar manner; ¹³⁵ as

λεγεσθαι

is also by Plutarch, who talks of "some of the Iambics being spoken with an accompaniment, and others, sung: ¹³⁶ as we sometimes say of a singer, that he speaks recitative well. But all this, I confess, does not satisfy me. It is one thing, to apply occasionally the word

λεξις

λεγεσθαι

, in this comparative way, to such kind of singing as most resembles speech, and another, to say roundly, that some parts of Tragedy made use of metre, or verse, only; and that too, immediately after having fixed the exclusive sense of

μονον

, by enumerating the three

ήδυσματα

of Tragic diction, which he asserts to be separately used in different parts, i. e.

ῥυθμου, άρμονια, μετρον

, — RHYTHM, MELODY, and METRE. ¹³⁷ They who dispute this meaning, must at least, I think, allow that if it had been the meaning, Aristotle could not well have expressed it with more precision. How can

μετρων

here be taken in the loose and comparative sense contended for, when, in the very words immediately preceding, it is carefully limited to its strict and proper sense, by being expressly discriminated from melody, as well as from rhythm?

But after all, the fact, that the Greek Tragedy was sung throughout, though often asserted, has not yet been proved; nor do I think that it can be proved; at least, by any passage of ancient authors, that I have seen adduced to prove it. The Abbé Vatry, in a dissertation, Sur la recitation des Tragedies anciennes, undertook to prove, in form, that the Greek Tragedies were sung,

"bout à l'autre,"

like our operas. But how does he prove this?—by proving, what indeed is easily proved, ¹³⁸ that a part of the Iambics, or the dialogue, was sung, and then by taking it for granted, that the ancients could not possibly have endured so barbarous a custom, as the mixture of speech and singing in the same piece.

"Il ne paroit pas qu'on puisse douter que ces cantiques ne se chantassent; mais de cela même je crois pouvoir conclurre, que tout le reste se chantoit, quoique differemment: car le bon sens, et ce que les anciens nous disent, nous conduit à penser que leur recitation etoit partout de même nature, et qu'elle ne se bigarroit point, tantôt d'une simple declamation, et tantôt d'un chant musical."

By the same presumptive mode of arguing, the Abbé might also have proved, à priori, that the Greeks could not possibly have been guilty of the modern barbarous bigarrure of serious and ludicrous, in their Tragic drama. But the first Greek Tragedy he had opened would probably have overturned his reasoning.

A thorough discussion of all the passages of ancient authors, that throw any light upon this question, relative to the dramatic representations of the Greeks, would draw me much too far beyond my bounds. I must content myself with pointing out (for I think it has not been observed,) the stubborn difficulty which this passage of Aristotle appears to me to throw in the way of the common opinion upon this subject; and with hazarding a merely hypothetical conjecture, that, if, as Aristotle seems plainly to say, some part of the Greek Tragedy was spoken, like our Tragic declamation, without any musical accompaniment, it was, most probably, that part of the dialogue, which, as I have before observed, in NOTE 33 , is, in every Tragedy, easily distinguished from the rest, by its being carried on in a sort of quick repartee of verse to verse. As, in this part of the dialogue, we almost constantly find the Tragic tone lowered to a more colloquial pitch, and even approaching frequently to the jocular and burlesque, it seems reasonable to think, that here, if anywhere, the musical accompaniment, and the elevation of lengthened and chanting tones, were withdrawn, and common conversation left to common speech.

But what, again, are we to understand by—

και παλιν ἐτερα δια μελους

?—Are we to repeat

μονον

, and understand Melody alone, without the two other

ήδυσματα

, Rhythm and Metre? This cannot be. For though we may strip the Tragic language of melody and of rhythm, or, in other words, of Music, we cannot strip it of metre. The ancients most certainly did not admit prose into their Tragedies; and as little can we conceive them to have set prose to Music. Dacier, and some other commentators, understand by

μελους

here, Music, including rhythm. This sense of the word is certainly warrantable; but it can hardly be the sense here: for, surely, an instance, in which all the three

ήδυσματα

were used, (as they must be, if metre be indispensable, and

μελος

imply rhythm and melody,) would be but a strange illustration of the

ΧΩΡΙΣ ἐκαστου των ειδων

κ. τ. αλ.

I do not see what remains, but, that we take

μελος

here in its most restrained sense, as distinct from rhythm, or time, and synonymous to

άρμονια

; that sense, in which Aristotle had used it before, in his first chapter. ¹³⁹¹⁴⁰ And if we do this, we must necessarily, I think, understand, that some parts of the dialogue were sung without rhythm: I mean, without musical rhythm, or time, though certainly not without that poetical or profodic rhythm, by which in reciting verse, and, indeed, even in the most familiar conversation, the syllabic quantity must have been relatively, at least, observed, though not, I presume, with the inflexibility of musical measure, nor with such a rigorous equality of long to long, and short to short, as is essential to the execution of what is properly called Music, and as I suppose to have been observed in the choral odes. ¹⁴¹ Thus the dialogue of the Greek Tragedy will appear to have been not improperly compared to our recitative; differing from the chorus, as our recitative differs from the airs, both in the absence of strict time, and in the kind of melody, which was also, as mere melody, less musical than the choral melody, and more imitative of speech, as well as of action. ¹⁴²

Whether the monologues, or long speeches—the

μακραι ῥησεις

, as Plato calls them—were performed in the same way, as the rest of the dialogue, or, as it has been imagined, were distinguished by being more measured and musical, is a point not easily cleared up. ¹⁴³ The passages commonly appealed to for this purpose, from the grammarians Diomedes and Donatus, about the Cantica of the Roman Comedy, I look upon as a very frail foundation of any conclusion with respect to the Greek Tragedy. ¹⁴⁴ The passage of Plutarch above quoted, note, furnishes the strongest support I know of for such a distinction. For, if by "spoken or recited to an instrumental accompaniment," (

τα μεν [sc. των ἰαμβειων] ΛΕΓΕΣΘΑΙ παρα την κρουσιν

) Plutarch meant, as I think he must mean, sung in recitative, not literally spoken, (for how could that admit of a musical accompaniment?) then,

ᾳδεσθαι

, which is opposed to it, must of course imply, not mere singing as opposed to speech, but a more musical and measured melody.

47. mvp-aristotle-comment-47

NOTE 47. P. 76.

6.6 THE MEANING OF MELOPOEIA IS OBVIOUS.

I have ventured to depart from the common interpretation, by understanding the word

δυναμις

, here, to mean, not the power, and effect, of the Melopæia itself, but the power, i. e. the meaning, of the term. Aristotle is here, as usual, explaining the terms he had made use of. It was directly to his purpose to say, as a reason for omitting a definition in this instance, that the meaning of the word was well known; but not at all to his purpose, to say—"I need not explain the word, because the power and effect of the thing signified by it, (that is, of Music,) is well known."

Dacier is amusing here. He wonders what could induce the Greeks to make Music a part of their drama; and at last,

"après bien des recherches,"

he discovers one principal cause to have been this—that they had very musical ears; but he does not dis- cover the cause of his own wonder, which, in all probability, was, that he had not.

48. mvp-aristotle-comment-48

NOTE 48. P. 76.

6.8 OR DELIVERING A GENERAL SENTIMENT.

In the Rhetoric, Aristotle defines

γνωμη

καθολου ἀποφανσις

. [ Lib. ii. cap. xxi. p. 572. ] Thus below, in this chapter, for,

ἀποφαινονται γνωμην

, his first expression, we have,

καθολου ἀποφαινονται

. — This has been loosely and inaccurately rendered in all the translations I have seen, except those of Castelvetro and Goulston.

49. mvp-aristotle-comment-49

NOTE 49. P. 76.

6.11 THESE PARTS----HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED BY MOST POETS.

Locus, as the critics say, conclamatus. Time is too precious to be wasted in the support, or refutation, of random conjectures upon a passage of such desperate corruption. How can

οὐκ ὀλιγοι

, "not a few," be tortured into, "all," or, "almost all?" Yet so Dacier, Batteux, Goulston, &c. On the other hand, if fairly translated, "not a few Poets have made use of these parts," how strangely it will follow—"for EVERY Tragedy has them all!"—And how is the

ὡς εἰπειν

, to be applied? to

οὐκ ὀλιγοι

, or, to

ειδεσι

? In the midst of these difficulties, all I could do was to make my version consistent with itself; faithful to the original, I could not make it, without making it nonsensical. Those commentators, who apply the

ὡς εἰπειν

to the word

ειδεσι

, seem favoured by ch. xii. where, speaking of the same essential parts of Tragedy, Aristotle says—

οἷς μεν ΩΣ ΕΙΔΕΣΙ δει χρησθαι

50. mvp-aristotle-comment-50

NOTE 50. P. 77.

6.12 THE SUPREME GOOD ITSELF----IS ACTION, NOT QUALITY.

See Ethic. Nicom. I. 5, 7, 8. ed. Wilk. & Mag. Moral. I. 4, p. 149, 150, ed. Duval.

51. mvp-aristotle-comment-51

NOTE 51. P. 77.

6.15 THE TRAGEDIES OF MOST MODERN POETS HAVE THIS DEFECT.

This receives illustration from what Aristotle presently after says, of "the rhetorical manner prevailing in the Poets of his time:"

οἱ δε νυν, ῥητορικως.

cap. vi: and from his observation, at the close of cap. xxiv. [Transl. Part III. Sect. 6.] that "the manners and sentiments are only obscured by too splendid a diction."

What he has here said of the recent Tragedies of his time, may perhaps be said, in general, of our modern Tragedies, compared with those of Shakspeare. The truth, I believe, is, that the Tragedy of a refined and polished age will always have less manners than that of ruder times, because it will have more dignity; more of that uniform and level elevation, which excludes strong traits of character, and the simple, unvarnished delineation of the manners. Indeed, what the Greeks denominated

ἦθος

, is the peculiar province of Comedy, and is seldom to be found in Tragedy, except in that stage of its progress, when it is not yet thoroughly and distinctly separated from Comedy; from the imitation of common life, and natural manners. ¹⁴⁵ Such are the Tragedies of Shakspeare; and such, as I have before ventured to suggest, are those of Euripides in particular, which, in proportion as they have less dignity, have more

ἦθος

, than the Tragedies of Sophocles. But in neither of them, nor, probably, even in those very Poets here censured by Aristotle, was the "language of Poets," substituted for "the language of men," as it is almost constantly in the French Tragedy, and too often, in our own Tragedies of the French School. ¹⁴⁶

52. mvp-aristotle-comment-52

NOTE 52. P. 77.

6.15 POLYGNOTUS EXCELS IN THE EXPRESSION OF THE MANNERS.

I see not the smallest reason for the substitution of

ἀγαθων

, for

ἀγαθα

, which is the reading, we are told, of all the MSS. What Aristotle had said before of Polygnotus, cap. ii. —

ότι κρειττους εικαζε

—seems not to afford the slightest ground for alteration here. [See Mr. Winstanley's ed. p. 281. ] Painters are compared in very different points of view, in these two passages: there, as imitating good or bad, serious or ridiculous, elevated or low, objects: here, only as expressing, or not expressing, manners. It was directly to Aristotle's purpose to say, that Polygnotus was a "good manner-painter;" (

ἀγαθος ήθογραφος

)—not at all to his purpose, (besides the awkwardness of the expression itself,) to say, that he was a "manner-painter of good men:" (

ἀγαθων ήθογραφος

). ¹⁴⁷

53. mvp-aristotle-comment-53

NOTE 53. P. 77.

6.16 JUST AS IN PAINTING, &c.

I hope I shall not much shock even the most conscientious adherents to the established inaccuracy and authentic blunders of ancient manuscripts, by having ventured to adopt here the transposition first proposed, I believe, by Castelvetro. ¹⁴⁸ I can only desire those readers, who may be alarmed at my temerity, to read the passage—

παραπλησιον γαρ ἐστι—κ. τ. αλλ.—γραφεας, εικονα

,—first, where it stands in all the editions, and then, where I have placed it, immediately after the words—

ἐχουσα δε μυθον και συστασιν πραγματων

. ¹⁴⁹ —If this experiment alone be not sufficient to convince them of the propriety, or, rather, the necessity, of the transposition, I despair of the success of any arguments I am able to produce in the support of it. To me, I confess, it is among those things that are too evident for proof.

54. mvp-aristotle-comment-54

NOTE 54. P. 77.

6.18 ADVENTURERS IN TRAGIC WRITING ARE SOONER ABLE, &C.

Aristotle argues here upon a principle rather rhetorical and popular, than philosophical—that, which infers superior worth from superior difficulty and rarity: —

το χαλεπώτερον και σπανιώτερον, μείζον

, (sc.

αγαθον

,) as he lays it down in his Rhetoric, lib. i. cap. vii. p. 529. Lord Bacon, in his Essay On Gardens, uses the same argument, and almost in Aristotle's words, with respect to the superiority of gardening to architecture:

"A man shall ever see, that when ages grow to civility and elegancy, men come to build stately SOONER than to garden finely; as if gardening were the greater perfection."

The truth, however, of the fact here asserted by Aristotle, appears, not only from the earlier dramatic Poets of every nation, but from the defects of plots in general, whether Dramatic or Epic; and from the rarity of those dramatic fables, for which the Poet has trusted entirely to his own invention, without recourse to history, or novels, or the productions of other dramatists. ¹⁵⁰ —

"En general, il y a plus de pieces bien dialoguées, que de pieces bien conduites. Le Génie qui dispose les incidens, paroit plus rare que celui qui trouve les vrais discours. Combien de belles scènes dans Moliere!—On compte ses dénouemens heureux. On seroit tenté de croire qu'une drame devroit être l'ouvrage de deux hommes de génie, l'un qui arrangeât, et l'autre qui fit parler."

— Diderot, de la Poes. Dram. p. 288.

55. mvp-aristotle-comment-55

NOTE 55. P. 78.

6.22 TO THIS PART BELONGS, &c.-

Aristotle is not here defining

Διανοἰα

, as his expression,

τουτο δε ΕΣΤΙ

, seems, at first view, to imply: he is only explaining the subservience of the sentiments to the manners; he is shewing why they are next in rank and importance to the manners; namely, because manners or characters, are, in great part at least, manifested by the sentiments. Dacier's note here is good.

"Aristote suit ici l'ordre naturel. Les sentimens font pour les mœurs, ce que les mœurs font pour l'action. Comme un Poete tragique ne peut bien imiter une action, qu'en employant les mœurs, il ne peut non plus bien marquer les mœurs, que par le moyen des sentimens, & par consequent les sentimens tiennent le troisieme rang dans la Tragedie."

56. mvp-aristotle-comment-56

NOTE 56. P. 78.

6.22 WHICH, IN THE DIALOGUE, DEPENDS ON THE POLITICAL AND RHETORICAL ARTS.

Ὅπερ, ἐπι των λόγων, της πολιτικής και ῥητορικης ἔργον ἐστιν.

— I have not seen the words,

ἐπι των λογων

, satisfactorily explained. I cannot agree with those commentators, who by

λογοι

, here, understand, oratory, prose eloquence, as opposed to Poetry: a sense, indeed, very common, in Aristotle and other writers; but if we adopt it here, how follows—

ὁι ΓΑΡ ἀρχαιοι πολιτικώς ΕΠΟΙΟΥΝ λέγοντας

? for here, Aristotle evidently speaks of Poets; not of orators, as Dacier renders it. The passage, then, fairly translated, would stand thus:—"which, (i. e. the choice of proper sentiments,) in ORATORY, is the business of the political and rhetorical arts: FOR the antient Tragic Poets made their characters speak politically," &c. Nothing can well be more incoherent.

Επι των λόγων

, means, I think, in the speeches, discourse, or dialogue part of the drama, as distinguished from the choral or lyric part, which had nothing, or comparatively nothing, to do with

ηθος

or character, and in which the Poet was, of course, to draw his

διανοια

, or thoughts, principally at least, from different sources; not from the stores of civil wisdom, or rhetorical art, but from those of Religion, Ethics, Mythology, and Poetry. The word

λογοι

, is clearly used in the same sense, in a passage that presently follows:—

διοπερ ἐκ ἐχεσιν ήθη ἐνιοι των ΛΟΓΩΝ

—"some of the speeches, or the dialogue."

57. mvp-aristotle-comment-57

NOTE 57. P. 78.

6.23 FOR THE ANTIENTS MADE THEIR CHARACTERS SPEAK IN THE STYLE OF POLITICAL AND POPULAR ELOQUENCE; BUT NOW, THE RHETORICAL MANNER PREVAILS.

Οι μεν γαρ άρχαιοι ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΩΣ ἐποιουν λεγοντας, οι δε νυν, ῥητορικως.

— So, Rhet. lib. ii. cap. xxii. p. 573 ,

ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΩι συλλογισμῳ

—a Civil or Oratorical syllogism, as opposed to the strict dialectic syllogism: a distinction which he presently after expresses by,

ἀκριβεστερον

, and

ΜΑΛΑΚΩΤΕΡΟΝ, συλλογίζεσθαι

[ibid.] And thus, here, the same term,

πολιτικως

, is used, to distinguish the popular, and less laboured, though more solid, eloquence of the Senate or the Forum, from the studied and declamatory composition of the professed rhetoricians. A similar use of the word occurs in the passage quoted in NOTE 229, from the Euagoras of Isocrates , where,

ὀνομασι ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟΙΣ

, is plainly synonymous with

ὀνομασι ΚΥΡΙΟΙΣ

. See also Dion. Halicarn. De Struct. Orat. p. 4. ed. Upton , and Faber's note.

That Aristotle, however, by Politics (

ἡ πολιτικη

), means only, as Dacier asserts,

"l'usage commun, le langage ordinaire des peuples,"

cannot, surely, be admitted. The force and extent of the term is well known¹⁵¹.

"CIVILIS SCIENTIA,"

Quintilian says,

"idem quod SAPIENTIA est."

It comprehended all the necessary knowledge of the

Πολιτικά

, the

vir civilis

, the public man. It included, of course, eloquence, or the faculty of public speaking, but that, of a kind very different from the

"umbratile genus,"

as Cicero calls it, of the rhetorical schools¹⁵². What Aristotle says of the old Tragic Poets, that they made their personages speak like such a man, not like a Rhetorician, cannot be better illustrated than by Quintilian's character of Euripides.

"Illud quidem nemo non fateatur necesse est, iis qui se ad agendum comparent, utiliorem longè Euripidem fore. Namque is, et in sermone—magis accedit oratorio generi, et sententiis densus; et in iis quæ à sapientibus tradita sunt, penè ipsis par, et in dicendo ac respondendo cuilibet eorum qui fuerunt IN FORO DISERTI comparandus."

[lib. x. cap. i.]

That Dacier, with so precise and clear an expression before his eyes, as,

ΕΠΟΙΟΥΝ λεγοντας

, should understand this of the antient orators, and roundly pronounce Victorius to be mistaken in applying it to the Poets, seems perfectly unaccountable. I do not see in this passage any foundation for the refinement of Castelvetro, Dacier, and other commentators, who refer the

ἐνοντα

to the political science, and the

ἁρμοττοντα

to rhetoric. The word

ἁρμοττοντα

, has, I think, the same sense as in cap. xv. and means, such sentiments, or thoughts, as, being adapted to the person speaking, are expressive of the manners: for it is in this view, as I before remarked, that Aristotle is here considering the Sentiments, or

Διανοια

Τα ἐνοντα

, as Victorius has observed, is equivalent to

τα ὑπαρχοντα

; and it was clearly the business of rhetoric (

ῥητορικης ἔργον

,) to teach both the

ὑπαρχοντα

and the

ἁρμοττοντα

. See Rhet. lib. ii. cap. xxii. p. 573, E. and lib. iii. cap. vii. p. 590, D. ed. Duval . ¹⁵³

58. mvp-aristotle-comment-58

NOTE 58. P. 78.

6.24 THERE ARE SPEECHES, THEREFORE, WHICH ARE WITHOUT MANNERS----AS NOT CONTAINING, &C.

The reading I have followed is, I think, fully authorised, by MSS. and by common sense. See Mr. Winstanley's note, p. 282.—The Abbé Batteux has given the passage thus, from a MS. (No. 2117,) in the King of France's library.

Ἔστι δε ήθος μεν το τοιοῦτον, ὃ δηλοι την προαιρεσιν, ὁποια τις ἐσιν· διοπερ ἐκ ἐχεσιν ἠθη ἐνιοι των λογων, ἐν οἷς ἐκ ἐστι δηλον ὅτι προαιρειται η φευγει ὁ λεγων.

The common reading stands thus:—

Ἔστι δε ήθη μεν το τοιουτον, ὃ δηλοι την προαιρεσιν, ὁποια τις ἐσιν, ἐν οἷς ἐκ ἐστι δηλον, προαιρειται, η φευγει ὁ λέγων· διοπερ ἐκ ἐχεσιν ήθη ἐνιοι των λογων.

— Which is thus rendered by Mr. Harris:

"MANNERS OF CHARACTER is that which discovers WHAT THE DETERMINATION [of a speaker] will be, in matters, where IT IS NOT YET MANIFEST, whether he chuses to do a thing, or to avoid it."

Now if this were true, I do not see how there could be any

ηθος

, in any play, after the first discovery of the speaker's character. In the Avare of Moliere, for instance, it is sufficiently manifest from the very first scene in which Harpagon appears, what his avarice will lead him to chuse or to avoid, in any circumstance of the drama. Is there, for that reason, no

ηθος

, no sentiments that mark his character, in any thing he says during the rest of the play? ¹⁵⁴ Nay, more; according to this reading, there can be no

ηθος

at all in any part of that drama: for the

προαιρεσις

or propensity of the Miser is completely known to every reader or spectator from the very title of the piece. I know, indeed, that Le Bossu , and others, have given a meaning to this passage, by making Aristotle say, what he certainly does not say—viz. when it is not yet manifest "ex indicio dicentis," what the will, or choice, of the speaker is. But if the common reading were right, we might, surely, expect to find the words,

ἐν οἷς ἐκ ἐστι δηλον

, &c. subjoined in other places where he defines the

ηθος

. Yet we have nothing like it in cap. xv. initio; nor in the second book of his Rhetoric , where he says only,

ηθος δ᾽ ἐχεσιν λογοι, ἐν ὁσοις δηλη ἡ προαιρεσις

: nor in other passages of the same work, relative to the same subject. Piccolomini's translation agrees with mine, and is expressed with his usual accuracy.

"—Ma il costume nel parlar' é quello, il quale mostra fuora, è apparir fà il volere, et l'elettion di chi parla. Peroche alcuni parlari si truovano, li quali non hanno costume; come ch' in essi non appaia, et non si manifesti, quello, che elegga, ò fugga, con la sua volontà, chi parla."

59. mvp-aristotle-comment-59

NOTE 59. P. 78

7.4 A BEGINNING, IS THAT, &C.

See Harris, Philol. Inq. Part II. ch. v. These definitions must be understood wholly to refer to the wants, and expectations, of the spectator. He must want nothing before the beginning, nor expect any thing after the end. Nothing, however, is more common than both these defects; than perplexed beginnings, and unsatisfactory conclusions. Henry Fielding, we are told, used

"to execrate the man who invented fifth acts."

The inventor of first acts has not given dramatic Poets much less trouble. Most modern plays have, I think, more or less of this intricacy in their beginnings; but it is especially the case with Comedy. It seems, indeed, by no means easy for a modern comic writer, of whom invention, novelty, variety of incidents, and ingenuity of contrivance, are required,

δουναι

, as Aristotle well expresses it,

ὥσπερ ἐις την χειρα, την ἀρχην

—"to put the beginning fairly into the spectator's hand." The spectator, and even the reader, of a new Comedy, is generally employed, during the first scenes, in guessing an ænigma; and when, at length, he comprehends what is going forward, his attention, interest, and sympathy, are disturbed and distracted, by looking back, to understand what he should have understood at first. Hence the advantage which the Tragic Poet, from the notoriety of his subjects, generally possesses over the Comic; and which is so pleasantly described in the fragment preserved by Athenæus from Antiphanes or Aristophanes:—

Μακαριον ἐστιν ἡ Τραγῳδια
Ποιημα κατα παντ· ἐιγε πρωτον οι λογοι
Υπο των θεατων εισιν ἐγνωρισμενοι
Πριν και τιν ἐιπειν, ὡς ὑπομνησαι μονον
Δει τον ποιητην. Οιδιπουν γαρ ἀν γε φω,
Τα δ άλλα παντ᾿ ἰσασιν· ὁ πατηρ Λαϊος,
Μητηρ Ιοκαστη· θυγατερες, παιδες, τινες –
Τι πεισεθ' ἐτω, τι πεποιηκεν—ἂν παλιν
Ειπη τις Αλκμαιωνα, και τα παιδια
Παντ᾽ ἐυθυς ἐιρηκεν ὅτι μανεις ἀπεκτονε
Την μητερα. —
Ἡμιν δε ταυτ᾿ ἐκ ἐστιν· άλλα παντα δει
Ευρειν, ὀνοματα καινα, τα διῳκημενα
Προτερον, τα νυν παροντα, την καταστροφην,
Την ἐσβολην· ἂν ἐν τι τετων παραλιπη
Χρεμης τις, ή Φειδων τις, ἐκσυριττεται,
ΠΗΛΕΙ δε ταυτ᾿ ἐξεστι και ΤΕΥΚΡΩΙ ποιον.

Athen. lib. vi. See Casaubon, in locum. Thus rendered by Grotius—

Scilicet Tragedia
Felix poema est: nam principio cognitum
Argumentum omne spectatori est, antequam
Verbum hiscat aliquis: nomen tantum dicere
Poetræ satis est. Oedipum præscripsero,
Jam reliqua per se norunt; pater est Laïus,
Jocasta mater; tum qui nati et filiæ,
Quid fecit, quid patietur. Si promiserit
Alemæona alius, ipsi dicent pueruli,
"Hic ille est qui interfecit matrem insaniens."—
At nobis ista non licent, sed omnia
Sunt invenienda, nomina imprimis nova,
Res antegestæ, res præsentes, exitus,
Initia. Ex illis siqua pars defecerit,
Exsibilatur Phido, sive ille est Chremes;
Illa alia facere Peleo et Teucro licet.

Excerpta ex Trag. et Com. Græcis, p. 622.

When the middle of a drama is not sufficiently connected with what precedes, that is, in Aristotle's language, when it is not,

ἀυτο μετ᾿ άλλο

, a new plot seems to begin: a fault not uncommon in double and complicated fables. If, on the other hand, it wants the

μετ' ἐκεινο ἑτερον

, the piece seems finished before its time. The Sampson Agonistes of Milton, according to Dr. Johnson, is deficient in both requisites of a true, Aristotelic middle. Its

"intermediate parts have neither cause nor consequence, neither hasten nor retard the catastrophe."

Life of Milton. The criticism appears to be just. It is seldom, however, that a beginning, a middle, or an end, is defective in both the conditions required. A beginning, which, strictly speaking, did not naturally require any thing to follow it, (

μετ' ἐκεινο ἑτερον πεφυκεν ἐιναι

,) would put even the most attentive spectator into the situation of Shakspeare's drowsy tinker:

Sly. A goodly matter, surely. Comes there any more of it?
Page. My Lord, 'tis but begun.

Taming of the Shrew. The most usual defects, and which, I suppose, Aristotle had principally in view, are those of beginnings which do not properly, in his sense, begin, and of endings which do not end. The first perplex us, by supposing something to have preceded, without clearly telling us what; the other leave us dissatisfied, by disappointing our natural expectations of something more to follow. Of this last fault, instances may be found in abundance; particularly in the conclusions of Shakspeare¹⁵⁵. In Plautus, and even in Terence, we find this imperfection supplied by a very simple and clumsy contrivance, that, of informing the audience that the play was over, and telling them in what manner they were to suppose the catastrophe completed.

Spectatores, Fabula hæc est acta: vos plausum date.

Plaut. Mostel.

Spectatores, quod futurum est intus, hic memorabimus.
Hæc Casina hujus reperietur filia esse è proxumo;
Eaque nubet Euthynico nostro herili filio.

Id. in fine Casinæ.

Ne expectetis dum exeant huc: intus despondebitur;
Intus transigetur, si quid est quod restat.

Ter. And.

The fault opposite to this—that, of prolonging the piece beyond the point of satisfactory conclusion—has been attributed to the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. The criticism is tasteless, on every account. The reader may see it well confuted by Brumoy. But one of his answers is alone sufficient, on the principles of Aristotle:

"Le spectateur en effet seroit-il content s'il ignoroit le sort de Jocaste, d'Oedipe, et de sa famille?"

Theatre des Grecs, i. 376. &c.

"Oedipus,"

Voltaire says,

"is fully acquainted with his fate at the end of the fourth act. Voila donc la piece finie."

Critique sur l'Oedipe de Sophocle. —He might have learned better criticism from a writer of far inferior abilities.

"Il faut aussi prendre garde que la catastrophe achéve pleinement le Poeme dramatique; c'est à dire, qu'il ne reste rien aprés, ou de ce que les spectateurs doivent sçavoir, ou qu'ils vueillent entendre; car s'ils ont raison de demander, Qu'est devenu quelque personnage interessé dans les grandes intrigues du Theatre, ou s'ils ont juste sujet de sçavoir, Quels font les sentimens de quelq'un des principaux acteurs aprés le dernier evenement qui fait cette catastrophe, la piece n'est pas finie, il y manque encore un dernier trait'."

D'Aubignac, Pratique du Theatre, tom. i. p. 126. That is to say, in Aristotle's language, a drama so concluded, (as the Oedipus Tyrannus would be, if it ended with the fourth act,) would want the true

τελευτη

, or end—that, after which,

άλλο οὐδεν ΠΕΦΥΚΕΝ ἐιναι

60. mvp-aristotle-comment-60

NOTE 60. P. 79.

7.8 WHETHER IT BE AN ANIMAL, &C.

Αλλα τοδε γε οιμαι σε φαναι ἀν δειν, παντα λογον ΩΣΠΕΡ ΖΩΟΝ συνεσταναι, σωμα τι ἐχοντα αυτον αὑτου ὡστε μητε ΑΚΕΦΑΛΟΝ ειναι μητε ΑΠΟΥΝ, άλλα ΜΕΣΑ τε εχειν, και ΑΚΡΑ, πρεποντα άλληλοις και τω ὍΛΩ.

Plato, in Phædro, p. 264, ed. Ser.

61. mvp-aristotle-comment-61

NOTE 61. P. 79.

7.8 BEAUTY CONSISTS IN MAGNITUDE AND ORDER.

There is something singular, something, at least, not quite consonant to modern ideas, in the great stress which the antients appear to have laid upon size, as a necessary constituent of beauty in the human form. They seem, indeed, to have despised every thing that was not large; and to have estimated beauty, not by measure only, but by weight also.

"Magnanimity,"

the Philosopher in his Ethics says,

"consists in greatness of soul, as beauty also consists in greatness of body. Little men may be called

άστειοι

, and

συμμετροι

, pretty, and well-shaped, but not

ΚΑΛΟΙ

, handsome, or beautiful."

Ethic. Nicom. lib. iv. cap. 3.

That magnitude should have entered, as essential, into their idea of a handsome man, is not surprising. The utility of strength, and the connection between strength and size, is sufficient to account for this. But what appears most singular is, that they insist no less upon the importance of magnitude to female beauty.

—ΘΗΛΕΙΩΝ δε ἀρετη, σωματος μεν, καλλος και ΜΕΓΕΘΟΣ.

Rhet. i. cap. v. Homer seldom omits size in his descriptions of this kind.

Ἔσκε δε πατρος ἐμοιο γυνη Φοινίσσ᾽ ἐνι οικῳ,
Καλη τε ΜΕΓΑΛΗ τε, και ἀγλαα ἔργ᾽ ειδυῖα.

Od. O. 416. Nor let it be objected, that this praise comes from a swine-herd; for Eurymachus, a suitor, and a courtier, compliments Penelope, by telling her, that she was more accomplished in mind, handsomer, and LARGER, than other women:

ἐπει περιεσσι γυναικων
Ειδός τε, ΜΕΓΕΘΟΣ τε, ἰδε φρενας ἔνδον ἐἴσας.

Od. Σ. 248. And, indeed, when Minerva, that Penelope might fascinate the suitors, anointed her with the cosmetic wash of Venus, and gave a supernatural heightening to all her charms, at the same time that she made her skin "whiter than ivory," she made her also "taller and stouter."

Αμβροτα δωρα δίδου, ἱνα μιν θησαιατ᾿ Αχαιοἰ
Καλλει μεν οι πρωτα προσωπα τε καλα καθηρεν
Αμβροσιῳ, οἱῳ περ ἐϋστεφανος Κυθέρεια
Χριεται, ἐυτ᾿ ἂν ἴῃ Χαριτων χορον ἱμεροεντα·
Και μιν ΜΑΚΡΟΤΕΡΗΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΣΣΟΝΑ θηκεν ιδεσθαι.

Ibid. 190. Thus, too, of the daughters of Pandarus:

Ἡρη δ αυτῃσιν περι πασεων δωκε γυναικων
Ειδος και πινυτην, ΜΗΚΟΣ δ᾽ ἐπορ᾿ Αρτεμις άγνη.

When Penelope, in the beginning of the twenty-first book, goes to fetch the key of the repository, where the bow of Ulysses was kept, Homer describes her as taking hold of the key with her "stout hand:"

Ἑιλετο δε κληιδ᾽ ἐυκαμπεα ΧΕΙΡΙ ΠΑΧΕΙΗ.

Od. Φ. 6. —which Ernestus, who allows, that,

"manu crassâ, non benè convenit feminæ pulchræ et reginæ,"

would fain soften down into the

main potelée

of the French. Quintilian observes of Zeuxis, who drew the heads and limbs of his figures very large, that, in this, he followed HOMER,

"cui validissima quæque forma, etiam in fæminis, placet;"

lib. xii. cap. 10. and, that he did this,

"id amplius atque augustius ratus:"

and, indeed, these ideas of the antients relative to beauty, both male and female, seem to have been owing, in part, at least, to their ideas of that majesty and dignity, which they considered as essential attributes of their divinities, and which imply superior size and strength. To tell a lady that she was taller and stouter than most of her sex, was a great compliment: it was comparing her to a goddess. It seems, then, that Shakspeare, in the quarrel between Helena and Hermia in his Midsummer Night's Dream, has, without knowing it, made Hermia perfectly classical in her resentment, and Lysander, in his reproaches:

Her. Puppet! Why so?—Ay, that way goes the game.
Now I perceive that she hath made compare
Between our statures; she hath urged her height,
And with her personage, her tall personage,
Her height, forsooth, she hath prevail'd with him.
Her. Little again?—nothing but low and little?
Why will you suffer her to flout me thus?
Let me come to her.
Lys. Get you gone, you dwarf,
You minimus of hind'ring knot-grass made,
You bead, you acorn!

Act iii. Scene 8.

62. mvp-aristotle-comment-62

NOTE 62. P. 79.

7.9 NO VERY MINUTE ANIMAL CAN BE BEAUTIFUL— NOR ONE OF A PRODIGIOUS SIZE.

I am by no means perfectly satisfied of the integrity of this passage; but no better comment can, I think, be given upon it, as it stands, than that of Beni.

"Non priora [i. e. quæ valdè pusilla,] quia eorum spectatio [

θεωρια

] momento penè temporis fiat, ac propterea spectatio ipsa confundatur; quod est, tantâ celeritate comprehendantur ac veluti absorbeantur partes omnes, ut non liceat partem à parte, ut caput à thorace, internoscere, atque adeo partes conferre mutuò, symmetriamque et proportionem agnoscere et æstimare. Non posteriora, [i. e. valdè magna,] quia, è contrario, in tam ingenti mole ac magnitudine, partium multitudo cognitionem impediat, quæ non possit simul [

ἅμα

] haberi: dum enim spectatur una, propter distantiam deperit et evanescit [

οἴχεται

] cognitio alterius; ita ut unum et totum non appareat animal."

Benii Comm. in Aristot. Poet. p. 205.

The reader may, after this, be amused with seeing what strange work Lord Shaftesbury has made with this passage in his explanatory translation of it.

63. mvp-aristotle-comment-63

NOTE 63. P. 80.

7.9 EASILY COMPREHENDED BY THE EYE, &C.

ΕΥΣΥΝΟΠΤΟΝ

—No words furnish a more striking proof of the richness, compression, force, and convenience, of the Greek language, than those which Aristotle here uses;

ευσυνοπτον, ἐυμνημονευτον, συνδηλον

. The reader needs only see to what a feeble length of periphrastic wire-drawing a translator is reduced, if he would give their full value:

"Easily comprehended by the eye."

"Que l'œil puisse comprendre et mesurer aisement et tout d'un coup."

[Dacier.]

"Qui puisse être saisi d'un même coup d'œil."

[Batteux; the most compressed of all Aristotle's translators.]

"Un tout ensemble où la vue ne s'égare point."

[Marmontel, Poetique Fr. Pref.]

Of the same kind are the words,

ἐυεπακολουθητον

—"such as the understanding can easily follow and keep up with"¹⁵⁶:

εὐανάπνευστος

, of a period, "that does not put one out of breath"¹⁵⁷.

64. mvp-aristotle-comment-64

NOTE 64. P. 80.

7.11 IF A HUNDRED TRAGEDIES &C.

The supposition of a hundred Tragedies performed in concurrence seems merely to be a sort of hyperbolical fling at the known intemperance of the Athenian people with respect to theatrical exhibitions; and Dacier has rightly, I think, accounted for this

exuberantia orationis

, as Victorius calls it¹⁵⁸. But Dacier, and the Abbé Batteux after him, make Aristotle's expression too hyperbolical for hyperbole itself, when they translate,

"S'il falloit jouer cent Tragedies en un jour."

For if the Tragedies were only half an hour long, and played without intermission, they would have required a day of fifty hours. We must understand, surely, with Beni,

"Si centum Tragœdiæ, verbi gratiâ, totis illis spectaculorum diebus recitandæ proponerentur;"

Comment. p. 211. which will still leave hyperbole enough.

Dacier is also mistaken, I believe, in concluding, from what Aristotle says, that it was once an established custom with the Greeks to regulate the length of Tragedies by the clepsydra, or hour-glass. His expression seems to imply at least, that it had been rarely practised, if it does not, as M. Batteux thinks, imply some doubt, whether it had been done at all:—

ὥσπερ ποτε και άλλοτε ΦΑΣΙ

. Thus much, however, as to the limited length of these performances, we may easily conceive; that when, to gratify the immoderate fondness of the Athenians for the drama, an uncommon number of Tragedies were exhibited in concurrence, and the contending Poets were apt to encroach upon the patience of the audience, by lengthening out their pieces in order to shew off themselves, or their actors¹⁵⁹, the Lord Chamberlain of these exhibitions might be obliged, in compliance with the clamours of the people, to confine the representation of each drama to some limited time.

65. mvp-aristotle-comment-65

NOTE 65. P. 80.

8.1 A FABLE IS NOT ONE—MERELY BECAUSE THE HERO OF IT IS ONE.

Mr. Hume, in his Essay on the association of ideas, represents this passage of Aristotle as contrary to the doctrine he there lays down, and which is unquestionably true—that

"in all productions, as well as in the Epic and Tragic, a certain unity is required,"

&c.—and,

"that the unity of action which is to be found in biography or history, differs from that of Epic Poetry, not in kind, but in degree."

I see here no contrariety at all. Aristotle certainly did not mean to say, that a biographical Poem, if I may so term it, (a Poem

περι ἐνα

,) has no unity, no relation of cause and effect, &c. to connect the incidents; but only, that it has not that degree of unity, which is requisite for the purpose of Tragic, or even Epic, Poetry. Mr. Hume himself allows, that Poetry

"requires a stricter and closer unity in the fable;"

and this is all that Aristotle appears to mean. The persons censured by him for concluding, that,

"because Hercules was one, so also must be the fable, of which he was the subject,"

were right enough, as philosophers, but as poets, certainly wrong.

This chapter, in which Aristotle considers so particularly the unity of fable, as distinct from its totality, led me once to think it probable, that the word

μιας

was originally in the definition of Tragedy, cap. vi. as we find it afterwards in cap. xxiii.

περι ΜΙΑΝ πραξιν όλην και τελειαν

. But perhaps the supposition is unnecessary, and unity may be sufficiently implied in the words

τελειας και όλης

ΟΛΟΤΗΤΟΣ

, as he elsewhere says,

ΕΝΟΤΗΤΟΣ ΤΙΝΟΣ ΟΥΣΗΣ

.¹⁶⁰

66. mvp-aristotle-comment-66

NOTE 66. P. 80.

8.3 EITHER FROM ART, OR GENIUS.

Ἢτοι δια τέχνην, Ἢ ΔΙΑ ΦΥΣΙΝ

. It appears from this, as well as from other passages of Aristotle's treatise, that in the midst of all the coldness of philosophical investigation and analysis, he never lost sight of the difference between that spontaneous operation of genius and feeling in the Poet, which produces poetic beauty, and the slow and cautious process of calm examination and inquiry in the Critic, whose business it is to discover its principles. It is not every philosophical critic that avoids this error. Nothing is more common, than to suppose that to have been produced by art and reflection, about which, when produced, art and reflection have been employed. Thus languages, we are told, must have been originally formed by art, because they cannot be analysed without art: Grammarians and Philosophers must have formed language, because language has formed Grammarians and Philosophers.¹⁶¹

67. mvp-aristotle-comment-67

NOTE 67. P. 81.

8.3 BUT HE COMPREHENDED THOSE ONLY WHICH HAVE RELATION TO ONE ACTION, &C.

Οδυσσειαν γαρ ποιων, ἐκ ἐποιησεν ἅπαντα όσα αυτῳ συνεβη—ΑΛΛΑ περι μιαν πραξιν, οἱαν λεγομεν την Οδυσσειαν, ΣΥΝΕΣΤΗΣΑΝ.

So the text stands.

"Non cecinit omnia----sed quæ circa unam solam actionem, qualem Odysseam dicimus, constituerunt."

[Goulston.] Victorius reads,

ΑΛΛ' Ἃ

, and

ΣΥΝΕΣΤΗΣΕΝ

; but does injustice, I think, to his own reading, by his construction and his version:

πέρι μιαν πραξιν συνεστησεν

"circa unam actionem-MANSIT."

This is, surely, very harsh. I should punctuate, and translate, thus:—

ἀλλα περι μιαν πραξιν, οἱαν λεγομεν, την Οδυσσειαν συνεστησεν· ὁμοἰως δε και την Ιλιαδα.

[fc.

συνεστησεν

"Sed circa unam actionem, qualem dicimus, Odysseam constituit; pariterque Iliadem."

—"But he planned his Odyssey, as he also did his Iliad, upon an action, that is one, in the sense here explained." And that this is the true reading, and the true sense, of the passage, I was once thoroughly persuaded. The construction of the whole is, thus, clear and natural. The circumstance of the plural verb

συνεστησαν

with the plural neuter,

ἅ

, is avoided; and the word

συνεστησεν

retains its proper and usual sense, as applied, throughout, by Aristotle, to the composition, or construction, of the Fable. So, cap. ix.

συστησαντες τον μύθον

. cap. xvii. and xxiii.

τους μύθους συνισταναι

et passim. I will not, however, dissemble what is against me. The reading

ἀλλ' ἅ

, besides its support from MSS. answers better to the

ἅπαντα όσα

, which precedes:

οὐκ ἐποιησεν ΑΠΑΝΤΑ όσα αυτῳ συνεβη—ΑΛΛ' Ἃ περι μ. π. &c.

But, if

ἀλλ' ἅ

be retained, the passage, I think, should stand thus:—

ἀλλ' ἅ περι μιαν πραξιν, [sc. ἐστι,] οἱαν λεγομεν την Οδυσσειαν, ΣΥΝΕΣΤΗΣΕΝ.

According to the construction of Piccolomini:—

"quelle cose accolfe, ch'al corpo d'una attione, la qual chiamiamo Odissea, servissero:"

—and the Abbé Batteux—

"Il a rapproché tout ce qui tenoit à une seule action."

—

συνεστησεν περι μιαν πραξιν

: i. e. composed his fable of those circumstances only, which relate to one action. Thus, immediately after—

τα ΜΕΡΗ ΣΥΝΙΣΤΑΝΑΙ των πραγματων

. Unwilling to make alterations that do not appear absolutely necessary, I have followed this last reading though with some remaining partiality to my first conjecture. That the sense would be clearer, and the construction less elliptical and embarrassed, is certain. But I am afraid this is but a questionable proof of corruption in the writings of Aristotle.¹⁶²

68. mvp-aristotle-comment-68

NOTE 68. P. 81.

8.4 THE WHOLE WILL BE DESTROYED, OR CHANGED.

Destroyed, if any part be taken away, (

ἀφαιρεμενου

) — disturbed or changed, if it be transposed (

μετατιθεμενου

). In the first case it will be no longer a whole; in the last, not the same whole. This seems the meaning, as it is well rendered by M. Batteux:

"Que les parties en soient tellement liées entre elles, qu'une seule transposée, ou retranchée, ce ne soit plus un tout, ou le même tout."

—But I cannot think

διαφερεσθαι

right. It is rendered by Goulston,

"diversum reddatur, et moveatur, totum."

So Piccolomini,

"diverso----e mutato,"

&c. But, besides the manifest tautology, I doubt whether there be any good authority for this sense of the verb

διαφερεσθαι

—i. e. to be made different, or changed. At least I have not found any instance of it in Aristotle's writings. If we retain

διαφερεσθαι

, it must, I think, be taken in the sense of discerpi, distrahi, &c. But I am almost persuaded, that Aristotle wrote

ΔΙΑΦΘΕΙΡΕΣΘΑΙ

, spoiled, or destroyed. So in his Topics,

ΦΘΕΙΡΕΣΘΑΙ το ΟΛΟΝ

. vol. i. p. 258. B. ed. Duval .

69. mvp-aristotle-comment-69

NOTE 69. P. 82.

9.1 POSSIBLE, ACCORDING TO PROBABLE, OR NECESSARY, CONSEQUENCE.

Compare cap. xv.

Χρη δε και ἐν τοις ήθεσιν. κ. τ. αλ.

—[Transl. Part II. Sect. 15. p. 93.] The expression,

δυνατα κατα το ἀναγκαιον

, "possible---according to necessity," appears strange at the first glance: but in fiction, events may be supposed to happen, as in real life they do happen, not only probably, but necessarily; that is, not only as they were likely to happen, but as, morally speaking, they could not but happen.

"Puisque la fonction du vraissemblable dans la Tragedie, est d'empêcher l'esprit de s'appercevoir de la feinte, le vraissemblable qui le trompe le mieux est le plus parfait, et c'est celui qui devient necessaire. Un caractere etant supposé, il y a des effets qu'il doit necessairement produire, et d'autres qu'il peut produire, ou ne produire pas."

Again—

"La perfection est de faire agir les personnages, de maniere qu'ils n'ayent pas pu agir autrement, leur caractere supposé,"

&c. Thus Fontenelle, in his excellent Reflexions sur la Poetique; in several parts of which, that clear and philosophical writer has, I believe without any such intention, coincided with, and illustrated, the positions of Aristotle. See particularly, Sect. 58, to 65, inclusively.

70. mvp-aristotle-comment-70

NOTE 70. P. 82.

9.2 A SPECIES OF HISTORY-

Ἱσορια ΤΙΣ

—"a sort of history." It is singular, that almost all the translators should have neglected a word so important as the pronoun

τις

in this passage. May we not infer from this expression, that if Aristotle had been asked, whether an Epic imitation in prose would be a Poem, or not, he would have allowed it to be,

ποιημα ΤΙ

, a kind of Poem, as having the essence of Poetry, invention and imitation? See NOTE V. P. 153.

71. mvp-aristotle-comment-71

NOTE 71. P. 82.

9.3 A MORE EXCELLENT THING THAN HISTORY.

Σπουδαιότερον

. It means no more than, in plain English, a better thing. The word occurs frequently in Aristotle's works, in this general sense. So, Rhet. I. vii. p. 528, B.

και ὧν αἱ ἐπισημαι καλλιους σπουδαιότεραι, και τα πραγματα καλλιω και σπουδαιότερα.

—And, ibid. I. ix. p. 531, E.

Και αἱ των φύσει σπουδαιοτέρων (superior by nature) ἀρεται καλλιους, και τα ἐργα· οἱον ἀνδρος [sc. σπουδαιοτεραι αἱ ἀρεται, &c.] γυναικ.

—See, also, Ethic. Nicom. lib. vi. cap. vii. p. 78, C.

ἀτοπον γαρ εἴ τις την ἐπισημην πολιτικην -- ΣΠΟΥΔΑΙΟΤΑΤΗΝ οἴεται εἶναι, εἴ μη το ΑΡΙΣΤΟΝ των ἐν τῷ κοσμῳ ἀνθρωπος ἐστι.

Dacier translates the word, "morale;" Batteux, "instructive;" but this is rather giving the reason why it is

σπουδαιότερον

, or, a superior thing.

72. mvp-aristotle-comment-72

NOTE 72. P. 82.

9.5 IS NOT, LIKE THE IAMBIC POETS, PARTICULAR AND PERSONAL.

Ιαμβοποιοι

. Strictly, the writers of the

ψογοι

or satirical invectives that preceded Comedy. [See cap. iv. Transl. Part I. Sect. 6.] But I believe Aristotle meant here to include, at least, the authors of the first rude Comedy, "of the Iambic form—"

της ιαμβικης ιδεας

. See cap. v. Transl. Part I. Sect. 8.

It appears, that the Poem called

Ιαμβοι

, whatever it was, was represented, or acted, as well as Tragedy and the Epic: for, in his seventh book De Rep. cap. xvii. the philosopher forbids boys to be spectators of Iambi and Comedies:—

τους δε νεωτέρους οὔτ' ΙΑΜΒΩΝ, οὔτε κωμῳδίας ΘΕΑΤΑΣ νομοθετητεον, πριν η κ. τ. ἀλ.

p. 448, E.

73. mvp-aristotle-comment-73

NOTE 73. P. 82.

9.6 WHAT HAS NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED, WE ARE NOT APT TO REGARD AS POSSIBLE.

This must be restricted to those extraordinary actions and events, of public and elevated personages, which usually make the subject of Tragedy. The best comment I have seen, or that, I think, can be given, on this passage, is that of Piccolomini¹⁶³; but it is so long, that I can only refer to it. We have, however, the substance of it in the following observation of Brumoy.

"La Tragedie ne s'est point sous-divisée" (as Comedy, he observes, had been,) "en Tragedie reelle, et Tragedie de pure imagination. Je crois en trouver la raison dans la nature de l'esprit humain. Il n'y a que la vraissemblance dont il puisse être touché. Or il n'est pas vraissemblable que des faits aussi grands que ceux de la Tragedie, des faits qui n'arrivent que dans les maisons des rois, ou dans le sein des empires, soient absolument inconnus. Si donc le Poete invente tout son sujet, jusq' aux noms, l'esprit du spectateur se revolte; tout lui paroit incroyable, et la piece manque fon effet, faute de vraissemblance. Mais comme la Comedie ne touche que la vie commune et ses ridicules, le spectateur peut supposer et suppose en effet, en se laissant aller à l'enchantement du spectacle, que le sujet qu'on lui présente est un fait réel, quoiqu' il ne le connoisse pas. Il n'en seroit pas de même, si le sujet comique avoit du merveilleux."

Theatre des Grecs, i. p. 207.

74. mvp-aristotle-comment-74

NOTE 74. P. 83.

9.9 A POET SHOULD BE A POET OR MAKER OF FABLES, RATHER THAN OF VERSES.

So Plato, almost in the same words:—

ἐννοησας ότι τον ποιητην δεοι, εἴπερ μέλλοι ποιητης εἶναι, ποιειν ΜΥΘΟΥΣ, ἀλλ' οὐ ΛΟΓΟΥΣ.

— Phædon, p. 61, ed. Serr.

75. mvp-aristotle-comment-75

NOTE 75. P. 83.

9.10 NOR IS HE THE LESS A POET, THOUGH THE INCIDENTS OF HIS FABLE SHOULD CHANCE TO BE SUCH AS HAVE REALLY HAPPENED, &C.

The original, as it stands, (for I doubt of its integrity,) is very ambiguous and obscure. The sense I wished to give it, is this: "Nor will he be the less a Poet, though he should found his Poem upon fact: for nothing hinders, but that some real events may be such, as to admit of Poetic probability; and he who gives them this probability, and makes them such, as Poetry requires, is so far entitled to the name of Poet, or Inventor." And thus, indeed, the passage is explained by Robortelli and some other commentators: and Casaubon seems to have so understood it; for, quoting the words

κἂν άρα συμβῃ γενομενα ποιειν, κ. τ. αλ.

—he says,

"ad ea solùm dramata referendum, quorum hypothesis ab historiâ est; ut Persarum Æschyli: fabulæ verò totius

συνθεσις

ab ingenio Poetæ."

De Satyricâ, &c. p. 345. I do not, however, see how this sense can be fairly extracted from the words, as they now stand. That which I have given in my translation, and which was first suggested to me by the word

συμβῃ

, I was afterwards glad to find supported by the opinion of Victorius. The expression—

ἂν ΣΥΜΒΗι γενομενα ποιειν

,— "if he should happen," &c. is very strong, and hardly applicable to a Poet chusing a true story for the outline of his fable. It indicates accidental coincidence with truth. The word

εἶναι

, also, is on the same side: "may be," does not suit the sense above given, which requires, "may become"—may be made such by the Poet; not, "may be such," in themselves, which is the obvious meaning of

τοιαῦτα ΕΙΝΑΙ

. Farther; Aristotle has just told us, that probability is the Poet's province, and yet, at the same time, that Tragedies were usually founded, and should, in general, be founded, on historical fact. Now it would, surely, be rather strange, after all this, to say, "nothing hinders, but that some real events may be made to have poetic probability:"

οὐδεν ΚΩΛΥΕΙ τοιαῦτα εἶναι οἷα ἂν εἴκοτα γενεσθαι, κ. τ. αλ.

But, to the interpretation which I have preferred, these expressions are all exactly suitable, and the meaning and connection of the whole seems to be this:—Aristotle had been opposing Poetry to fact: he had said expressly, that the

γενομενα

were the peculiar province of the historian; the

οἷα ἂν γενοιτο

, and the

εἰκος

, of the Poet. An objector, misapprehending, or misrepresenting, his meaning, might have urged "the incidents of this or that Poet have actually happened; they are

γενομενα

; and therefore, according to your own doctrine, not proper for Poetry, nor the work of a Poet." —To this Aristotle answers, that, though the object of the Poet be not truth, yet his invented probabilities may coincide with truth: and real events, even of the Tragic and extraordinary kind, may have happened as probably and naturally as he has supposed them to happen. He is still, therefore, no less a Poet; not only as having actually invented the incidents, but as having invented them with true Poetic probability. And thus Victorius:—

"Non omnes eos qui fortuitò incidant in res quæ exitum jam habuerint, in culpâ esse; quia fieri possit, ut res aliquæ factæ, ita factæ sint, ut verisimile fit illas factas esse; et esse denique ejusmodi, ut effici potuerint; quo nomine (inquit,) ille Poeta eorum aliquo modo est: officium enim Poetæ est, verisimile sectari, et ea quæ effici possunt sumere: quod in illis rebus illo modo factis non desideratur. Retinet igitur, hâc de causâ, nomen Poetæ."

I confess, indeed, that the passage is, in this way, nothing more than an answer to a senseless cavil. But such cavils, we know, the sophists of those times¹⁶⁴ did not disdain to make, nor Aristotle always disdain to answer. See cap. xxv. Transl. Part IV.

76. mvp-aristotle-comment-76

NOTE 76. P. 83.

9.11 OF SIMPLE FABLES, THE EPISODIC ARE THE WORST.

Why, of simple fables—

ἁπλων μυθων

? as if the fault here noticed were peculiar to the simple fable; that is, as the term is defined in the following chapter, the fable that is without revolution or discovery. But surely this could not be Aristotle's meaning. Something, I am persuaded, is wrong: but I have no probable conjecture to offer; unless it may be thought probable, that

ΑΠΑΝΤΩΝ

, abbreviated perhaps by the transcriber, might be mistaken for

ΑΠΛΩΝ

. What Dacier says in his note is ingenious and true; but by no means, I think, fully accounts for Aristotle's expression, which implies more, than that these unconnected Episodes,

"se rencontrent plus ordinairement dans les fables simples."

Victorius states the difficulty fairly, and only asks, with a modesty which inferior critics often want,

"An valet quicquam ad eum (scrupulum) evellendum, quod Tragedia simplex suâ sponte non valdè elegans est; cui si accesserit hoc vitium, meritò deterrima vocari potest?"

— For my own part, I must answer in the negative. This idea has been adopted by Goulston, and Le Bossu. They make Aristotle say—"Simple fables are not so good as complex, and simple fables that are Episodic, are the worst of all."—This is to supply a meaning, not to find one. For the sense of Episodes here, see NOTE 37.

77. mvp-aristotle-comment-77

NOTE 77. P. 83.

9.11b IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR PIECES TO THE PURPOSES OF RIVAL PERFORMERS, &c.

That actors, as well as Poets, contended for the prize in these Tragic games, or

ἀγωνες

, might be sufficiently proved by a single passage in the Ethics of Aristotle, where, explaining the difference between

προαίρεσις

, and

βούλησις

, he says, "we may will, or desire, things not at all in our own power to effect ; as, that such a particular actor may gain the prize :" —

ὑποκριτην τινα νικαν, ἢ ἀθλητην

¹⁶⁵. The reader may also see a passage in the Rhetoric, lib. iii. cap. i. which throws some illustration upon this passage, by shewing the great importance of the players at that time, and the dependance of the Poets upon them: for Aristotle there says of these dramatic contests, that,

ἐχει μεῖζον δύνανται ΝΥΝ των ποιητων αι ὑποκριται

: "the actors, now, have greater power—are more regarded, and of more importance to the success of the dramas—than the Poets." A revolution somewhat similar is recorded by Plutarch to have happened between the later Dithyrambic Poets and their

αυληται

, or flute-players : —

το γαρ παλαιον, ἐως εις Μελανιππίδην τον των διθυραμβων ποιητην, συμβεβηκει, τες ΑΥΛΗΤΑΣ παρα των ποιητων λαμβανειν της μισθες, ΠΡΩΤΑΓΩΝΙΣΤΟΥΣΗΣ δηλονότι ΤΗΣ ΠΟΙΗΣΕΩΣ, των δ' αυλητων ΥΠΗΡΕΤΟΥΝΤΩΝ τοις διδασκαλοις· ὑστερον δε [i. e. when, as he says, the music of the flute became more complicated, refined, and difficult,] και τετο διεφθαρη

De Musica. ed. H. St. p. 2091. . But all this is nothing, to what we have heard of the modern despotism sometimes exercised by great opera singers over the composers.

The effect which this influence of the players might have, in lengthening and disuniting the action, according to Aristotle's complaint here, may be easily imagined. Castelvetro observes, with great probability, of these ill-connected

ἐπεισοδια

"Et, peraventura, queste digressioni fatte per compiacere i rappresentatori, riguardavano più à quello che i rappresentatori sapevano bene contrafare, che alla materia naturale della favola ; accioche essi mostraffero quello che valessero, in quello dove erano piu esercitati, et percio piu agevolmente ottenessero la vittoria."

Poet. d' Arist. p. 220. Here, too, the musical reader, will be again reminded of the privilege so intemperately exercised by modern Italian singers—the lineal descendants, according to some, of the

ὑποκριται

of the Greek Opera—that of setting aside, whenever they please, both the Poet, and the composer, by the introduction of such songs, from other operas, as they think most favourable to the display of their peculiar talents. ¹⁶⁶

The influence of modern actors upon the productions of the Poet, is, perhaps, not less than that of the antient ; but it seems to be exerted most frequently in a contrary way, though one full as likely to spoil the

ἐφεξης

of the piece—that of lopping. The distress of a Poet on such occasions is represented with true comic force by Mr. Sheridan in his Critic:

Sir, the performer has cut it out, &c.

Sheridan, Critic, Act III. Sc. 1.

78. mvp-aristotle-comment-78

NOTE 78. P. 83.

9.11b BEYOND THEIR POWERS-.

I cannot agree with the commentators, who render

παρα την δυναμιν

supra id quod ferat

:—referring

δυναμιν

to the fable itself. I think it means

ultra vires

, beyond the powers of the Poets. And so the Abbé Batteux—

"audelà de fa portée."

The greater the length of the fable, the greater, evidently, is the difficulty of filling it up with consistent probability ; without violating that close connection of incidents, and unity of action, which the rules of Aristotle, and the nature of the drama, require.

79. mvp-aristotle-comment-79

NOTE 79. P. 83.

9.11c THAT PURPOSE IS BEST ANSWERED BY SUCH EVENTS AS ARE NOT ONLY UNEXPECTED, BUT UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES OF EACH OTHER.

Ταυτα δε γινεται μαλιστα τοιαυτα, και μαλλον όταν γενηται παρα την δόξαν δι' ἀλληλα.

—This is certainly corrupt ; nor does it seem easy to form any probable conjecture, how it stood, as Aristotle left it. Whether the words,

και μαλλον

, be right or not, they serve, as the text at present stands, only to embarrass a passage, which, if we omit them, seems clear enough, both in construction and meaning. In this I perfectly agree with the last Oxford editor¹⁶⁷ ; though I think they should not be hastily ejected from the text.

The connection and drift of the whole passage seems to me to be this. Aristotle is here recommending the close connection of incidents, arising probably or necessarily from each other, in a new point of view—as being of great importance, not only to the unity of fable, but to the principal object of Tragedy, the production of terror and pity. For events are best adapted to this purpose, most striking and affecting, when they happen, not only

παρα την δόξαν

, but

παρα την δόξαν ΔΙ' ΑΛΛΗΛΑ

: when the wonder arises, not only from their happening unexpectedly, but from their being the consequences of events from which no one could have expected them to follow. Thus connected, as cause and effect, they will be more surprising, and consequently more affecting, more terrible or piteous¹⁶⁸, than if they appear to happen by chance—

ἀπο τε αυτοματο και της τύχης — εἰκη — ΜΕΤ᾿ ἀλληλα

only, not

ΔΙ' ἀλληλα

, according to the distinc- tion in the next chapter. To illustrate this, Aristotle observes, that even events merely fortuitous, are more wonderful and striking, when they are such, as in any degree suggest to the spectator an idea of purpose and design ; like the accident he mentions of the statue that fell upon the murderer of the person represented by it. And all this is connected with what follows, as well as with what precedes ; evidently pointing to his doctrine about the

περιπετεια

in the next chapters.¹⁶⁹

80. mvp-aristotle-comment-80

NOTE 80. P. 84.

9.12 THE STATUE OF MITYS, &c.

In Plutarch, thus : —

και το Μιτιος τε Αργειε, κατα στασιν ἀναιρεθεντος, ἀνδριαντα χαλκουν ἐν ἀγορᾳ, θεας οὔσης, ἐμπεσειν τῳ κτειναντι τον Μίτιον, και ἀνελειν.

[Περί των βραδεως, &c. p. 980, ed. H. St.]

81. mvp-aristotle-comment-81

NOTE 81. P. 84.

10.1 FABLES-SIMPLE, AND COMPLICATED.

It is high time to discard the technical jargon of implex fables, used by Addison, and others, after the French writers .¹⁷⁰ If any authority were requisite for speaking English, I have that of Mr. Harris, who renders Aristotle's

ἁπλοι

, and

πεπλεγμενοι

, by simple, and complicated. Phil. Inq. p. 146.

82. mvp-aristotle-comment-82

NOTE 82. P. 84.

10.2 WHEN ITS CATASTROPHE IS PRODUCED WITHOUT EITHER REVOLUTION OR DISCOVERY.

Ἀνευ περιπέτειας ἢ ἀναγνωρισμεως ἡ μεταβασις γινεται.

—

Μεταβασις

, is the change of fortune which constitutes the catastrophe of the piece. This, which is common to all Tragedy, must not be confounded with the

Περιπετεια

, which, however important, is not essential. Le Bossu, Dacier, and others, by not attending to this distinction, have introduced much confusion into one of the clearest parts of Aristotle's work. Thus, Dacier says—

"Il appelle fable simple, celle ou il n'y a ni changement d'etat, ni reconnoissance, et dont le denouement n'est qu'un simple passage de l'agitation et du trouble au repos et à la tranquillité."

He adopts the language of Le Bossu¹⁷¹. Undoubtedly, there are Tragedies without a sudden and unexpected reverse of fortune; but where is the Tragedy, antient or modern, in which there is no "changement d'etat?" This would be no other than a Tragedy without a catastrophe. Thus, these writers take

μεταβασις

to signify the mere passage, progress, or suite, of the piece¹⁷²: whereas it clearly signifies a change; a transition from prosperous to adverse, or at least from adverse to more adverse, fortune, or the contrary; as Beni has well observed¹⁷³. The sense of the word is clearly fixed by other passages; and in cap. xviii. he expressly makes the

μεταβασις

, such a change of fortune as is common to every Tragedy.

Ἔστι δε ΠΑΣΗΣ τραγῳδίας, το μεν, δεσις, το δε, λυσις.

λέγω δε δεσιν μεν εἶναι την ἀπ᾿ ἀρχης μεχρι τουτου του μερους ὃ ἔσχατον ἐστιν, ἐξ οὗ ΜΕΤΑΒΑΙΝΕΙ εις ευτυχίαν· λυσιν δε, την ἀπο της ἀρχης ΤΗΣ ΜΕΤΑΒΑΣΕΩΣ μέχρι τέλους.

Mr. Harris, in his Philol. Inquiries, p. 145, &c. seems to have deserted Aristotle for Le Bossu, who, with little reason, in my opinion, passed with him, as well as with Lord Shaftesbury, for "Aristotle's best interpreter¹⁷⁴." Throughout his chapter on this subject, above referred to, he appears to me to confound the

μεταβασις

, or change, which Aristotle makes essential to all Tragedy, with that particular kind of change which he denominates

περιπετεια

: for he uses, repeatedly, the word revolution, (his translation of

περιπετεια

,) to express what Aristotle means by

μετάβασις, μεταβαινειν, μεταβαλλειν

. He speaks of Othello, and Lear, as complicated fables, and having revolutions. And so, indeed, they have, if we take the word in Aristotle's sense of

μεταβασις

; I do not see that they have, in his sense of

περιπετεια

. In neither of those Tragedies can it, I think, be said, that the catastrophe is produced by a sudden change, to the reverse of what is expected, by the spectator, from the circumstances of the action. At least, with respect to Othello, this seems to admit of no dispute. [See the next NOTE.]

The Abbé Batteux gives, I think very properly, the Polieucte of Corneille, as an example of the simple fable.

"La fable simple, qui n' a ni revolution subite, ni reconnoissance; qui commence, continue, s'acheve, sans secousses, ni retours inattendus. Ainsi Polieucte reçoit le baptême, son zele lui fait renverser les autels des payens, il est arrêté, jugé, mis à mort: c'est une fable simple."

Principes de la Lit. tome iii. p. 84. Victorius, Beni, Piccolomini, and Goulston, agree with me in my idea of this passage, where the words,

συνεχης και μιας

, are not put to characterize the simple fable, as Victorius well observes, but refer merely to that unity and continuity of action, which had been established as necessary to Tragedy in general.

83. mvp-aristotle-comment-83

NOTE 83. P. 84.

11.1 A REVOLUTION IS----A CHANGE INTO THE REVERSE OF WHAT IS EXPECTED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACTION.

Ἔστι δε περιπετεια μεν, ἡ εις το ἐναντιον των πραττομενων μεταβολη, καθαπερ εἴρηται.

The sense of these words has not, I think, been exactly given in any translation I have yet seen, except that of the accurate and judicious Piccolomini:

"La Peripetia intendo io essere una mutation di fortuna, che (fatta nel modo che si é detto,) accaschi al contrario di quello che dalle cose ordite aspettar si potesse."

In literal English "When the things that are doing (

τα πραττομενα

) have an effect the very reverse of what is expected from them." That this is the meaning, appears plainly from the instance immediately subjoined:

ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ Οιδιπόδι, ἐλθων ΩΣ ΕΥΦΡΑΝΩΝ τον Οιδίπουν, και ἀπαλλάξων του προς την μητερα φοβου, δηλωσας ὃστις ἦν ΤΟΥΝΑΝΤΙΟΝ ΕΠΟΙΗΣΕ.

As the words—

ἡ εις το ἐναντιον των πρατ. μετ.

are rendered by Dacier, and others "changement de fortune en une fortune contraire" — they express nothing but what is common to Tragedy in general; and

περιπετεια

is confounded with

μεταβασις

. [See last NOTE.] But, it is well observed by Piccolomini,

"Non s'hà, parimente, da intendere, quando diciamo la peripetia esser mutation di fortuna, ogni forte di mutatione da una conditione et stato di fortuna ad un' altro; non potendo esser Tragedia alcuna in cui qualche così fatta mutatione non si ritrovi."

[p. 167.] In the usual way of translating the passage, a circumstance essential to the

περιπετεια

is entirely omitted in the definition; its being surprising, and contrary to expectation. This, it is true, ¹⁷⁵ Dacier has expressed in his version, by the words, "contre ce qu'on avoit attendu." But this is, professedly, his own supplement of Aristotle's text. And indeed I once thought the text defective, and that Aristotle had probably written it—

μεταβολη, ΠΑΡΑ ΤΗΝ ΔΟΞΑΝ, καθαπερ εἴρηται

: alluding to the latter part of cap. ix. But, as I now understand the passage, this idea is sufficiently implied. The words,

καθαπερ εἴρηται

, have puzzled and divided the commentators, by their obscurity of reference. Upon the whole I am inclined to think, they point to what he had said cap. ix. [Transl. Part II. Sect. 7.] which, as I before observed, [NOTE 80,] seems manifestly to be a preparation for this chapter; and in which the words,

παρα την δοξαν δ' ἀλληλα

—"events that are unexpected consequences of each other"—answer to the definition of

περιπετεια

, as here explained.

That this is the meaning of Aristotle's words, I have no doubt. But, perhaps, even the words themselves have been inaccurately rendered, and

πραττομενων

should be constructed, not with

μεταβολη

, but with

ἐναντιον

εις το ἐναντιον των πραττομενων

: i. e.

in contrarium eorum quæ aguntur

. This was suggested to me by the literal version which the accurate Mr. Harris has given of the words in his Philol. Inq. p. 148. —

"A REVOLUTION is, as has been already said, a change into the reverse of what is doing."

The definition, I think, though its sense be the same in either way, would thus be more clear, and would answer more exactly to what follows .

84. mvp-aristotle-comment-84

NOTE 84. P. 84.

11.2 THUS IN THE OEDIPUS, THE MESSENGER, &c.

Ἐλθων ὡς εὐφρανων τον Οιδίπουν, και ἀπαλλάξων του προς την μητέρα φοβου.

Alluding, probably, to the very words of the messenger in Sophocles:

Τι δητ ἔγωγ' οὐ ΤΟΥΔΕ ΤΟΥ ΦΟΒΟΥ σε, άναξ,
Ἐπείπερ ΕΥΝΟΥΣ ΗΛΘΟΝ, ΕΞΕΛΥΣΑΜΗΝ;

V. 1012.

85. mvp-aristotle-comment-85

NOTE 85. P. 86.

11.9 THESE THEN ARE TWO PARTS OF THE FABLE- REVOLUTION AND DISCOVERY.

Δυο μεν οὖν του μυθου μερη ΠΕΡΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ ἐστι, περιπέτεια και ἀναγνωρισις.

"Circa hæc." About what? What are we to understand by

ταυτα

? — Victorius says,

τα πραττομενα

; and Dacier, after him, "Qui regardent le sujet." I cannot be satisfied with this.

Τα πραττομενα

, the subject, the action, are sufficiently expressed by the word

μυθου

. Would Aristotle have said, "These are two parts of the fable relative to the fable?" I have, therefore, neglected the word

περι

in my translation, in conformity to the probable conjecture of Madius. Every reader sees how easily it might get into the text from the word

περιπετεια

which presently follows. I rather think, however, that, retaining

περι

, we should read,

περι Τ' ΑΥΤΑ

: "circa easdem res;"—to point out the close connection of these two parts of the fable, as things of the same kind, and counterparts, as it were, to each other, co-operating to the same effect—the production of terror, pity, surprise, &c. And thus they are afterwards mentioned together, as constituting one species of Tragedy:

ἡ μεν γαρ, πεπλεγμενη, ἧς το όλον ἐστι ΠΕΡΙΠΕΤΕΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΓΝΩΡΙΣΙΣ.

[ cap. xviii. Transl. Part II. Sect. 19.] The same mode of expression occurs in the Ethics ad Nicom. lib. iv. cap. 13.

ΠΕΡΙ ΤΑ ΑΥΤΑ δε σχεδον ΕΣΤΙ και ἡ ἀλαζονειας μεσότης

: "in iisdem vertitur." That is, as appears from the context, the virtue, of which he is there speaking, was of the same kind, or class, with that, which was the subject of the foregoing chapter. Both were among the

ἀρεται ὁμιλητικαι

. So, in the conclusion of the subsequent chapter—

τρεις οὖν αἱ εἴρημεναι ἐν τῷ βιῳ μεσοτητες ΕΙΣΙ δε πασαι ΠΕΡΙ λογων τινων και πραξεων κοινωνιαν.

86. mvp-aristotle-comment-86

NOTE 86. P. 86.

11.10 DISASTERS, COMPREHEND ALL PAINFUL OR DESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS, &C.

It seems hardly reconcilable with philosophical accuracy, to use such an expression as

ΠΑΘΟΣ ἐστι ΠΡΑΞΙΣ

—defining the suffering to BE the action that causes the suffering. In his Metaphysics he puts it thus : —

τα μεγεθη των συμφορων και λυπηρων ΠΑΘΗ λεγεται.

This word,

παθος

, in the sense here used, is very embarrassing to a translator. The word passion, in this sense, of suffering, is, with us, appropriated to a subject, from which it cannot, without a sort of profanation, be transferred to any other. The French, however, have done this without scruple, though the word, when so applied, must be explained before it can be understood. Upon the whole, I could find no single words that seemed to me to answer so nearly to

παθος

, and its adjective,

παθητικην

, in the sense in which they are used here, and in cap. xviii. as disaster, and its correspondent adjective, disastrous. Their original,

desastre

, is explained in the Dict. of the French Academy , by "accident funeste."

"Wherein I spoke of most disastrous chances, Of moving accidents [

παθη

] by flood, and field."

Othello, Act I. Sc. III.

87. mvp-aristotle-comment-87

NOTE 87. P. 86.

11.10 THE EXHIBITION OF DEATH, &c.

Ἐν τῷ φανερῳ θανατοι.

—A plain passage, which the commentators seem to have taken great pains to perplex with difficulties of their own invention. The plain meaning of the expression is, exhibited on the stage :

ἐν ὀφθαλμοις φαινομενου ΤΟΥ ΠΑΘΟΥΣ

, as it is expressed in the Rhetoric, lib. ii. cap. viii. p. 560. Aristotle is here only explaining the term

παθος

; not laying down a rule, nor deciding concerning the propriety, or impropriety, of such exhibitions. Nothing is more evidently absurd, than the attempts of Dacier and other French critics to transfer the delicacy of their theatre to that of the antients. The scrupulous delicacy of French Tragedy was, I believe, as unknown to the Athenian stage, as its rigid and strutting dignity. A single passage, and that, from the most polished of the three Greek Tragic Poets whose works are extant, may sufficiently prove this; I mean the description of Oedipus tearing out his own eyes, in Sophocles.

Τοιαυτ᾿ ἐφυμνων, πολλακις τε κοὐχ᾿ ἀπαξ
Ἤρασσ᾿, ἐπαιρων βλέφαρα φοινίαι δ᾿ ὁμοῦ
Γλῆναι γενει᾿ ἐτεγγον· οὐδ᾿ ἀνιεσαν
Φονα μύδωσας σταγονας· ἀλλ᾿ ὁμοῦ μελας
Ὄμβρος χαλάζης αιματος ἐτεγγετο.

Oed. Tyr. v. 1284. ¹⁷⁶

"Thus oft exclaiming, he his eyelids raised,
And rent the orbs of sight; the bleeding balls
Imbath'd his cheeks, nor ceased the gushing drops,
But rain'd a shower of black and streaming gore."

Potter's Translation. But Sophocles did not confine himself to description. Oedipus himself immediately appears upon the stage, and exhibits the shocking spectacle of his bloody eyes to the audience. Certainly, the French rule,

"de ne pas ensanglanter le Theatre,"

was not much more strictly observed here by Sophocles, than it was by Shakspeare in his LEAR, where Gloster's eyes are trodden out,

ἐν φανερῳ

, upon the stage.

I cannot quit this instance from Sophocles, without diverting the reader, (for I am persuaded it will divert him,) with Pere Brumoy's apology, or, rather, with the joint apology of him, M. Dacier, and Boileau.

"Le grand CORNEILLE et ses successeurs Tragiques, ont crû que ce seroit une chose horrible d'exposer Oedipe aveugle et sanglant aux yeux des spectateurs. M. Dacier leur repond trés-bien par ces vers de DESPREAUX, Art Poet. chant ii."

Theatre des Grecs, i. 345.

"Il n'est point de serpent, ni de monstre odieux,
Qui par l'art imité ne puisse plaire aux yeux.
D'un pinceau delicat l'artifice agréable
Du plus affreux objet fait un objet AIMABLE!
Ainsi pour nous CHARMER, la Tragédie en pleurs
D'Oedipe tout sanglant fit parler les douleurs."

Boileau, Art Poet. This is pushing Aristotle's principle, of the pleasure we receive from the imitation even of disagreeable objects, rather farther than, I believe, he thought of.¹⁷⁷ A critic of much more taste and much less prejudice, speaking of the Philoctetes of Sophocles, has observed,

"that the antients thought bodily pains and wounds, &c. (

περιωδυνίαι και τρωσεις

) proper objects to be repre- sented on the stage. See also the Trachiniæ of Sophocles, and the lamentations of Hercules in it."

Dr. Warton's Essay on Pope, vol. i. 73, Note. ¹⁷⁸ Hippolytus, after having been dragged over the rocks, and almost torn to pieces, by his fiery coursers, appears upon the stage with his mangled and bleeding limbs.¹⁷⁹—But, according to Boileau, Dacier, &c. these are all "objets aimables."

88. mvp-aristotle-comment-88

NOTE 88. P. 86.

12.3 THE COMMOI ARE FOUND IN SOME ONLY.

The Greek says

ἴδια δε, τα ἀπο σκηνης ΚΑΙ κομμοι

. Here, the

κομμος

, and the

τα ἀπο σκηνης

, are represented as distinct things. But in the definition afterwards,

Κομμος

appears to be the name given to the joint lamentation of the chorus and the actors.

Κομμος δε, θρηνος κοινος χορου και ἀπο σκηνης

. Victorius states this difficulty, but without giving any satisfactory solution. And indeed I see no way of reconciling these passages, unless we suppose Aristotle to have expressed himself very loosely and inaccurately, and to have meant, that

κομμος

was the name appropriated to that part of the

Χορικον

which joined or alternated with one or more of the —

ἀπο σκηνης

— i. e. the actors; so that by,

Κομμος δε, θρηνοι κοινά χορου και ἀπο σκηνης

, we are to understand only, that

Κομμος

was that

θρηνος

or lamentation of the chorus, in which the actors, alternately, took part; as if the Greek had been thus : —

θρηνοι χορου ῾ΟΥ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΟΥΣΙΝ οἱ ἀπο σκηνης

. And so,

τα ἀπο σκηνης ΚΑΙ κομμοι

would only mean, the

κομμοι

of the chorus with the

ἀπο σκηνης

— that is, mixed with the lamentation of the actors, or persons of the drama.

But it seems more for the credit of our philosophical critic, to give up the first of these passages as corrupt, and to adhere to the plain sense of the definition. I have, therefore, taken no notice of the words,

τα ἀπο σκηνης

, in my version. Nothing is lost by the suppression. The sense of the word

κομμος

is left, like that of the other terms, to be fixed by its definition.

89. mvp-aristotle-comment-89

NOTE 89.

12.5 P. 86. BETWEEN ENTIRE CHORAL ODES.

I confess myself not satisfied as to the meaning of this expression,

ΟΛΩΝ χορικων μελων

. I have therefore adhered to the fair and literal translation of the words. But what is an entire choral ode or song? Is it that, which is in the regular lyric form, in strophe and antistrophe? So it seems most natural to understand it. But a difficulty meets us. For when the

Παροδος

, as it often, and indeed almost always, happens, is not such a regular Antistrophic Ode¹⁸⁰, what name is to be given to that part of the Tragedy, which lies between the

παροδος

and the first Antistrophic Ode? It cannot make a part of the

Προλογος

, for that ends with the

Παροδῳ

. The Exode is out of the question. There remains only the Episode; and to that it cannot belong, consist- ent with Aristotle's definition of

Επεισοδιον

, because it will not be, according to this sense of

ὅλων

, "between entire choral Odes." If we take entire to mean, all choral, i. e. not broken and interrupted by the

ἀπο σκηνης

, or the persons of the drama, we shall still be embarrassed with the same difficulty: for, whenever the

παροδος

is not, in this sense, entire, which is frequently the case, the part between that and the first entire Ode, will be without a name.

Shall we, then, with some commentators, suppose Aristotle by

ὅλων χορικων μέλων

, to have meant only,

ὅλου χορου μελων

— i. e. melodies sung by the whole chorus?¹⁸¹ This removes the difficulty. Yet I can hardly conceive, that he would have expressed himself in a manner so wantonly ambiguous, when the clear and decisive expression —

ὅλου χορου

, which he presently after uses, was so obvious.¹⁸²

From an accurate and philosophical writer, one would naturally expect a chapter of definitions to be clear. But whoever expects it here will certainly be disappointed. Almost every definition, to be perfectly intelligible, wants other definitions, which are not given, and which the obscure and imperfect information to be found in other antient authors will not enable us to supply.

90. mvp-aristotle-comment-90

NOTE 90. P. 86.

12.7 THE PARODE IS THE FIRST SPEECH OF THE WHOLE CHORUS.

Παροδος μεν πρωτη ΛΕΞΙΣ ὁλου χορου.

—Though

λεξις

, in its proper signification, is mere speech, yet it appears to have been occasionally extended to such melody as imitated speech, and to have answered nearly to the modern term, recitative. [See , and particularly the passage from Plutarch at the end of it.] And such, I have no doubt, is the sense in which it is here used, to distinguish the melody of the Parodos from that of the regular choral odes; which I suppose to have been a more varied, measured, and, as we may, not improperly, term it, a more musical melody. For want of understanding this distinction, the commentators have made strange confusion, by taking

λεξις

, either in its literal sense of mere speaking, or in a sense absolutely synonymous with

μελος

, as Dacier does. ¹⁸³ But it is hardly to be imagined, that Aristotle would use the word

λεξις

without any reason; and, that the

Παροδος

could not be mere speech, or declamation, such as that of our stage, seems evident enough from the expression,

λεξις ὉΛΟΥ χορου

. A number may sing together, in a kind of measured recitative, or simple chanting; but they cannot well speak together, without intolerable confusion. This would be that very

χορος διαλεκτικος

, which Demetrius mentions as a thing absurd and unheard of¹⁸⁴.

There is a singular passage in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, which affords, I think, a strong confirmation, both of the sense which I have here given to the word

λεξις

, and of the propriety of its application in that sense to the choral

Παροδος

. In the 11th section of his treatise De Struct. Orat. in order to shew, how little prosody was regarded by the composers of the Tragic melodies, he criticises the melody of the following lines from the Orestes of Euripides:

Σίγα, σιγα, λευκον ίχνος ἀρβυλης
Τιθείτε, μη κτυπειτε
Αποπροβατ᾿ ἐκεισ᾿, ἀποπροθι κοιτας.

v. 140. Now it is remarkable, 1. that he calls this,

ΜΕΛΟΣ

, and yet represents it as said by Electra:

Ευριπίδου ΜΕΛΟΣ, ὁ πεποιηκε την Ηλεκτραν ΛΕΓΟΥΣΑΝ προς τον χορον.

—2. That the melody, to which these words were set, was the simplest possible; a kind of chanting recitative. The three first words, for instance, were set to one note.

Σίγα, σίγα, λευκον

—and in other words too, the same tone, as this author clearly informs us, was frequently repeated¹⁸⁵. This may be regarded as somewhat of a musical curiosity. For it is an authentic, though indeed a very scanty and imperfect specimen, of one part of the dramatic choral music of the Greeks.

3dly, This very melody was probably that of the

Παροδος

of this Tragedy. Dionysius, indeed, gives these words to Electra; but in all the editions of Euripides which I have seen, the two first lines are given to the chorus; with more propriety, I think, if we attend to what goes before. Electra had just said to the chorus, on their coming in while Orestes was sleeping;

Ω φίλταται γυναικες, ἡσυχῳ ποδι
Χωρείτε, μη ψοφιτε, μηδ' ἔσω κτυπα

v. 134. The words, therefore, which Dionysius, quoting probably by memory, attributes to Electra, would seem to come more naturally from the mouths of the choral virgins, repeating to each other the caution she had given them. But whether this be so or not, yet, that this was the first entry of the chorus upon the stage, is clear from the preceding speech of Electra: and the Lyric part, which follows that speech, if it does not begin with, probably contains, at least, the

πρωτην λεξιν ὁλου χορου

; being all in the regular choral form of Strophe and Antistrophe, and, in all probability, set throughout to melody of the same kind.

Perhaps the whole chorus might not begin to sing, till the third Strophe,

Ποτνια, ποτνια νυξ.

—If, as Victorius contends, this be not the Parodos, it cannot begin before, v. 316.

Αἰ, αἰ, Δρομαδες ὡς—κ. τ. αλ.

But, the very application of the word

παροδος

, which properly signifies the entry, or arrival of the chorus, to the

πρωτη λεξις

, or first speech of the whole chorus, shews, I think, sufficiently, the close connection of the two things¹⁸⁶; and that we are never to look for that first speech, at such a distance from the first entrance of the chorus.

But, it may, perhaps, be objected to the distinction I understand here between

λεξις

and

μελος

, that it will expose us to the very difficulty mentioned in the last Note: it will make Aristotle's enumeration of the parts into which Tragedy is divided, incomplete; because, if we admit it, the part between the

Παροδος

and the first

Στασιμον

or regular Ode, will want a name. For, if any thing, it must be

Επεισοδιον

; but this, it may be said, it cannot be, because it will not be, according to Aristotle's definition,

μεταξυ χορικων ΜΕΛΩΝ

; the Parode being not

μελος

, but

λεξις

.—It seems a sufficient answer to this objection, to observe, that

λεξις

, here, is not opposed to

μελος

in general, but only to a particular species of

μελος

. Strictly speaking, the simplest chant, or even such recitative, as approaches the nearest to common speech, is yet as much

μελος

, melody, music, as the most refined Opera song. It is called

λεξις

, only comparatively. Nay, the word

μελος

is sometimes, in a wider sense, applied even to speech itself. And so, above, we have

λεκτικη ἉΡΜΟΝΙΑ

. ¹⁸⁷ Aristotle, therefore, in the expression

χορικων ΜΕΛΩΝ

, may be supposed, without any inconsistence, to include, what, afterwards, in the particular definition of

παροδος

, where distinction was necessary, he denominates

λεξις

It must be owned, that Aristotle's parsimonious brevity has left some confusion in this subject; but, in the illustrations of his commentators, it is "confusion worse confounded." And this has arisen from their applying to the Greek drama, without the slightest foundation, the Roman division into five acts. It is now, I believe, pretty well understood, that such an idea is totally inapplicable to the Greek Tragedy¹⁸⁸. If we must talk of acts, it would be more proper to say they had three; forming our division upon the three parts, which, according to Aristotle, were essential to every drama, the

Προλογος

, the

Επεισόδιον

, and the

Εξοδος

; not upon the number of choral odes, which is different in different dramas. In the Trachiniæ, for example, there are not fewer than six choral odes. If these are to determine the number of acts, as Dacier contends, this Tragedy will consist of seven. Brumoy, to divide this piece into five acts, is reduced to admit an entire ode in the middle of his first act; so that the Episode, which Aristotle defines to be that part which is

μεταξυ ὁλων χορικων μελων

, begins in the

Προλογος

, and before the

Παροδος

, which, according to Brumoy, must be the second ode. Another ode he is obliged to admit in the middle of his last act; contrary to Aristotle's definition of

Εξοδος

.—Dacier makes the prologue of the Oedipus Coloneus consist of 700 verses¹⁸⁹. Nothing can be more improbable, or more inconsistent with Aristotle's idea of its purpose. [See .] But he was forced into this absurdity, only by the supposed necessity of reducing the intervals between the odes to three, and, consequently, the acts, (adding the prologue and exode,) to five. For if the true parode be at v. 118, (

Ὁρα τις ἀρ ἦν; κ. τ. αλ.

) as I doubt not it is, there will then be four such intervals, and, consequently, six acts. He repeats the same mistakes in dividing the Phœnissæ, in which there are five regular odes, as in many other of the Greek Tragedies. In the Oedipus Tyrannus he makes the ode,

Εἰπερ ἐγω μαντις εἰμι

, (v. 1096,) come in the middle of an act¹⁹⁰; and then, because he chose to place it so, is forced to deny that it was sung, though it is in the most regular Lyric form.

The expression,

ΠΡΩΤΗ λεξις ὁλου χορου

, seems to imply, that other choral parts, beside the Parode, were also

λεξις

; i. e. were sung by the whole chorus in the same sort of chanting and simple melody. But who will undertake to distinguish these parts, and to tell us, exactly, what was Air, and what Recitative? what was sung by the whole choir, and what was,

à voce sola

?¹⁹¹—I will not bewilder my reader and myself in a labyrinth without a clue.

The scholiast upon the Phœnissæ (v. 212.) says, that the

Παροδος

was sung by the chorus, "as they entered upon the stage." —

Παροδος δε, ἐστιν ᾠδη χορου βαδίζοντος, ἀδομενη ἅμα τῇ εισοδῳ, ὡς το—Σιγα, σίγα

, &c. And, indeed, in the example he here gives from the Orestes, the entrance of the choral troop is clearly marked by what precedes. Electra says—

Αἰδ᾿ οὖν ΠΑΡΕΙΣΙ τοις ἐμοις θρηνημασι
Φίλαι συνῳδοι.

v. 132. And this is frequently the case. Thus, in the Phœnissæ, that the

Τύριον οἶδμα λιπουσ'

—v. 212, (not,

Καδμεα ἔμολε

—v. 651, as Dacier makes it,) is the true Parode, as, indeed, it is expressly called by the author of the Greek argument prefixed to the Persæ of Æschylus, is confirmed by this passage, announcing the entry of the choral virgins, in the preceding Iambics, where the old attendant desires Antigone to retire:

ὄχλος γαρ, ὡς ταραγμος εισῆλθεν πόλιν,
ΧΩΡΕΙ [is coming] γυναικων προς δομους τυραννικους.

v. 206. Thus too, in the Oedipus Coloneus, the first appearance of the chorus is thus announced by Antigone:

Σίγα· ΠΟΡΕΥΟΝΤΑΙ γαρ ΩΔΕ δη τινες
Χρονῳ παλαιοι

v. 111. And the

Παροδος

immediately follows, v. 117. In the Iphigenia in Tauris, the arrival of the choral women is marked by themselves:

ΧΟ. —ΕΜΟΛΟΝ τι νεον ; &c.

v. 137. See also, v. 65.

Ουπω----παρεισιν

The Parode is not less distinctly marked in the Medea, v. 131.

Χο. Ἔκλυον φωναν κ. τ. ἀλ.

in the Heraclidæ, where the chorus is called in by Iolaus, v. 69:—in the Helena, v. 179:—in the Hercules, v. 107, &c.

When the attendant spirit, in Comus, "opens the business of the drama to a solitary forest, without an audience," he does no more than Venus¹⁹², and the ghost of Polydorus¹⁹³, and Iphigenia¹⁹⁴, and many others, in the Tragedies of Euripides, had done before him. The learned and ingenious editor of Milton's Occasional Poems says, that, "in a Greek Tragedy, this objection would have been obviated by the chorus, which was always present¹⁹⁵;" but I am afraid the want of "recollection" must be transferred from Milton to himself. There are not, I think, more than three or four Greek Tragedies, in which the chorus is present from the beginning¹⁹⁶.

This

Παροδος

, or entry of the chorus, probably made one of the most splendid and popular parts of the

ΟΨΙΣ

, or shew, of the antient Tragedy. It is mentioned by Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, as a custom of the Megarians, who were a luxurious and ostentatious people, to be at the expence of furnishing purple dresses for the

Παροδος

even of their comic stage¹⁹⁷. It appears, however, from a curious fragment of Menander, to have been a practice, not uncommon with the Greek Managers, to place mutes among their choral singers, in order to complete the visible number requisite:

— ὥσπερ των χορων
Οὐ παντες ἀδουσ᾿, ἀλλ᾿ ἀφωνοι δυο τίνες
ἢ τρεις παρεστηκασι, ΠΑΝΤΩΝ ΕΣΧΑΤΟΙ,
Ἐις τον ἀριθμον —και τοῦθ᾿ ὁμοιως πως ἔχει
Χωραν κατεχομεν, ζωσι δ᾿ οἷς ἔστιν βιος.

Menand. and Philem. Reliq. ed. Clerici, p. 221.

As in a chorus
All do not sing, but, in the hindmost ranks,
Some two or three stand mute to make a number,
So is it here;—we serve to fill a place;
They only live, who have the means of living.

91. mvp-aristotle-comment-91

NOTE 91. P. 86.

12.8 THE STASIMON INCLUDES ALL THOSE CHORAL ODES THAT ARE WITHOUT ANAPÆSTS AND TROCHEES.

Στασιμον δε, μελος χορου το ἀνευ ἀναπαιστου και τροχαιου.

If we are to understand this strictly, as expressing the exclusion of those feet from the regular odes, I cannot perceive it to be true. Dacier, therefore, understands only, that those feet were very rarely used in those Odes, compared with the

Παροδος

, which he calls "premier chant du chœur;" in which, he says, and very truly, that they prevail.

"Ces deux pieds----regnent,"

&c. p. 179. It is possible that Aristotle might mean this; but it is not what he says. He says, "that

μελος

—that lyric part, of the chorus, which is without anapæsts and trochees." I rather think, he means only those Odes, the regular stanzas of which are not broken and interrupted

κατα συστημα

, (according to the metrical language,) like the Parodos, as I take it to be, of the Antigone,—

Ἀκτις ἀελίου

—v. 100—that of the Philoctetes—

Τι χρη

—v. 136, and of the Prometheus of Æschylus. And this, I believe, will, in general, be found true of the regular Odes subsequent to the

Παροδος

. For, in the

Παροδος

itself, the general prevalence of the anapæstic measure must be evident to every one who turns over the Greek Tragedians.

92. mvp-aristotle-comment-92

NOTE 92. P. 86.

12.9 THE COMMOS, &c.

Κομμου Ἡγειτο γυναικων μυρια πληθυς, μετα ΚΟΜΜΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΟΛΟΛΥΓΗΣ

—τουτεστι, γοου και ὀδυρμου. — Suidas. The phrase,

ἀπο σκηνης

, is commonly used by Aristotle to denote the actors, as distinguished from the chorus; because, as Jul. Pollux tells us,

ΣΚΗΝΗ μεν ΥΠΟΚΡΙΤΩΝ ἴδιον, ἡ δε ὀρχηστρα του χορου

¹⁹⁸. Thus, Prob. xlix. of Sect. 19 , speaking of the Dorian and Hypophrygian modes, he says, they were both,

χορω μεν ἀναρμοστα, τοις δε ἀπο σκηνης οἰκειότερα

.—So, Prob. xxx. and Prob. xv.

τα ἀπο σκηνης

, (the dialogue,) is opposed to

τα του χορου

the chorus. I was much surprised, therefore, to find the meaning of this phrase so widely mistaken, in the late Camb. edit. where

ἀπο σκηνης

is thus explained:

"id est, ἀτεχνως—ad choragi munus, non Poetæ, pertinens

¹⁹⁹."

An example of the

Κομμος

, pointed out by Victorius, may be found in the Andromache of Euripides, v. 1197. I know not why some of the commentators confine these joint lamentations of chorus and actors to the Exode, or what they call the last act. They are often, I think, to be found in other parts of the drama;

"dans le cours des actes,"

as Dacier rightly observes. We have an example of this between Tecmessa and the chorus, in the Ajax, v. 901.

Ἰω, μοι μοι—

. Another occurs very early in the Iphigenia in Tauris, v. 143, &c. where Iphigenia, assisted by the choral virgins, her attendants, performs the funereal libation to the manes of her brother, whom she supposes to be dead, and sings a funereal dirge. The chorus, indeed, have so small a part in this lamentation, that it may be thought hardly to answer Aristotle's definition of

θρηνοι κοινοι

&c. But this, in fact, seems no objection, because the lamentation of Iphigenia is broken off abruptly, as Mr. Markland has well observed, at v. 235, by the arrival of the shepherd. I consider it, therefore, only as an unfinished

Κομμος

. But, that it answers to that idea, appears, I think, from the whole cast of it; from the frequent occurrence of the interjections,

φευ, φευ, ἐ, ἐ, αἰ, αἰ οἰ μοι

, &c. and of the very word,

θρηνος

, throughout, and, from the answer of the chorus:

Ω ὁμωαι, δυσθρηνητοις
Ως θρηνοις ἔγκειμαι.

v. 143.

Χορ. —ΑΝΤΙΨΑΛΜΟΥΣ ᾠδας
Ὕμνον τ᾿ Ασιηταν σοι
Βαρβαρον ἰαχαν
Δεσποινα γ᾿ ἐξαυδασω,
Ταν ἐν ΘΡΗΝΟΙΣΙ μουσαν
Νέκυσί μέλεον²⁰⁰.

v. 178.

To thee thy faithful train
The Asiatic hymn will raise,
A doleful, a barbaric strain,
Responsive to thy lays,
And steep in tears the mournful song,
Notes which to the dead belong;
Dismal notes attun'd to woe
By Pluto in the realms below.—

Potter's Eurip. v. 206.

93. mvp-aristotle-comment-93

NOTE 93. P. 87.

13.2 THIS RAISES DISGUST, RATHER THAN TERROR OR COMPASSION.

Literally, "for this is neither terrible, nor piteous, but shocking."

οὐ γαρ φοβερον, οὐδε ἐλεεινον τουτο, ἀλλα μιαρον ἐστιν.

—But we certainly must not understand Aristotle to assert, that no pity is excited by the sufferings of an exemplary character. This would be directly contrary to his own account of pity:

Ἐλεος μεν, περι τον ἀναξιον

²⁰¹. He must mean only, that they are rather shocking, than affecting; as it is well rendered by Piccolomini;

" un così fatto caso non hà, nè del terrible, (per dir così,) nè del compassionevole; ma più tosto hà dell' abominevole, et dello scellerato."

That is, as this clear and exact, though prolix, writer has explained it in his subsequent annotation,

"quello affetto dell' odio et dell' abomitione, sopravanza in modo l'affetto del timore, et quel della compassione, che gli ricuopre, et gli asconde, et supera, in modo che quasi non si fan sentire."

Μιαρον

Shocking, disgusting, &c. because contrary to our established ideas of justice, and to every moral sentiment of our nature. History, indeed, must represent facts as they are; without any regard to the sentiments they may excite²⁰². But the case is far otherwise with the fictions of the Poet. We think he ought not to make such a representation of things. We consider it as discouraging to virtue, as immoral,—even, in some degree, as irreligious. What reader of CLARISSA does not find the pity, the pleasurable pity, at least, which it is the object of such a work to excite, frequently counteracted, and diminished, to say no more, by some indignant feelings of this kind? The story of Sidney Biddulph, though a work of considerable merit in the execution, is liable to the same objection. The mind of a reader is harrassed and revolted throughout by the most improbable and determined perverseness of unfortunate combinations; and shocked, at last, by the wanton production of misery, neither deserved, nor likely.

Οὐ φοβερον, οὐδε ἐλεεινον τουτο, ἀλλα μιαρον.

Fontenelle says, in perfect conformity with Aristotle,

"Plus le heros est aimé, plus il est convenable de le rendre heureux à la fin. Il ne faut point renvoyer le spectateur avec la douleur de plaindre la destinée d'un homme vertueux."

Reflex. sur la Poet. Sect. 52.

To do justice to the author's meaning, two other things should be kept in mind: 1. That, by his

ἐπιεικης

, he here means a character of consummate virtue, whose misfortunes were not drawn upon him by any fault of his own. This is evident from what follows. The sense of the word is sufficiently fixed by its opposite,

ΣΦΟΔΡΑ πονηρον

, as well as by the equivalent expression,

ἀρετῃ ΔΙΑΦΕΡΩΝ και δικαιοσυνη

, in his description of the proper character for Tragedy²⁰³. 2. That he presently afterwards softens a little the rigour of his precept as here delivered, by saying, that the character should be either such as he had prescribed, "or better rather than worse :"

βελτιονος μᾶλλον ἢ χειρονος

94. mvp-aristotle-comment-94

NOTE 94. P. 87.

13.3 FOR IT IS NEITHER GRATIFYING IN A MORAL VIEW, &C.

Οὐτε γαρ ΦΙΛΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΝ

—Without entering into a long discussion of all that has been urged by the commentators in favour of the different senses they have assigned to the word

φιλανθρωπον

here, I shall only say, that, upon the most attentive comparison of this passage with another, in cap. xviii. where the term again occurs, it appears to me, that the full meaning of it is, gratifying to philanthropy; pleasing by its conformity to our natural sense of justice, by its moral tendency . Indeed this seems to follow from the word

μιαρον

, to which

φιλανθρωπον

is opposed. The representation of a good man (

ἐπιεικης

) made miserable is

μιαρον

—disgusting, shocking . Why? Plainly, on account of its evident injustice, and immoral tendency. The representation of a very bad man (

σφοδρα πονηρος

) punished by calamity, is

φιλανθρωπον

; —that is, pleasing to the spectator, on the same principle, from its opposite tendency.

A singular, but somewhat similar, use is made of the same word in Plutarch's dialogue περι Μεσικης ; where, speaking of the wicked innovations of the more modern musicians, Timotheus, Philoxenus, &c. he says of them

φιλοκαινοι γεγονασι, τον ΦΙΛΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΝ και θεματικον ΝΥΝ ΟΝΟΜΑΖΟΜΕΝΟΝ διωξαντες

. M. Burette's note upon this is perfectly unsatisfactory. I believe we should read—

ΤΟ φιλανθρωπον και ΘΕΑΤΡΙΚΟΝ κ. τ. αλ.

—i. e. "being lovers of novelty, they affect what is now termed the pleasing and theatrical style". The Theatre, we know, was considered by the purists of that time, as the great source of corruption in Music. The reader may see how Plutarch rails, on this subject, p. 2081, and 2089 ; where he laments—

παντας τες μεσικης άπτομενες προς την ΘΕΑΤΡΙΚΗΝ προσκεχωρηκεναι μεσαν

. It appears, from his expression,

ΝΥΝ ὀνομαζομενον

, that this was a new and fashionable use of the word

φιλανθρωπον

; which, from the sense of pleasing to natural benevolence, (as in the passage of Aristotle,) seems to have been extended to signify, what was pleasing, and grateful, to the popular taste, in general ; in opposition to those more chaste and severe productions of the artist, which aimed only at the gratification of the critical, and the learned. And, indeed, no sort of philanthropy is more common, in all times, and in every art, than that of accommodation to the public taste. ²⁰⁴

95. mvp-aristotle-comment-95

NOTE 95. P. 87.

13.4 OUR TERROR, BY SOME RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN THE SUFFERER AND OURSELVES.

Thus, in the Rhetoric, it is recommended to the Orator, as one method of exciting terror in his hearers,

τες ΟΜΟΙΟΥΣ δεικνυναι πασχοντας, ἢ πεπονθότας

²⁰⁵. Aristotle's doctrine concerning the importance of this resemblance to ourselves in the object of the passion to be excited, and the extent he gives to the word

ὁμοιος

, may be seen in the passages of his Rhetoric referred to in the margin²⁰⁶. The resemblance, however, here particularly meant, is undoubtedly resemblance of character. This is well explained by M. Batteux in few words:

"Un crime atroce, un horreur de scelerat, revolte le spectateur, et par cette revolte même, le rassure contre la crainte; parcequ'il se sent aussi eloigné du malheur, qu'il l'est du crime."

Quatre Poetiques, tom. i. p. 307. Or, as it is more fully developed by Piccolomini,

"Riputando, per il più, gl' uomini se stessi buoni, o almeno non cattivi, ed in somma, non degni di male; e, per conseguente, dissimili à quelle persone inique, in cui veggon' il male, et in questo differenti da esse, che elle lo meritano, ed essi non lo meritano: non vengon' à dubitar di cadere in tai mali, et, conseguentemente, non ne nasce timore in loro."

p. 194.

96. mvp-aristotle-comment-96

NOTE 96. P. 87.

13.5 NOR YET INVOLVED IN MISFORTUNE BY DELIBERATE VICE, OR VILLAINY; BUT BY SOME ERROR OF HUMAN FRAILTY.

Μητε δια κακιαν και μοχθηρίαν μεταβαλλων εις την δυστυχιαν, άλλα δι' ἁμαρτίαν τινα

— Thus, in the Ethic. Nicom. V. 10. p. 69. he uses

μοχθηρια

, and

κακια

, as synonymous: and, VII. 9 ; where he says of

μοχθηρια

, that it is

ΣΥΝΕΧΗΣ πονηρια

—a vitious character, disposition, habit, &c. It also implies deliberate choice and intention, (

— όταν δε ἐκ προαιρέσεως, μοχθηρία

, V. 8. ) in opposition to

ἁμαρτια

, which excludes

προαιρεσις

, and is

ἄνευ ΚΑΚΙΑΣ

To understand rightly what the philosopher says in this part of his work on Poetry, and especially his application of his doctrine to such characters as Oedipus and Thyestes, we ought carefully to take his own sense of his own words. For want of this, Dacier²⁰⁷ confounds himself and his readers in his note about Thyestes. He mistakes Aristotle's sense of

ἁμαρτια

. Dacier's "involontaire" includes both

ἀκουσιον

, and

ἀπροβουλευτον

, which Aristotle dis- tinguishes; his

ἁμαρτηματα

being not involuntary, but only, not

ἐκ προαιρέσεως

. See the whole cap. x, of lib. 5 , as above. One passage, in cap. ix. of lib. 7 , will particularly illustrate Aristotle's examples.

O ΑΚΡΑΤΕΙΣ

(such were Oedipus and Thyestes, men of ungovernable passion,)

ΑΔΙΚΟΙ μεν οὐκ εἰσι

, (i. e. are not unjust men—not

κακοι, μοχθηροι

, of bad dispositions, &c.)

ΑΔΙΚΟΥΣΙ δε

yet they commit transient and occasional wrong,

δια παθους

, as he says elsewhere²⁰⁸. The objections made by Corneille, Fontenelle, and other critics, to such subjects as that of the Oedipus, which they hold to be improper for Tragedy on account of the supposed fatality of the crimes committed, are well and solidly answered in an excellent note of the Abbé Batteux upon this passage.

97. mvp-aristotle-comment-97

NOTE 97. P. 88.

13.10 UPON THE STAGE AND IN THE DRAMATIC CONTESTS. —

Ἐπι των σκηνων και των ἀγωνων

i. e. merely, in the representation. There seems to be no more foundation for the distinction which Dacier here supposes, between

σκηνη

, and

ἀγων

, than for the same distinction between

ἀγων

, and

ὑποκριται

, in the similar expression,

ἀγωνος και ὑποκριτων

, in cap. vi.

98. mvp-aristotle-comment-98

NOTE 98. P. 88.

13.10 EURIPIDES THE MOST TRAGIC OF ALL POETS.

More, however, it has been observed, with respect to the emotion of pity, than that of terror. And so, Quintilian.

"In affec- tibus cum omnibus mirus, tum in iis qui MISERATIONE CONSTANT, facile præcipuus."

[lib. x. c. 1.] Yet the powers of this admirable, though unequal, genius, were by no means confined to emotions of tenderness and pity. He, too, as one of "Nature's darlings," possessed that "golden key," which can not only "ope the sacred source of sympathetic tears," but can "unlock" also, and at the same time, the "gates of horror," and of "thrilling fears".

As proofs of this, I am tempted to produce two passages of this Poet, which I could never read without shuddering. In that scene between Medea and Jason, in which, previous to the execution of her horrid vengeance, she deludes him with feigned reconciliation and submission, when Jason, addressing the children, says,

Ιδοιμι δ᾿ ὑμας εὐτραφεις ἡβης τελος
Μολοντας, ἐχθρων των ἐμων ὑπερτερος.

v. 930.

"O may I see you blooming in the prime
"Of manhood, and to every virtue train'd,
"Superior to my foes!"

Mr. Potter's Transl. v. 989. —Medea turns away her face and weeps and when Jason asks the reason of her tears, she answers,

Οὐδεν—τεκνων τωνδ᾿ ἐννουμενη περι.

"Nothing: I was but thinking of my sons." "And why," says Jason again, "lament thus over these children?" —Medea, then, knowing, but veiling in ambiguity, her dreadful purpose of destroying them, replies,

Ἐτικτον αυτους —ΖΗΝ Δ᾿ ΟΤ᾿ ΕΞΗΥΧΟΥ ΤΕΚΝΑ, ΕΙΣΗΛΘΕ Μ᾿ ΟΙΚΤΟΣ, ΕΙ ΓΕΝΗΣΕΤΑΙ ΤΑΔΕ!

Potter's Eurip. v. 1000.

"I am their mother:—when thy wish was breath'd
"That they might live, a piteous thought arose,
"If that might be!"

The other passage is in the Electra. In the fine scene between Orestes and Electra, immediately after the murder of their mother, Orestes asks his sister,

Κατείδες οἷον ἁ ταλαιν᾿ ἑων πεπλων
Ἔβαλεν, ἔδειξε, μαζον ἐν φοναις;

v. 1206.

Mark'd you not, how my mother, e'er I struck her,
Withdrew her robe, and to our view expos'd
The breast that nourish'd us!

I know not what more can be said to the praise of Euripides, than, that no one, I believe, can read this scene without being reminded of the MACBETH OF SHAKSPEARE.

99. mvp-aristotle-comment-99

NOTE 99. P. 88.

13.11 THAT WHICH IS OF A DOUBLE CONSTRUCTION, AND ALSO ENDS IN TWO OPPOSITE EVENTS TO THE GOOD, AND TO THE BAD, CHARACTERS.

ΣΥΣΤΑΣΙΣ, ἡ --ΣΥΣΤΑΣΙΝ ἐχουσα

. . . . That construction "which has a double construction." Can this be as the author left it? I cannot but suspect the first

συστασις

to be an interpolation. Without it, all will go on well. —

Ἡ μεν οὖν—καλλιστη Τραγῳδια ἐκ ταυτης της συστάσεως ἐστι. Δευτερα δε, [sc. Τραγῳδια,] ἡ πρωτη λεγομενη ὑπο τινων ἐστι· ἡ διπλην τε την συστασιν ἐχουσα, και τελευτωσα

&c. The particle,

, here, is neglected by most of the commentators and translators, who, accordingly, of two distinct things make one only; understanding Aristotle, by his

διπλη συστασις

, to mean only a fable that has a double catastrophe, ending oppositely to opposite characters. But the expression is, "that has both a double construction, and a double catastrophe."

διπλην ΤΕ την συστασιν. ΚΑΙ τελευτωσα κ. τ. αλ.

We must not, however, confound this double construction with duplicity of action, and what we call double plots. I believe Castelvetro, who did not let the

escape him, has explained it rightly.

"Dice, che questa constitutione di favola è doppia, percioche ha due maniere di persone, l'una di buone, o di mezzane, et l'altra di scelerate."

(p. 293.) An explanation that will come still better recommended to the reader by the coincident opinion of the learned and accurate author of Critical Observations on Books, antient and modern ; who has given the following explanatory version of this passage²⁰⁹:

"That constitution of an Epic tale, which is reckoned the first by some, is in reality but the second in point of excellence, namely, that which, like the Odyssey, has a double set of characters, one virtuous, and one vitious, and wherein the action also ends contrarywise to the virtuous and vitious agents, so that the former terminate in prosperity, and the latter in adversity."

— These two things, though closely connected, are evidently distinct. There may be a double set of characters, where yet there is no contrariety of catastrophe, but all ends well to all. Such a fable, as Aristotle describes, though a very different thing from our plot and under-plot, yet, as it consists of opposite characters, opposite interests, and opposite events, may well enough be considered as of a double construction —

διπλης συστασεως

. Unity of action, indeed, upon Aristotle's principles, was essential both to the single and to the double fable; yet that unity admits of degrees, and the double fable was less strictly one action than the single. The single fable might be compared to a single stream: the plot and under-plot, to two separate, though contiguous, and now and then intermingling, streams: Aristotle's fable of double construction, to two opposite collateral currents, (if such a thing may be imagined,) in the same channel.

100. mvp-aristotle-comment-100

NOTE 100. P. 89.

13.13 THIS KIND OF PLEASURE IS NOT THE PROPER PLEASURE OF TRAGEDY, BUT BELONGS RATHER TO COMEDY, &C.

What is the proper pleasure to be expected from Tragedy, we have already been told, and we are told again, more plainly, if possible, in the next chapter. It is—

ἡ ἀπο ἐλεου και φοβου ἩΔΟΝΗ

: "the pleasure that arises from pity and terror". The double fable Aristotle seems to have considered as not giving this pleasure, or at least, as giving it weakly and imperfectly, because all the unhappiness of the catastrophe falls on the odious characters, the

σφοδρα πονηρος

. In the room of this pleasure, which Tragedy ought to give, the double fable substitutes that of a satisfactory conclusion; a catastrophe accommodated to the wishes of the spectator. But this, says Aristotle, is a pleasure that rather belongs to Comedy than to Tragedy:

ΜΑΛΛΟΝ της κωμῳδιας οἰκεια

. For he is not here rejecting this double plan, but only shewing why it is not, as some held it to be, the best,

πρωτη

. Such Tragedies, he says, afford a pleasure of the same kind, at least, with that which Comedy affords; though Comedy indeed goes farther; for there, all must end well; enemies, as inveterate as Orestes and Ægisthus, must shake hands at last, and the spectator must be dismissed with no impression upon his mind, but that of pure and unmixed pleasure.

If we understand the passage in this way, it will not, I think, be necessary to suppose, what, I own, I was once much inclined to suppose with Heinsius , that the text is defective; and that, after the word

θεώταις

, Aristotle had, originally, mentioned the third and worst kind of fable, terminating in a happy event to all the characters; to which, and not to the second species, what follows about Comedy was meant to be applied . Very specious reasons might certainly be produced in support of such a conjecture, if it were necessary. But we have no encouragement from MSS. to suspect any omission, and the passage, as here explained, seems to have little, or no, difficulty. The chief objection is, that what is here said of Comedy is not applicable to the double Tragic fable, in which there is no reconciliation of enemies, &c. But it was not, I think, intended to be so closely applicable. All that Aristotle meant must have been, to shew, that the pleasure arising from his second species of fable, differed only in degree from that of Comedy; that the circumstance of ending satisfactorily was common to both ²¹⁰.

Chaucer's Monk had the true Aristotelic idea of Tragedy:

Canterbury tales, v. 13979. Mr. Tyrwhitt's ed.

Tragedie is to sayn a certain storie,
As olde bookes maken us memorie,
Of him that stood in gret prosperitee,
And is yfallen out of high degree
In to miserie, and endeth wretchedly.

But the knight, and the host, were among the

θεαται ΑΣΘΕΝΕΙΣ

Ho! quod the knight, good sire, no more of this:
That ye han said is right ynough ywis,
And mochel more; for litel hevinesse
Is right ynough to mochel folk, I gesse.
I say for me, it is a gret disese, [uneasiness]
Wher as men have ben in gret welth and ese,
To heren of hir sodein fall, alas!
And the contrary is joye and gret solas,
As whan a man hath ben in poure estat,
And climbeth up, and wexeth fortunat,
And ther abideth in prosperitee:
Swiche thing is gladsom, as it thinketh me,
And of swiche thing were goodly for to telle.

v. 14773, &c.

101. mvp-aristotle-comment-101

NOTE 101. P. 89.

14.4 WHO MAKE USE OF THE DECORATION TO PRODUCE, NOT THE TERRIBLE, BUT THE MARVELLOUS ONLY-.

One would think, that commentators on Aristotle might find enough in this work to satisfy the keenest appetite for difficulties, without any assistance from their own invention. Yet here, they have contrived to perplex one of the plainest passages that can be found. Nothing can well be clearer than Aristotle's expression:

—οἱ δε ΜΗ ΤΟ ΦΟΒΕΡΟΝ, δια της όψεως, άλλα ΤΟ ΤΕΡΑΤΩΔΕΣ ΜΟΝΟΝ, παρασκευαζοντες

. — He is not, as some critics have supposed, examining here three different ways of raising terror, but two only; by the plot itself, which he justly pronounces to be the best way, and by the

ὄψις

, the spectacle, scenes, dresses, &c. As for those Poets, he continues, who make use of the

ὄψις

, for the purpose of exciting, not terror, but wonder only, they are out of the question; this "has nothing to do with Tragedy," &c. If Aristotle, by

τερατωδες

, had meant only, as has been understood, a monstrous degree of the terrible "mostruoso, soprano spavento," as Castelvetro calls it, he surely would not have used so strong an expression as—

ΟΥΔΕΝ τῇ Τραγῳδίᾳ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΟΥΣΙΝ

. He does not here exclude even the

τερατωδες

, absolutely, and in general; but the mere

τερατωδες

;

τερατωδες ΜΟΝΟΝ

—"only the wonderful;" and that,

δια της όψεως

. The marvellous and supernatural, may, we know, in the hands of a Poet of genius, be made a powerful instrument of Tragic terror. Aristotle would hardly, I imagine, have censured a drama like that of Macbeth, as having "nothing in common with Tragedy".

The difficulty, indeed, of managing the visible

τερατωδες

, so as to produce any serious effect, is sufficiently great. We have, I think, but one dramatic Poet who could walk, though others may have dared to walk, "within that circle". The decoration of the Eumenides of Æschylus, and his chorus of fifty furies, with their

μυγμοι

, and their

ὠγμοι

, their snorings, their screams, and their torches, may very well be conceived to have put women and children in a real fright; but whether it produced any sympathetic, illusive, and pleasurable, terror—the only terror in question—I should much doubt. Yet Dacier, very gravely, produces this story of children fainting away, and women miscarrying, with the fright, as an example of Tragic terror excited by the

ὄψις

. According to Dacier's account, the allegorical personage of

Λυσσα

, or Madness, in the Hercules Furens of Euripides, appears in her aerial car, "with a hundred heads, round which hiss a thousand serpents". It is rather difficult to conceive how this could have been managed. These hundred heads, in the passage of the chorus alluded to, v. 884, certainly belong to the serpents, not to

Λυσσα

herself; and the emendation of Reiske seems probable; —

ἑκατογκεφαλοις ὄφεων ἰαχημασι

. "centicipitibus serpentum sibilis". Even so, I can scarce imagine an Athenian audience to have received this exhibition with countenances perfectly Tragic. The arrival of old OCEAN mounted upon his Griffin, in the Prometheus of Æschylus, must, one would suppose, have had as ridiculous an effect, as I remember the entrance of the Minotaur to have had upon the audience, some years ago, in the opera of Teseo.

If such a dramatic entertainment as our Pantomime had existed in the days of Aristotle, he would probably have represented the Tragic Poets, whom he here censures, as encroaching on that province: for, indeed, the

τερατωδες μονον δια της όψεως παρασκευαζομενον

, would accurately enough express the

ἡδονην οἰκειαν

of the pantomime. But, what would the philosopher have said to a species of the drama, of which the

ὄψις

, which he places at the very bottom of his scale [cap. vi.], is the very soul—

ἀρχη και οἷον ψυχη

: and where the

σκεύοποιος

, or the carpenter, takes the lead of the Poet? —To do it justice, however, it has its

Μυθος

, its fable, such as it is, with its beginning, its middle, and its end; though a spectator may be often puzzled to make, as we commonly say, head or tail of its plot. It has also its

δεσεις

and its

λυσεις

, its nœuds and its denouemens, in great abundance; being, indeed, from beginning to end, a continued series of knots, tied by love, and cut by magic. Here are also

περιπετειαι

and

ἀναγνωρισεις

, revolutions, and discove- ries, in plenty; though the chief revolution, indeed, be in the scenery; —

ἡ εἰς το ἐναντιον των ὉΡΩΜΕΝΩΝ μεταβολη

. And with respect to discoveries, the pantomime may be characterized as Aristotle characterizes the Odyssey, —

ἀναγνωρισεις γαρ διολου

— "it abounds throughout with discoveries"; for the poor hero is perpetually discovered, and very seldom

εἰς φιλίαν

. Then there are

Παθη

too, disasters — the

πραξεις ὀδυνηραι

at least, which, to the upper gallery, make the merriest part of the entertainment. An essential character, the clown, is even appropriated to this purpose of suffering, and his clothes well wadded for the reception of blows, kicks, and falls. But Aristotle little foresaw, I suppose, when he wrote his first chapter, that a species of drama without words would one day be invented: still less, probably, could he have imagined, what to the antients would have appeared the strangest part of this business, that, though accompanied throughout by MUSIC, yet it would not imitate "by gesticulated rhythm" —

δια σχηματιζομενων ΡΥΘΜΩΝ

; the gestures of the actors in pantomime, being not at all regulated by the measures of the music, or only occasionally, and accidentally, according to the ear, and inclination, of the performer.

102. mvp-aristotle-comment-102

NOTE 102. P. 90.

14.6 MOST TERRIBLE, OR PITEOUS

After having established, that the terrible and piteous should arise from the circumstances of the action itself, Aristotle proceeds to examine what are the circumstances that will produce the highest degree of terror and pity, within the proper limits; that is, so as to avoid what he calls the

μιαρον

, the shocking, and disgusting . And this, perhaps, led him here to use the words

δεινα

, and

οικτρα

, as being, if I mistake not, rather stronger than

φοβερα

, and

ελεεινα

. For the subject of this chapter seems, in short, to be, the proper management of the

Παθη

or disastrous incidents:

"Comment,"

as Dacier has rightly observed,

"on doit se conduire dans les actions atroces," p. 236.

Without this leading idea it would be difficult to explain satisfactorily some passages that follow.

103. mvp-aristotle-comment-103

NOTE 103. P. 90.

14.9 BETWEEN FRIENDS. —

Εν ταις φιλιαις.

—For the wide sense in which Aristotle here uses the word

φιλια

, see Ethic. Nicom. VIII. 1, and 7, ed. Ox. 1716 , and the passage quoted in .

104. mvp-aristotle-comment-104

NOTE 104. P. 90.

14.11 BUT IT IS HIS PROVINCE TO INVENT OTHER SUBJECTS, AND TO MAKE A SKILFUL USE OF THOSE WHICH HE FINDS ALREADY ESTABLISHED. —

Αυτον δε ευρισκειν δει, και τοις παραδεδομενοις χρησθαι καλως.

The expression is too short and general to be clear. It is fairly capable of not less than three different meanings.

Ευρισκειν

, may mean, to invent a subject from pure imagination, as Agatho invented his

ΑΝΘΟΣ

²¹¹: or it may mean only, to find out a new historical subject; or, lastly, to invent, not a subject, but only circumstances and incidents, by which the old subjects may be varied; which is Dacier's idea:

"Le Poete doit inventer lui-même, en se servant comme il faut des fables receuës."

I shall only say, that, on the whole, I prefer the second of these explanations. Aristotle, it is true, had allowed, that a Poet ought not to be chained down to the old traditional stories²¹²; and even, that it would be ridiculous (

γελοιον

) to suppose subjects of pure invention absolutely prohibited. But this is delivered as a permission, not as a precept; and he would hardly have enforced a permission by such an expression as he here uses—

ευρισκειν $\Delta$EI$

. Again—

αυτον ΕΥΡΙΣΚΕΙΝ

, (against Dacier's explanation,) seems plainly opposed to

τοις παραδεδομενοις ΧΡΗΣΘΑI

—"to use old subjects properly, and to invent or find out new subjects: not new incidents for an old subject". This may, perhaps, receive some illustration and support from a similar passage in the Rhetoric. In the second chapter of the first book, he divides the proofs of the orator into two kinds—the

ατεχνοι

, and the

εντεχνοι

. The

ατεχνοι

are the external proofs; witnesses, the torture, writings, and all such proofs as are ready provided to the pleader's hand—

οσα μη δι ημων πεπορισται, αλλα προυπηρχεν

. The

εντεχνοι

he defines to be those argumentative proofs which depend on the art and invention of the orator himself. He then concludes—

ωστε δει τουτων, τοις μεν ΧΡΗΣΑΣΘΑΙ, τα δε ΕΥΡΕΙΝ

: — "of these proofs, the first sort we have only to make a proper use of; the other we must invent".

105. mvp-aristotle-comment-105

NOTE 105. P. 91.

14.15 BUT OF ALL THESE WAYS, &C.

All this is not a little embrouillé. Aristotle describes three ways only. Then he says, or seems to say,—"There is no other way:" —

παρα ταυτα ουκ εστιν αλλως

. And to prove this, he enumerates all the ways possible; which, at last, turn out to be four. Hence the text has been supposed defective. Perhaps there is no occasion to suppose this. That, at least, there is no accidental omission of a fourth case, (that of purposing without executing,) seems pretty clear from the expression,

ΕΤΙ δε τριτον παρα ταυτα

: "there is still a third way beside these". It would have been rather strange, if, immediately after this, he had proceeded to mention a fourth way.—Taking then the passage as perfect, we must understand, I think, by

ουκ ΕΣΤΙΝ αλλως

, not—there is no other way possible—but, there is no other proper, admissible way:

non licet aliter

—it must not be done in any other way. For, he proceeds, there are but four ways possible; but of all these, (

τουτων δε

—i. e. these four possible ways,) that of being "ready to execute, knowingly, and yet not executing," is the worst, and not to be enumerated by a critic among those ways which a Poet may be allowed to use. Thus Dacier appears to have understood the passage, by his translation, which, I think, is right, as to the sense. But I thought Aristotle's meaning might be clearly enough expressed without periphrasis, or supplement.

106. mvp-aristotle-comment-106

NOTE 106. P. 92.

14.19 BUT THE BEST OF ALL THESE WAYS IS THE LAST.

In the 13th chapter (Transl. Sect. 12.) Aristotle had pronounced that to be the best constituted Tragedy, which terminates unhappily; and had represented that species, which gratifies, by its catastrophe, the sympathetic wishes of the audience, as inferior, and affording a kind of pleasure rather appropriated to Comedy. Yet here, he appears to give the preference to a plan calculated to afford that very pleasure in the highest degree. This seeming inconsistence has given the commentators much trouble. It is rather surprising, that Dacier should have perceived what had escaped the superior acuteness of the Italian annotators, viz. that Aristotle is not, in this chapter, inquiring what is the best constitution of a Tragic fable in general, but, what is the best method of managing the most disastrous and atrocious incidents of Tragic story, so as to produce the highest possible degree of Tragical emotion in the spectator, without producing horror and disgust.

With this view of the subject, the reader, perhaps, will not see much difficulty in reconciling Aristotle to himself. He might surely say, without inconsistence, "Tragedy, to be perfect, should terminate unhappily. Yet there may be particular exceptions to this general rule. The end of Tragedy is, to excite terror and pity; and that end is most effectually answered, when those emotions are not only excited in the course of the drama, (as they undoubt- edly may be, and to a high degree, even in such pieces as end fortunately,) but are left impressed upon the mind of the spectator by the catastrophe itself. Yet this Tragic terror is not to be pushed to absolute horror, nor the

τραγικον

to be confounded with the

μιαρον

: and I allow, that where the circumstances of the traditional story, from which the Poet takes his plot, are such, as leave him only the alternative, either of disgusting and shocking the spectator, or of gratifying his wishes, the latter is clearly to be preferred; and the

διπλη συστασις

, the double fable, to which I assigned only the second place²¹³, will, in that particular case, deserve the first".

Nothing seems more just, or more accurately expressed, than Aristotle's idea of the end of Tragedy; that it is, "to give that pleasure which arises from pity and terror through imitation:" —

την απο ελεου και φοβου δια μιμησεως ηδονην παρασκευαζειν

cap. xiv. (Transl. P. II. Sect. 13.) . But the Greek Tragedians will be thought, I believe, by most modern readers, to have sometimes pushed this principle rather too far, and to have excited a degree of horror, which even the charms of imitation cannot well be conceived to have softened into pleasurable emotion; and it appears to me, that Aristotle himself inclined to this opinion, and that he intended this chapter as a lesson of caution to the Poets against this excess. He seems plainly to have considered the actual murder of a mother, a son, a brother, and the like, as incidents rather too horrible to be exhibited in any way. If the deed must be done, let it, he says, if possible—if the story will permit it—be done ignorantly. But it will be still better, if you can avoid doing it, entirely; if you can contrive to make the expectation, combined with the atrociousness of the event expected, answer your purpose, by raising as much anxiety, commiseration, and terror in the spectator, as may consist with that pleasure which is the end of Tragedy, and then relieving him at last, by prevention at the very moment of execution.

That Aristotle thought the end of Tragedy might be sufficiently answered by the mere expectation of such events, properly managed, appears from his expression above:—

ει αδελφος αδελφον, η παις πατερα, η μητηρ υιον, η μητερα, αποκτανῃ, Η ΜΕΛΛΗι ταυτα δρᾳν

— "When a brother kills, or is going to kill," &c.. For this purpose, not only the expectation must be such, that the action shall appear imminent and inevitable, but the action itself expected must be such, as, had it taken place, would have been dreadful, "intolerable," &c. —

τι των ΑΝΗΚΕΣΤΩΝ

²¹⁴, as Aristotle expresses himself in describing these prevented

παθη

. By these means, the emotion of terror is brought as near as possible to that which would arise from the actual perpetration²¹⁵.

If the purport of this chapter has been here rightly explained, the reader will see how Aristotle has been misrepresented by many modern critics, who have understood him to recommend the Cresphontes of Euripides as a model of the best possible construction of a Tragic fable in general. Thus Maffei, in the dedication of his Merope:

"Parla di essa Aristotele nella Poetica, dove trattando de' modi di ben comporre la favola, da per esempio dell' ottimo il Cresfonte d'Euripide, in cui l'atrocità veniva dalla ricognizione impedita."

And Voltaire, in his letter to Maffei:

"Aristote, dans sa Poetique immortelle, ne balance pas à dire, que la reconnoissance de Merope et de son fils, etoit le moment le plus interessant de toute la scene Grecque. Il donnoit à ce coup de Theatre la preference sur tous les autres."

107. mvp-aristotle-comment-107

NOTE 107. P. 92.

14.19 MEROPE, &C.

Plutarch's account of the effect of this coup de Theatre upon the audience, is worth transcribing, though apparently incorrect.

Σκοπει δε την εν τῃ Τραγῳδιᾳ ΜΕΡΟΠΗΝ, επι τον υιον αυτον, ως φονεα του υιου, πελεκυν αραμενην, και λεγουσαν—Ὅσιωτεραν δη τηνδ᾿ εγω διδωμι σοι Πληγην—οσον εν τῳ θεατρῳ κινημα ποιει, συνεξορθιαζουσα φοβῳ και δεει μη φθασῃ τον επιλαμβανομενον γεροντα, και τρωσῃ το μειρακιον.

[ Περι Σαρκοφ. p. 1837, ed. H. St. ] For other fragments of this Tragedy, the reader may see the Ox. Euripides.

108. mvp-aristotle-comment-108

NOTE 108. P. 92.

15.2 THE MANNERS SHOULD BE GOOD.

Good, in the usual sense of moral goodness; the only sense which

χρηστα

, applied to manners, will bear, and which, even though the word would admit of other senses, would here be fixed, beyond a doubt, by the plain, unequivocal expression of the whole passage. Dacier admires and follows the nonsense of Le Bossu, who makes

χρηστα ηθη

mean poetically good; that is, well marked by the Poet, in which sense, the rule is equally well observed by Milton in his Satan, and by Richardson in his Grandison. "There are," according to this "best interpreter of Aristotle,"

"deux sortes de bonté dans les mœurs; l'une que l'on peut appeller morale, et qui est propre à la vertu: et l'autre est la poetique, à laquelle les hommes les plus vicieux ont autant de part que les gens de bien."

How could Mr. Harris, with his thorough knowledge of the Greek language, recommend all this, as

"a fine and copious commentary on this part of Aristotle's Poetics?"

[On Music, &c. p. 83, note.] I shall not waste time in confuting, what has been sufficiently confuted long ago²¹⁶. Aristotle says plainly, the

ηθος

will be

χρηστον

, if the

προαιρεσις

χρηστη

, and the contrary: —

φαυλον μεν, [sc. ηθος εξει,] εαν φαυλην [sc. προαιρεσιν ποιῃ φανεραν,] χρηστον δε, εαν χρηστην

. See, now, Dacier's version of this:

"Il y a des mœurs dans un discours, ou dans une action, lorsque l'un et l'autre font connoitre l'inclination ou la resolution telle qu'elle est, mauvaise si elle est mauvaise, bonne si elle est bonne."

The best comment I have seen on this passage is that of Heinsius, (cap. xiv.) which I shall therefore give entire.

"Cæterum, in moribus, quatuor tenenda esse docet Aristoteles; quorum primum est, ut sint boni. Quod est exponendum pluribus. Inter ea quæ quam maximè in Tragœdiâ reprehendebat PLATO, vel præcipuum hoc erat;—quod nimirum varia, non uniformis, sit illius imitatio; et occasione oblatâ, probos juxta improbosque imitetur; nonnunquam autem improbos tantum: quo facillimè animum decipi humanum, qui dum solum respicit decorum, quod propositum est illi, bonorum sæpe, et malorum, discrimen non agnoscit, et, ut ipse Poeta, utrosque mores imitatur; quo nihil magis in republicâ perniciosum excogitari potest . Quippe ratione istâ scholam vitiorum, non virtutum, fieri theatrum; et quidem quanto magis hanc in partem inclinamus omnes. Præterea, interpretes Platonis—alium admitti ab eo negant Poetam, quam qui Actiones imitetur; cætera enim delectare quidem, non autem docere; plerumque vero mores vitiare ac corrumpere, ideoque nocere magis quam prodesse. Huic ut occurreret Philosophus, primum hoc de moribus præceptum esse voluit, probi ut essent; tales enim esse in Tragœdiâ non modo posse, quod negabat Plato, sed et, quantum ratio poematis permitteret, debere . Confirmant hoc exempla tragicorum; qui sine ullâ lege hanc tamen legem sunt secuti. Etiam posteriores critici, qui nonnullas veterum hoc nomine notârunt, quod aut omnes, aut plerasque, pessime moratas haberent personas. Qualis est, ex. grat. Euripidæ Orestes; in quo, præter Pyladen, improbi omnium sunt mores. Neque enim hæc mens Aristotelis, aut non alios quam optimè moratos, esse inducendos, aut, si alii inducantur, quos fuisse improbos constat, probos iis tribuendos esse mores: sed, ut, quantum ratio permittit, plures optime morati in eodem inducantur dramate. Quamvis enim et utrique requiruntur, et tam horum quam illorum ratione constet decorum, probos tanto esse præferendos, quanto plus conducunt cum spectantur."

To do full justice to Aristotle's meaning, it must be observed, 1. That what he says should be understood chiefly, though by no means solely, as some have explained it, of the principal characters. 2. That the word

Χρηστος

does not imply a character of high and exemplary virtue. It seems to answer to our popular expression, a good sort of man; and it excludes absolutely, only habitual vice, bad disposition,

πονηρια, ΜΟΧΘΗΡΙA

, as it is expressed in a passage that should be compared with this . 3. That the rule, even with respect to such characters, is not absolute; as is evident from Aristotle's expression, when he gives an example of the violation of it,

παραδειγμα πονηριας ΜΗ ΑΝΑΓΚΑΙΟΝ

: and, again, in cap. xxv.

οταν ΜΗ ΑΝΑΓΚΗΣ ΟΥΣΗΣ, κ. τ. αλ.

. 4. That what he presently adds,

εστι δε εν εκαστῳ γενει

, is a necessary modification of the precept, and shows, that he did not mean to exclude comparative badness of manners, but meant only—as good as may be, consistently with the observance of the other requisites mentioned—the

αρμοττον

, and the

ομοιον

The reason of the precept, Aristotle has not given us. But, it appears, I think, clearly, from his substituting the word

ΒΛΑΒΕΡΑ

(hurtful, pernicious,) for

μοχθηρα

, or

πονηρα

, in his enumeration of the greatest faults of Poetry at the end of cap. xxv. that, however he might differ from Plato as to the hurtful tendency of Tragedy, and of imitative Poetry in general, he so far at least agreed with him, as to admit the danger of those poetical, embellished, and flattering, exhibitions of vice, in which, as one of the most eloquent of modern writers expresses it,

"L'auteur, pour faire parler chacun selon son caractere, est forcé de mettre dans la bouche des mechants leurs maximes, et leurs principes, revetus de tout l'eclat des beaux vers, et debités d'un ton imposant et sententieux, pour l'instruction du parterre."

²¹⁷

With respect to characters of atrocious villainy, such as that of Glenalvon in Douglas, which can excite only pure detestation, I believe the ideas of Plato, and perhaps of Aristotle, were very nearly, if not exactly, the same. This admirable writer has expressed in the concluding note of his Nouvelle Eloise:

"En achevant de relire ce recueil, je crois voir pourquoi l'interêt, tout foible qu'il est, m'en est si agréable, et le fera, je pense, à tout lecteur d'un bon naturel. C'est qu'au moins ce foible interêt est pur et sans melange de peine; qu'il n'est point excité par des noirceurs, par des crimes, ni melé du tourment de haïr. Je ne sçaurois concevoir quel plaisir on peut prendre à imaginer et composer le personnage d'un scelerat, à se mettre à sa place tandis qu'on le représente, a lui prèter l'éclat le plus imposant. Je plains beaucoup les auteurs de tant de Tragédies pleines d'horreurs, lesquels passent leur vie à faire agir et parler des gens qu'on ne peut écouter ni voir sans souffrir," &c.

109. mvp-aristotle-comment-109

NOTE 109. P. 92.

15.3 IN GENERAL, WOMEN ARE, PERHAPS, RATHER BAD THAN GOOD. —

"Aristote,"

says M. Batteux,

"ne parle pas içi des femmes en général, mais seulement de celles que les Poetes ont mises sur le Théâtre, telles que Medée, Clytemneitre," &c.

This is polite; but it will not make Aristotle polite. He speaks plainly; and what he says is, I fear, but too conformable to the manner in which the antients usually speak of the sex in general. At least, he is certainly consistent with himself: witness the following very curious character of women in his History of Animals , which I give the reader, by no means for his assent, but for his wonder, or his diversion.

Γυνη, ανδρος ελεημονεστερον και αριδακρυ μαλλον· ετι δε φθονερωτερον τε και μεμψιμοιροτερον, και ΦΙΛΟΛΟΙΔΟΡΟΝ μαλλον, και ΠΛΗΚΤΙΚΩΤΕΡΟΝ. ετι δε και δυσθυμον μαλλον και δυσελπι, και ΑΝΑΙΔΕΣΤΕΡΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΨΕΥΔΕΣΤΕΡΟΝ, ευαπατητοτερον τε, και μνημονικωτερον· ετι δε, ΑΓΡΥΠΝΟΤΕΡΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΟΚΝΗΡΟΤΕΡΟΝ και ολως ακινητοτερον κ. τ. αλ.

To make the reader amends for the pain which this cool and serious invective of the philosopher and the naturalist may have given him, I cannot resist the temptation of presenting him with a specimen of more sportive satire on this subject, in a very pleasant fragment, preserved by Athenæus, from a Comedy of Eubulus.

Ω Ζευ πολυτιμητ᾿, ει κακως εγω ποτε
Ερω γυναικας, νη $\Delta$ι᾿ απολοιμην αρα.
Παντων αριστον κτηματων. ειδ᾿ εγενετο
Κακη γυνη Μηδεια, Πηνελοπεια δε
Μεγα πραγμα. —ερει τις ως Κλυταιμνηστρα κακη;
Αλκηστιν αντεθηκα χρηστην. —αλλ᾿ ισως
Φαιδραν ερει κακως τις· αλλα, νη $\Delta$ια,
Χρηστη τις ην μεντοι ----τις; —οιμοι, δειλαιος·
Ταχεως γε μ᾿ αι ΧΡΗΣΤΑΙ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΕΣ επελιπον.
Τωνδ᾿ αυ ΠΟΝΗΡΩΝ ετι λεγειν πολλας εχω.

Athen. p. 559, or the Excerpta ex Trag. &c. of Grotius, p. 657.

If ever against woman-kind I rail,
Great Jupiter confound me!—for of all
The good things of this world, they are the best.
Medea, you will say, was bad:—agreed;
But, what a jewel was Penelope!
Urge you the wicked Clytemnestra?—I,
Oppose the good Alcestis. If you tell me
Of Phædra, I remind you of the good,
—Stay, let me see the good—Alas! how soon
My memory fails me there; while, of the bad,
Examples in abundance still occur.—

See Athen. p. 559, or the Excerpta ex Trag. &c. of Grotius, p. 657.

110. mvp-aristotle-comment-110

NOTE 110. P. 93.

15.5 RESEMBLANCE----A DIFFERENT THING, &C.

The words,

ώσπερ ἐιρηται

, are embarrassing; for the difference here spoken of had not been mentioned before, as the expression, in its most obvious sense, implies. The only meaning I can find is this. The two requisites, the

ἁρμοττον

and the

ὁμοιον

, propriety, and resemblance, might easily be confounded; the

ὁμοιον

being indeed only the

ἁρμοττον

in another point of view. The violence and fierceness of Medea, for example, which form her historical, or traditional character, and, therefore, the likeness of the Poet's picture, may be said to be

ἁρμοττοντα

, proper or suitable, with respect to the individual, though

ἀπρεπη και μη άρμοττοντα

, improper and unsuitable, to the general character of the sex. And thus Piccolomini:

"la terza conditione che assegna Aristotele à i costumi, la qual consiste in esser simile, non differisce della seconda, posta nell' esser convenevoli, in altro, se non che la conditione del con- venevole riguarda l'universale; com' à dire, che quel costume convenga ad un principe, quello ad un suddito, quello à l'uomo &c. senza considerar questa particolar persona, ò quella: et la conditione del simile riguarda il particolare; come à dire, qual costume convenga di porre in uno che habbia da rappresentar' Achille; qual in quello che habbia da representare Oreste,"

&c. (p. 220.)

Indeed, Aristotle would hardly have thought of admonishing the reader not to confound the two things, had he not seen that they were liable to be confounded. He would not have remarked, that they were different, had they been perfectly, and obviously, distinct. I think then, that the words,

ώσπερ ἐιρηται

, must refer only to the

ἁρμοττον

, and the meaning must be, that, to make the manners like, is a different thing not only from making them good, but even from making them proper, in such a way as had been said—in that sense, in which the word

ἁρμοττοντα

had just been used, and explained by his instance. But if we understand the passage thus, there should be no stop after

ποιησαι

²¹⁸.

But, why does Aristotle mention at all, a difference so very obvious as that between resemblance, and goodness, of manners?— These two requisites could not easily be confounded, any more than likeness and beauty in a portrait. There was more danger of a reader's thinking the

ὁμοιον

too different from the

χρησον

, and, as a general precept, incompatible with it. And so indeed he seems to have apprehended himself, by what he presently after says about the

μιμησις βελτιονων

, and his rule, that the Poet, in imitation of the painter, should exhibit his characters as much better than they were, or are supposed to have been, as is consistent with the preservation of the likeness²¹⁹.

111. mvp-aristotle-comment-111

NOTE 111. P. 93.

15.6 THOUGH THE MODEL OF THE POET'S IMITATION BE SOME PERSON OF UNUNIFORM MANNERS, STILL THAT PERSON MUST BE REPRESENTED AS UNIFORMLY UNUNIFORM. —

Τεταρτον δε, το όμαλον κ'αν γαρ ἀνωμαλος τις ή, ὁ την μιμησιν παρέχων και τοιουτον ἠθος ὑποτιθεις, όμως όμαλως ἀνωμαλον δει ειναι.

---- "which last words," says an eminent writer,

"having been not at all understood, have kept his interpreters from seeing the true sense and scope of the precept. For they have been explained of such characters as that of Tigellius in Horace; which, however proper for satyr, or for farcical Comedy, are of too fantastic and whimsical a nature to be admitted into Tragedy; of which Aristotle must there be chiefly understood to speak, and to which Horace, in this place, alone confines himself. 'Tis true, indeed, it may be said, that 'though a whimsical or fantastic character be improper for Tragedy, an irresolute one is not. Nothing is finer than a struggle between different passions; and it is perfectly natural, that in such a circumstance, each should prevail by turns."—"But then there is the widest difference between the two cases. Tigellius, with all his fantastic irresolution, is as uniform a character, as that of Mitio. If the expression may be allowed, its very inconsistency is of the essence of its uniformity. On the other hand, Electra, torn with sundry conflicting passions, is most apparently, and in the properest notion of the word, ununiform. One of the strongest touches in her character is that of a high, heroic spirit, sensible to her own, and her family's injuries, and determined, at any rate, to revenge them. Yet no sooner is this revenge perpetrated, than she softens, relents, and pities. Here is a manifest ununiformity, which can, in no proper sense of the expression, lay claim to the critic's

ὁμαλον

, but may be so managed, by the Poet's skill, as to become consistent with the basis or foundation of her character, that is, to be

ὁμαλως ἀνωμαλον

. And that this, in fact, was the meaning of the critic, is plain from the similar example to his own rule, given in the case of Iphigenia: which he specifies (how justly, will be considered hereafter) as an instance of the

ἀνωμαλε

, irregular, or ununiform, character, ill-expressed, or made inconsistent. So that the genuine sense of the precept is, 'Let the manners be uniform; or, if ununiform, yet consistently so, or uniformly ununiform:' exactly copied, according to the reading here given, by Horace. Whereas in the other way, it stands thus: 'Let your characters be uniform, or unchanged; or, if you paint an ununiform character (such as Tigellius) let it be ununiform all the way; i. e. such an irregular character to the end of the play, as it was at the beginning; which is, in effect, to say, let it be uniform:' which apparently destroys the latter part of the precept, and makes it an unmeaning tautology with the former.'"

Comment. on the Ep. to the Pifos, &c. vol. i. p. 104, &c.

I have given this passage entire, that the reader may have it fully in his power to judge, for himself, whether I mistake or misrepresent the meaning of any part of it. I should be sorry to be thought capable of a perfect confidence in my own opinion, however carefully and deliberately formed, when it is opposed by that of such a writer. But, after having repeatedly considered this comment, as it certainly deserves to be considered, with all the attention in my power, I am obliged to confess, that it does not satisfy me, and that the common interpretation still appears to me to stand its ground. — My reasons are these:

1. I cannot think, that such change, irresolution, and temporary inconsistence as arises from "conflicting passions," comes under the meaning of Aristotle's

ΗΘΟΣ ἀνωμάλον

Ηθος

, is the prevailing disposition, the habitual

προαιρεσις

, or settled character. "Electra," it is said, "torn with sundry conflicting passions, is most apparently, and in the properest sense of the word, ununiform." Not so, I think, in Aristotle's sense of the word

ἀνωμαλον

, expressly applied by him here to

ήθη

, or manners. The irregularities of conduct, or of sentiment and speech, arising from passion, seem to be a distinct thing from such as imply a change of the fixed, prevailing, or characteristic manners of the person. When such passionate ununiformity as that above described in Electra, is so managed by the Poet's skill, "as to become consistent with the basis or foundation of her character," that character is not, then, I think, as the ingenious critic considers it to be,

ὁμαλως ἀνωμαλον

, i. e. (as it is expressed in the beginning of the following note, p. 127.) "an ununiform character justly sustained, or, uniformly ununiform:" it is not, if I understand Aristotle rightly,

ἀνωμαλον

at all, in his sense; for he speaks only of anomalous manners; and anomalous manners, plainly, cannot be made "consistent with the basis or foundation of a character," in any other sense, than as that very anomaly itself constitutes the character. And this I take to be Aristotle's meaning: for he is speaking of that anomaly, in which different characters, not, in which "different passions, prevail by turns."

2. The very expression, —

κ'αν γαρ ΑΝΩΜΑΛΟΣ ΤΙΣ ή, ὁ την μιμησιν παρέχων και ΤΟΙΟΥΤΟΝ ΗΘΟΣ ὑποτιθεις

, seems plainly to indicate an ununiform character, such as he explains by the

ὁμαλως ἀνωμαλον

that follows. —

ἀνωμαλά ΤΙΣ

an anomalous PERSON: i. e. a person of inconsistent manners, or character. This expression seems hardly applicable, without violence, to such casual and merely apparent inconsistence, as arises from conflicting passions, and is reconcilable with "the basis or foundation of a character."

3. "The genuine sense of the precept," we are told, "is, Let the manners be uniform; or, if ununiform, yet consistently so, or uniformly ununiform." But, consistently, and uniformly, seem to present different ideas. Aristotle's word,

ὁμαλως

, presents only the latter of these:—uniformly that is, more literally, equally*, evenly, &c. it does not, I think, answer at all to consistently, in the sense in which it is evidently applied, in this explanation, to what is not incongruous—not unaccountable, &c²²⁰. Had this, therefore, been Aristotle's meaning, he would, probably, have used, either

εικοτως

, or

ευλογως

, or some other such word appropriated to that meaning; not

ὁμαλως

, which is never, as far as I know, used in the sense of consistently²²¹.

4. But it is objected, that if we take

ὁμαλως ἀνωμαλον

to mean "uniform all the way, i. e. such an irregular character to the end of the play, as it was at the beginning," this, "is, in effect to say, let it be uniform; which apparently destroys the latter part of the precept, and makes it an unmeaning tautology with the former." The first part of the precept, I think, is, Let the manners be uniform; or, as we say, of a piece. Now to this an objector might say,—"This cannot be an indispensable rule; uniformity cannot be essentially requisite to the manners: for, what, if the Poet should take for the subject of his imita- tion a person whose manners are not uniform?" —The answer, or "second part of the precept," is, "then, that want of uniformity must be such as constitutes the very character itself; for this falls within the rule; the 'very inconsistency' of the character (to use the ingenious critic's own words,) being, in this case, 'of the essence of its uniformity.'" I confess I do not here perceive any thing that can properly be called tautology; for though the philosopher says, indeed, in the second part of the precept no more than he meant to say in the first; yet he plainly apprehended it was more than he might be understood to say, and therefore he subjoined this necessary explanation²²². What he says is, in short, only this—"Let the manners be uniform: an ununiform character is no exception to this rule."

The Tigellius of Horace offered himself naturally enough, upon this occasion, to the commentators, as an illustration. We need not, however, suppose Aristotle to have thought of so very fantastic and comic a species of incoherence. Mutability and caprice are sometimes found in higher characters, where they are less ludicrous in their appearance, and, sometimes, very serious in their effects. And though, perhaps, any character of the kind may have too much of a comic cast to accord with our ideas of Tragic dignity, we have no reason to conclude, that it would have found the same difficulty of admittance upon the Greek stage, where the Tragic muse did, not unfrequently, condescend to be seen, "

Δακρυσεν γελασασα

I shall only add to this note the following passage from the commentary of Victorius, which appears to me to explain well, in few words, the meaning, and the spirit, of Aristotle's precept.

"Studens ostendere quantopere hoc præceptum cuftodiendura fit, affirmat, si quis fortè varius diſſimiliſque sibi inductus semel fit, eum, talem in omni facto totius fabulæ fervandum esse, ut æquabilitas à Poetâ custodiatur in naturâ illâ inæquabili ostendenda: quod non fieret, fi aliquis levis, nec in eodem proposito permanens, inductus, paulò pofteà firmus et obftinati animi ungeretur. Si morum igitur inæqualitas naturæque inconstantia constanter servanda est, quanto magis natura indoleſque stabilis par sibi ac jugis ad extremum servari debet."

112. mvp-aristotle-comment-112

NOTE 112. P. 93.

15.7 WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF MANNERS UNNECESSARILY BAD, IN THE CHARACTER OF MENELAUS, &C.

Mr. Potter, in the introduction to his translation of the Orestes, says of this passage, that it " may be considered as a mysterious oracular sentence, which wants an expounder." I can only say, that I think the commentators would have reason to congratulate themselves, if no sentence of this mangled work wanted an expo- sitor more than this. Whether we read

ἀναγκαιον

, or

ἀναγκαιε

; an unnecessary example of bad manners, or an example of unnecessary badness of manners; the sense seems evidently the same: and that Aristotle could not mean, what the excellent translator of Æschylus and Euripides seems to think he might mean—to "excuse the Poet upon the necessity"—sufficiently appears from another passage, at the end of the 25th chapter, [Tranfl. Part IV. Sect. 7.] where this character is again mentioned as an instance of vitious manners, excused by no necessity—

μη ἀναγκης ἐσης

. Mr. Potter complains of " the little light which the passage derives from the connexion:" I think without reason. For as the other examples given are examples of the violation of his other precepts, relative to propriety, and uniformity, of manners, the connection plainly indicates this to be an example of the similar violation of his first rule—that the manners should be good. So far, then, seems to be clear. In what particular view Aristotle thought the badness of the character not necessary, may be, indeed, less clear. I should suppose him to mean, that the historical, or traditional, character of Menelaus, and the observance of the

ὁμοιον

, by no means obliged Euripides to paint him in such colours. With respect to the plea, that it was necessary, because "the drama could not," otherwise, " have been worked up to this terrible height of Tragic distress," Aristotle's answer would, perhaps, have been similar to that which he makes upon another occasion:—i. e. the Poet should not, originally, have so constructed his plan, as to bring upon himself the necessity of committing so great a fault : —

ἐξ ἀρχης γαρ ἐ δει συνισασα θαι τοικτες

. [ sc.

μυθες

]. cap. xxiv.

113. mvp-aristotle-comment-113

NOTE 113. P. 93.

15.9 OF UNUNIFORM MANNERS, IN THE IPHIGENIA AT AULIS, &C. —

"How does this appear, independently of the name of this great critic? Iphigenia is drawn indeed at first, fearful and suppliant: and surely with the greatest observance of nature. The account of her destination to the altar was sudden, and without the least preparation: and, as Lucretius well observes, in commenting her case, NUBENDI TEMPORE IN IPSO; when her thoughts were all employed, and, according to the simplicity of those times, confessed to be so, on her promised nuptials. The cause of such destination too, as appeared at first, was the private family interest of Menelaus. All this justifies, or rather demands, the strongest expression of female fear and weakness. But she afterwards recants and voluntarily devotes herself to the altar." And this, with the same strict attention to probability. She had now informed herself of the importance of the case. Her devotement was the demand of Apollo, and the joint petition of all Greece. The glory of her country, the dignity and interest of her family, the life of the generous Achilles, and her own future fame, were, all, nearly concerned in it. All this considered, together with the high, heroic sentiments of those times, and the superior merit, as was believed, of voluntary devotement, Iphigenia's character must have been very unfit for the distress of a whole Tragedy to turn upon, if she had not, in the end, discovered the readiest submission to her appointment. But, to show with what wonderful propriety the Poet knew to sustain his characters, we find her, after all, and notwithstanding the heroism of the change, in a strong and passionate apostrophe to her native Mycenæ, confessing some involuntary apprehensions and regrets, the remains of that instinctive abhorrence of death, which had before so strongly possessed her.

Εθρέψας Ελλαδι μέγα φαβ / Θανεσα δ᾽ ἐκ ἀναινομαι.

Once the bright star of Greece / But I submit to die.

"This, I take to be not only a full vindication of the consistency of Iphigenia's character, but as delicate a stroke of nature as is, perhaps, to be found in any writer."

Commentary on the Ep. to the Pifos, &c. vol. i. p. 113, &c.

If all I knew of the Tragedy in question was from this ingenious defence, I should certainly acquit Euripides. I cannot acquit him, or can only partially acquit him, when I read the Tragedy itself. The fact perhaps is, that the question, whether the critic's censure be just or not, cannot possibly be decided by any general statement of the case. That Iphigenia, so circumstanced as she is here, and very justly, described to be, might at first be timid and suppliant, and, at last, meet death with resolution, and this, without any inconsistence, or duplicity of character, will hardly be disputed. But the question is, whether Euripides has actually so drawn this timidity, and this resolution, as to preserve the unity of character. To determine this fairly, we must, at last, have recourse to the detail of the Poet's execution, and the actual impression which, on the whole, it leaves upon the reader's mind. All depends here upon degree and manner. A single nuance in the colouring, a flight depression or elevation of tone, in the suppliant, or the heroine, may be sufficient to determine the impression this way, or that. What this impression was upon Aristotle's mind, it may be observed that he has marked very precisely and clearly by the expression,

ΟΥΔΕΝ ΕΟΙΚΕΝ Ἡ ἹΚΕΤΕΥΟΥΣΑ ΤΗ ΥΣΤΕΡΗ

:—"the supplicating Iphigenia is NOTHING LIKE the Iphigenia of the conclusion." The expression, I think, does not imply, that he thought the mere circumstance of her supplicating at first for life, and recanting afterwards, was, of itself, necessarily inconsistent, but, that the manner in which she supplicated was such, as to make her, in that part, appear to be a different character, another person, from what she appears to be when she recants.

My own opinion I confess to be, that though the considerations suggested in this ingenious defence of Euripides may prove the censure of Aristotle to be too strongly, or, at least, too generally, expressed, yet they do not prove it to be without foundation. I say, too generally, because perhaps there is but one passage in the speech of the suppliant Iphigenia, to which the

ΟΥΔΕΝ ἐοικεν

is fairly applicable, in its full force. Her speech,

Ει μεν του Ορφέως

, &c. v. 1211, which, on the whole, is highly pathetic, ends with these unhappy lines:

μαινεται δ᾽ ὡς ἐυχεται / Θανειν ΚΑΚΩΣ ΖΗΝ ΚΡΕΙΣΣΟΝ Η ΘΑΝΕΙΝ ΚΑΛΩΣ.

v. 1249. ²²³ I leave it to the reader to determine, whether any intervening circumstances, that can be imagined, will make it at all conceivable, that the same Iphigenia, should, in the short space of time taken up by the recital of, at most, only 35 lines of dialogue, experience such a total change of sentiments, as to express the most heroic resolution, and the utmost sensibility to the glory of dying for her country; as to say,—

— δίδωμι σωμα τ' εμον Ἑλλαδι. / Θυετ , ἐκπορθειτε Τροιαν ταυτα γαρ μνημεια με, / Δια μακρε, και παιδες ἐτοι, και γαμοι, και δοξ᾿ ἐμη.

v. 1397. ²²⁴

For Greece I give my life. / "Slay me, demolish Troy: for these shall be / Long time my monuments, my children these, / My nuptials, and my glory."

Potter's Eurip. v. 1549.

It seems probable, that Aristotle had chiefly in view the particular lines I have quoted; and had he any way pointed his censure to that passage—had he said,

οὐδεν εοικεν ἡ ΟΥΤΩΣ ἱκετευκσα

, &c. quoting, or referring to, the verses, I think there could have been no objection to the justice of his criticism.

Gravina , who has also defended Euripides in his book Della Tragedia , lays great stress upon a circumstance, which does, indeed, seem to be of considerable moment in the Poet's justification; I mean, the effect of necessity in producing courage and resolution.

" Non é maraviglia, se Ifigenia, quantunque per naturalezza del sesso, timida, ed amorosa della vita, finchè la poteva sperare; poi resa forte dalla necessità, madre spesso anche delle virtù morali, come anima generosamente educata, disprezza la morte, e cangia l'amor della vita in compiacenza di gloria. Il che alla giornata anche osserviamo in persone di nascita e d'animo vile, che condotte alla morte, arditamente l'abbracciano, quantunque al primo avviso costernate rimanessero; perchè l'idea della necessità non avea usata ancor la fua forza."

[Sect. 19.] This seems much to the purpose; and it is supported by its agreement with what we find in the Tragedy itself. For the change in the sentiments and language of Iphigenia is not, as we have seen, produced before the scene in Trochaics between Cly- tæmneſtra and Achilles; the very scene in which the inevitable necessity of the sacrifice is first made clearly apparent. The effect of this on the resolution of Iphigenia is visible also in her speech:

τα δ᾽ ΑΔΥΝΑΘ᾽ ἡμιν καρτερειν ἐ ραδιον. / Αλλα και σε τεθ᾽ ὁραν χρη, μη διαβληθης σρατῳ, / ΚΑΙ ΠΛΕΟΝ ΠΡΑΞΩΜΕΝ ΟΥΔΕΝ.- / Αλλ' ΑΜΗΧΑΝΟΝ-δίδωμι σωμα τεμον Ελλαδι

, &c. v. 1372.

The learned Mr. Markland , in his excellent edition of the two Iphigenias, defends Euripides upon very different ground. He admits the inconsistence, not only in the character of Iphigenia, but in all the characters of the play, except Clytæmneſtra; and even in the chorus. But all this he supposes to have been in- tended by the Poet, as a moral lesson—a striking picture of the "levity and inconstancy of the human mind." And he wonders, which I cannot say I do, that this should have escaped the

ἀγχινοια

of Aristotle²²⁵.

114. mvp-aristotle-comment-114

NOTE 114. P. 94.

15.10b HENCE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT ALSO, &C. — Heinsius pronounces this whole passage, to the words,

εν τω Οιδ. τε Σοφ.

—inclusively, to be certainly out of its proper place²²⁶. And I should be of his opinion, if such digressive and parenthetical insertions were not very usual with Aristotle . The expression, how- ever, should be observed:

φανερον ἐν ὅτι ΚΑΙ τας λύσεις

, &c. that "the development also," &c. i. e. as well as the other incidents of the fable, just mentioned. Most of the versions neglect the word

και

, which is important, and greatly helps the connection. This digression, however, though not unrelated, is but flightly and obliquely related, to his present subject; and seems introduced rather

ἀπο μηχανης

, and in violation of his own rule—

τετο μετα τατο ἡ ἀναγκαιον ἐικο

. It interrupts the connection, and obscures the purport, of the chapter; and though we allow it to be where the author placed it, we may fairly question, whether he has placed it where it should be.

115. mvp-aristotle-comment-115

NOTE 115. P. 94.

15.10b MACHINERY.

Απο μηχανης

. — It appears from Jul. Pollux, lib. iv. cap. 19 . that the term,

μηχανη

, was not applied indiscriminately to the machinery of the play-house in general, but was appropriated to that particular machine, in which Gods and Heroes made their appearance in the air.

Μηχανη δε, θεους δεικνυσι και ήρωας τους ἐν ἀερι

. I hope it was something better than the

Μηχανη

of the French opera, so pleasantly described by Rousseau: — ²²⁷

"Les chars des Dieux et des Déesses sont composés de quatre solives encadrées et suspendues à une grosse corde en forme d’escarpolette; entre ces solives est une planche en travers, sur laquelle le Dieu s’assaye, et sur le devant pend un morceau de grosse toile barbouillée, qui sert de nuage à ce magnifique char. On voit vers le bas de la machine l’illumination de deux ou trois chandelles puantes et mal mouchées, qui, tandis que le personnage se démene et crie en branlant dans son escarpolette, l’enfume tout à son aise. Encens digne de la divinité."

The account of the machinery of a Greek Theatre, in the chapter of Jul. Pollux above referred to, is curious, and amusing, as far as it is intelligible.

116. mvp-aristotle-comment-116

NOTE 116. P. 94.

15.10c OR THE RETURN OF THE GREEKS IN THE ILIAD.

Και ἐν ΤΗΙ ΙΛΙΑΔΙ τα περι τον ἀποπλουν

. It has been disputed, whether Aristotle here speaks of the Iliad of Homer, or of some Tragedy called The Iliad. See Dacier’s note. But, if we suppose the text to be right here, I see not how we can reasonably reject the first of these interpretations.

Ἡ ΙΛΙΑΣ

, as Beni has well observed, can only be, THE Iliad, i. e. Homer’s Iliad. Dacier supposes the Tragedy to have been called, "The Iliad, or, The return of the Greeks;" and to be that mentioned by Longinus, Sect. 15 , and attributed to Sophocles. But, even supposing a Tragedy to be meant, it seems very clear from Aristotle’s expression, that the title must have been,

Ιλιας

, only; for he says,

ΕΝ τη Ιλιάδι ΤΑ ΠΕΡΙ τον ἀποπλουν

i. e. "the circumstances, or incidents, relative to the return of the Greeks, in [the Tragedy of] The Iliad." — So, cap. xxiv.

ἐν τῇ Οδυσσεια — τα περι την ἐκθεσιν

. — Indeed, The Iliad, taken alone, seems an improbable title for a Tragedy; but Dacier’s junction is still more improbable. He might as well have imagined a Tragedy with this title —

Η Οδύσσεια, η, Ἡ ΕΚΘΕΣΙΣ

. As to the Tragedy of Sophocles mentioned by Longinus, it seems clearly to have been his POLYXENA. ²²⁸

Supposing, then, the text not to be defective, we cannot, I think, avoid understanding Aristotle to speak of the machinery, (to use the word in his general sense,) in the second book of the Iliad, ²²⁹ where Minerva descends to prevent the return of the Greeks. It is true indeed, as has been objected, that an instance drawn from an Epic Poem is not what one would expect here, where the subject is Tragedy; and, that though there be, in this instance, a difficulty solved — a knot cut — yet this

λυσις

, is not, properly,

λυσις μυθου

in that sense, in which Aristotle applies the term in cap. xviii. ²³⁰ to the final denouëment of a Tragic fable. We must therefore suppose him to have produced this, merely as an obvious and well known example of the sort of supernatural interposition, or machinery, that would be improper in the

λυσις

of a Tragedy. For, that he intended to censure the "

ministeria Deorum

," so necessary to the Epic Poem, and so frequent in the great model of all Epic Poems, cannot be imagined without absurdity, and is by no means necessarily implied, as Dacier seems to think, in this interpretation.

Such appears to me to be the only meaning, and the best apology, which the passage will bear, taking for granted the integrity of the original. But of this, I confess, I doubt. M. Batteux translates " la petite Iliade." But if we admit that sense, as Aristotle certainly would not have called that Poem THE Iliad, without distinction, we must necessarily suppose the text defective, and the word

ΜΙΚΡΑ

to be omitted; ²³¹ and it seems very probable that this was the case. The illustration, indeed, will still be drawn from an Epic Poem; but from one of an irregular and historic structure, consisting of a string of ill-united stories, and which seems to have been considered as a sort of seed-plot, or nursery, of subjects for the use of the Tragic Poets: so that in referring to it, Aristotle may be understood to refer to such Tragedies as were founded on it; of which he enumerates himself no fewer than eight, and one of these was called ΑΠΟΠΛΟΥΣ; taken, I suppose, like the Polyxena of Sophocles mentioned by Longinus, from that part of the Little Iliad, which related the detention of the Greeks in the Thracian Chersonese, and the appearance of the ghost of Achilles demanding the sacrifice of Polyxena. ²³²

117. mvp-aristotle-comment-117

NOTE 117. P. 95.

15.11 OR OF INDOLENT—.

Ραθυμους

: — indolent — nonchalant. Hesychius explains

Ραθυμα, ΜΗ ΠΟΝΗΤΙΚΟΣ ἀλλ᾿ ΕΚΛΥΤΟΣ

. It is improperly rendered, "

timide

," by M. Batteux, and "

mansueto

," by the Italian translators.

118. mvp-aristotle-comment-118

NOTE 118. P. 95.

15.11 SHOULD DRAW AN EXAMPLE APPROACHING RATHER TO A GOOD, THAN TO A HARD AND FEROCIOUS, CHARACTER.

The original is —

Ουτω και τον ποιητην, μιμουμενον και ὀργιλους και ῥαθυμους, και τ'αλλα τα τοιαυτα ἐχοντας ἐπι των ἠθων, ἐπιεικειας ποιειν παραδειγμα η σκληροτητα δει: οἷον τον Αχίλλεα Αγαθων και Όμηρος

. — A passage that has much perplexed and divided the commentators. Of all the explanations which this perplexity has produced, that of Dacier is the most improbable and ill-founded. He forces

ῥαθυμους

into the sense of, emporté, furieux, and makes it

"encherir sur ὀργιλος."

Επιεικεια

, he wrenches from the obvious and proper sense in which it is continually used by Aristotle, into that of probability. And the result of this violent operation upon the passage, is the following strange version: —

"Il faut tout de même, qu’un Poete qui veut imiter un homme colere et emporté, ou quelqu’ autre caractere semblable, se remette bien plus devant les yeux ce que la colere doit faire vraisemblablement (i. e.

ἐπιεικειας

) que ce qu’elle a fait (i. e.

σκληροτητα

!) et c’est ainsi,"

&c.

I may venture to leave all this to the learned reader’s rejection, without any farther comment. I shall only just observe, that the expression,

ΚΑΙ ὀργ. ΚΑΙ ῥαθ.

evidently marks different characters; not, as Dacier makes it, different degrees only of the same character.

Heinsius first suggested, that the phrase

ἐπιεικειας η σκληροτητα

, was elliptical, and

μαλλον

to be understood. But in spite of the "

Attica venustas

," I am much more inclined to suspect an omission of the word. Aristotle would hardly have used a mode of expression so unavoidably ambiguous — or rather, that would, almost unavoidably, lead to a wrong sense; for, the fact is, that all the commentators, before Heinsius, understood the

, as indeed every reader, I believe, would at first naturally understand it, in the disjunctive sense of, or. Besides this, I doubt whether any example of this elliptic phrase occurs in Aristotle’s works. That it may, I will not take upon me to deny; but it seems, at least, very unusual. An instance of it I have not found; but the reader may find many instances of the full phrase,

μαλλον η

, even in this treatise. ²³³ However, one, or the other, of these suppositions, it seems necessary to adopt. The passage will then, without forcing the words

ἐπιεικεια

and

σκληροτης

from their usual and proper signification, afford a clear and consistent meaning.

Επιεικεια

is used, I think, here, as it is in cap. xiii. in the general sense of good. ²³⁴

Σκληροτης

plainly relates only to his first instance, of the

ὀργιλος

, the angry character, of which it seems to express the extreme degree. In the Ethics ad Nicom. we have —

ΑΓΡΙΟΙ και ΣΚΛΗΡΟΙ

, as synonymous, or very nearly so. A passage of Plato may serve to illustrate and confirm this sense of the word. ²³⁵ Speaking of the

θυμοειδες

, or irascible nature, he says, it may produce the

ἀγριον

: —

και όρθως μεν τραφεν, ἀνδρειον ἂν ειη ΜΑΛΛΟΝ Δ' ΕΠΙΤΑΘΕΝ ΤΟΥ ΔΕΟΝΤΟΣ, ΣΚΛΗΡΟΤΕΡΟΝ τε και χαλεπον γεγνοιτ' ἀν, ὡς το εικος

. — And just before —

ΑΓΡΙΟΤΗΤΟΣ τε και ΣΚΛΗΡΟΤΗΤΟΣ, και αὖ μαλακιας τε και ἡμεροτητος

. ²³⁶

The sense of the passage, then, will be, that, in order to reconcile the first precept, of the

χρηστον

, with the third, of the

ὁμοιον

, the character should be brought as near to a good one, as is consistent with the circumstance of likeness. Thus, if such a character as that of Achilles is to be drawn, its striking features are to be preserved, but, at the same time, to be rather improved and softened, than exaggerated. For the expression must be observed. Aristotle does not say absolutely, according to the sense of Heinsius, that Achilles ought to be drawn, or was drawn,

παραδειγμα ἐπιεικειας

, but rather so than otherwise; —

ΜΑΛΛΟΝ η σκληροτητα

. M. Batteux has very well expressed the spirit of the rule, though he has generalized it, and made it refer to all that precedes

και ὀργιλους, και ῥαθυμους

, &c. — whereas it appears plainly, from what has been said of the force of

σκληροτης

, that the words,

ἐπιεικειας ποιειν παραδ. η σκληρ.

can be applied only to the

ὀργιλοι

; for as to the

ῥαθυμους

, such a character may, indeed, be flattered into the

ἐπιεικης

, but cannot well, by any distortion, be made to appear

σκληρος

"Loin de charger encore le defaut, il le rapprochera de la vertu"

Still, however, what every one, I believe, naturally expects at the first reading of this passage, as it now stands, is, that after having mentioned two instances of faulty characters, the

ὀργιλοι

, and the

ῥαθυμοι

, Aristotle should mention two corresponding instances of good qualities bordering upon, or connected with, each, and of which the Poet might avail himself, to give to each a favour- able turn. But, instead of this, we have a good, and a bad quality, (

ἐπιεικεια

, and

σκληροτης

,) both of which, as we have seen, can be made to relate only to his first instance, the

ὀργιλος

; so that all the rest, between the words

ὀργιλους

, and

ἐπιεικειας

, must be parenthetical. The harshness and embarrassment of such a construction, led me formerly to suspect an error in one of the words,

ἐπιεικειας

, or

σκληροτητα

; and a conjecture was suggested to me by a passage in the Rhetoric, which, I hope, will at least be thought plausible enough to excuse my laying it before the reader. The suspicion seemed to fall upon

σκληροτητα

; for the

ἐπιεικεια

would answer well enough as a softening, or improvement, of

ῥαθυμια

; as an indolent man, who concerns himself about nothing, and cares only for his own ease, is often spoken of as a quiet, good kind of man. Instead of

σκληροτητα

, then, I thought it not improbable, that Aristotle might have written

ἁπλοτητα

. The passage of Aristotle himself which suggested this to me, is in the first book of his Rhetoric, cap. ix. where, delivering the usual precepts relative to the art of encomiastic misrepresentation, he says,

Ληπτεον δε-----ἑκαστον, ἐκ των παρακολουθουντων αει, κατα το ΒΕΛΤΙΣΤΟΝ· οἷον, ΤΟΝ ΟΡΓΙΛΟΝ και τον μανικον, ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΝ και τον αυθαδη, μεγαλοπρεπη και σεμνον

· κ. τ. αλλ. The whole passage is much to the purpose of this place; and is, plainly, not more applicable to the Rhetorician, with respect to the hero of his oration, than it is to the Poet, with respect to the hero of his poem. A passage of Euripides will add, perhaps, some probability to this conjecture. In the Iphigenia at Aulis, Achilles thus draws his own character: Iphigenia at Aulis, v. 926.

Εγω δ’ ἐν ἀνδρως εὐσεβεστάτου τραφεις, Χειρωνος, ἔμαθον τους τροπους ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΣ ἔχειν. Και τοις Ατρείδαις, ἢν μεν ἡγωνται καλως, Πεισομεθ᾽. — ὅταν δε μη καλως, οὐ πεισομεθ'.

Where the meaning of

τροπες άπλες

, is very well fixed by the two subsequent lines, and by the expression,

ἐλευθεραν φυσιν

, in the verse that follows them.

Plato, also, in the Hippias, talks much of the simplicity, truth, and sincerity, of Achilles; as if, in his view, they were the pro- minent features of what was good in the Homeric character of that hero. When Socrates asks Hippias, whether Achilles is not represented by Homer as an artful, designing character, Hippias answers —

Ἥκιστά γε, ὦ Σωκρατες, ἀλλ᾿ ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΣΤΑΤΟΣ

. And, again,

ὡς ὁ μεν Αχιλλευς εἴη ἀληθης τε και ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΣ· ὁ δε Οδυσσευς πολυτροπος τε και ψευδης

. ²³⁷ And the following lines are there quoted, in which Homer has made Achilles strongly mark this feature of his own character: Il. ix. 308.

Διογένες Λαερτιάδη, πολυμηχαν᾿ Οδυσσευ, Χρη μεν δη τον μυθον ἀπηλεγεως ἀποειπειν, Ἧι περ δη φρονεω τε, και ὡς τετελεσμενον ἐσται· Εχθρα γαρ μοι κεινος ὁμως ἀΐδαο πυλησιν, Ὡς χ᾿ ἑτερον μεν κευθει ἐνι φρεσιν, ἀλλο δε βαζει.

The sense, then, of the passage before us, according to this conjecture, would be this: — If the Poet choose for the subject of his imitation a passionate, or an indolent man, he should give to the former the cast of plain sincerity, and honest frankness; and to the other, (the

ῥαθυμος

) that of moderation, gentleness, ²³⁸ good-nature, and what the French, by an expressive word which our language wants, term, bonhommie. But I dwell too long upon a mere conjecture. The evident propriety of the word

σκληροτης

, as applicable to the unsoftened and unflattered character of Achilles, may justly, perhaps, protect it from suspicion; though, on the other hand, the passages I have adduced, added to the improbability of the ellipse supposed by Heinsius, the embarrassment of the parenthesis, and the advantage of leaving the

to its most obvious, disjunctive, sense, prevent me from a total rejection of this idea.

The word

παραδειγμα

, here, is taken by most of the commentators ²³⁹ to mean a perfect ideal model — "

summum exemplar

." Of this I see no reason. I take it to be used here, as it is generally, I believe, if not always, used by Aristotle, merely for an example. Of this the reader may easily satisfy himself by consulting the useful index to Mr. Winstanley’s edition.

119. mvp-aristotle-comment-119

NOTE 119. P. 95.

15.11 AS ACHILLES IS DRAWN BY AGATHO AND BY HOMER. PLATO, in the third book of his Republic, gives a very different view of the Homeric Achilles. He makes him a mere compound of extreme pride and extreme meanness:

ὡστε ἔχειν ἐν αυτῳ νοσηματα δυο ἐναντιω ἀλληλοιν, ἀνελευθερίαν μετα φιλοχρηματίας, και αὖ ὑπερηφανιαν θεων τε και ἀνθρωπων

. ²⁴⁰ To which we may add, as a companion, Dr. Jortin’s portrait of Achilles:

"A boisterous, rapacious, mercenary, cruel, and unrelenting brute; and the reader pities none of his calamities, and is pleased with none of his successes!"

²⁴¹ This is far enough from the

παραδειγμα ἐπιεικειας

. But for a juster account of this matter, and for the best illustration of this passage of Aristotle that can be given, I refer the reader to Dr. Beattie’s analysis of the character of this hero, as drawn by Homer; ²⁴²

120. mvp-aristotle-comment-120

NOTE 120. P. 95.

15.12 AND BESIDES THESE, WHATEVER RELATES TO THOSE SENSES WHICH HAVE A NECESSARY CONNECTION WITH POETRY.

Here are two readings:

τας παρα τα ἐξ ἀναγκης ἀκολουθουσας ἀισθησεις τη ποιητικη

: and,

τα παρα τας ἐξ ἀναγκης

, &c. but in both, the object, and general sense of the passage, seem to be the same, though in both, the expression, it must be confessed, is sufficiently embarrassed and obscure. I have preferred the latter, (which is that of Victorius,) as being, on the whole, the clearest. ²⁴³

The senses that belong to, accompany, or are connected with, Poetry, are, plainly, the sight, and the hearing, as relative to the

Οψις

, or Spectacle, in the whole extent of that term, and to the

Μελοποιία

or Music. When these are said to be

ἐξ ἀναγκης ἀκολουθουσαι τη ποιητικη

, it cannot be meant that the parts relative to them are essential to the Tragic Poem, like the fable, manners, &c. ²⁴⁴ but only, that they are necessary appendages of the drama in its complete state, as designed for representation. This is perfectly conformable to what was before said of the

Οψις

; ²⁴⁵ that, though confessedly, in one view,

ἥκιστα οἰκειον της ποιητικης

, yet, in another view,

ΕΞ ΑΝΑΓΚΗΣ ἀν εἴη τι μοριον της Τραγωδίας ὁ της Οψεως κοσμος

. ²⁴⁶

The drift of the precept is obvious. The decoration should be such as to agree with the rules just laid down for the manners. The scenery, dresses, action, &c. must be

ἁρμοττοντα, ὁμοια

— probability, nature, and the costume, must be observed. Even the

μιμησις βελτιονων

, the improved imitation, has here, too, its obvious application. The squalid hair, and ragged dress, of Electra, ²⁴⁷ must, as well as the

σκληροτης

of Achilles, be a little flattered in the representation, and not too like, &c.

The rule extends, also, to the Melopæia, or the Music; which, from other passages of Aristotle’s works, we may suspect to have been sometimes such, as sacrificed propriety, and just expression — the

ἠθη

, the

πρεπον

, &c. to the depraved taste of what he calls the

Φορτικοι

spectators. ²⁴⁸²⁴⁹ It is probable that Aristotle alludes, also, to cap. xvii. ²⁵⁰ and to the mistakes, which the Poet is liable to commit, who composes without keeping the stage, and the effects of representation, in his eye. Though the Poet neither painted the scenes, nor made the dresses, yet all this formed one of the six constituent parts of Tragedy; fell, of course, under the direction and control of the Poet, and was of the utmost importance to the success of his piece, at a time when representation was almost essential to the idea of dramatic poetry.

121. mvp-aristotle-comment-121

NOTE 121. P. 96.

16.5 ALL THOSE DISCOVERIES IN WHICH THE SIGN IS PRODUCED BY WAY OF PROOF.

῾Αι πιστεως ἐνεκα

. Well explained by Dacier after the Italian commentators. Indeed, the very words of Homer, in the passage alluded to, sufficiently illustrate the meaning of the expression. Od. φ. 217.

Ει δ'αγε δη και ΣΗΜΑ ἀριφραδες άλλο τι δείξω, Ὀφρα με ἐυ γνωτον, ΠΙΣΤΩΘΗΤΟΝ τ᾽ ἐνι θυμῳ, ΟΥΛΗΝ, &c.

Pope, xxi. 226.

"To give you firmer faith, now trust your eye: "Lo! the broad scar indented on my thigh."

Other instances of signs thus used, not for the purpose of accidental discovery, but as confirmations of a voluntary discovery previously made, may easily be found. Thus, in the Electra of Sophocles, when Electra asks her brother,

η γαρ συ κεινος;

— he answers —

Τηνδε προσβλεψασ᾽ ἐμε Σφραγίδα πατρος, ἐκμαθ᾽ ἐι σαφη λεγω.

122. mvp-aristotle-comment-122

NOTE 122. P. 96.

16.5 THOSE WHICH----HAPPEN SUDDENLY AND CASUALLY, ARE BETTER.

Εκ περιπετειας

. —

"Non valet hic περιπετεια, mutationem illam ingentem fortunarum, sed, ἐκ περιπετειας, significat, casu, fortuito, et quia ita cecidit."

— Victorius. So in the passage from Polybius quoted by Suidas, under the words

Περιπετεια

, and

Ευμενης

τυχη το πλειον συνεργῳ χρωμενου, οὐκ ΕΚ ΠΕΡΙΠΕΤΕΙΑΣ, ἀλλα δια της ἀγχίνοιας. κ. τ. λ.

Aristotle's using the word thus, adverbially, after having hitherto used it only in its technical, or dramatic, sense, of a sudden change of fortune, produces some ambiguity; and the more so, as the adverbial phrase,

ἐκ περιπετειας

, seems not to be of very common occurrence. Heinsius, taking

περιπετεια

in the dramatic sense, translates —

"quæ e mutationibus in contrarium oriuntur;"

which, indeed, is the obvious meaning of the expression, if not understood adverbially. But it cannot be Aristotle's meaning, because the discovery of the fear of Ulysses was not the consequence of any such

περιπετεια

. Indeed, it was neither the consequence, nor the cause, of any reverse of fortune.

I have sometimes suspected that Aristotle might write it,

ἐκ ΠΡΟΠΕΤΕΙΑΣ

, by which all ambiguity would have been avoided. But, perhaps, after all, the phrase had no ambiguity to Greek ears, and the passage may be right as it stands.

123. mvp-aristotle-comment-123

NOTE 123. P. 96.

16.6 DISCOVERIES INVENTED, AT PLEASURE, BY THE POET, AND, ON THAT ACCOUNT, STILL INARTIFICIAL.

Δευτεραι δε, αι πεποιημεναι ὑπο του ποιητου, διο ἀτεχνοι

. — The expression,

πεποιημεναι ὑπο του ποιητου

, must necessarily, I think, be understood emphatically, and must mean, not merely invented, (for so are the other discoveries also, which follow,) but arbitrarily invented by the Poet, and obviously so, upon the spur of the occasion; in opposition to such means of discovery and recognition, as, though still indeed of the Poet's invention, are artfully prepared in the very texture of his plot, and appear to arise, necessarily or pro- bably, from the action itself. And thus I find it well explained by Piccolomini:

"Chiama Aristotele questa seconda spetie di riconoscimento, fatto dal Poeta e cosi lo chiama, non perche in tutte le spetie il Poeta non sia quello che li riconoscimenti, siccome le altre parti dell' attione e della favola ponga e formi coi versi suoi; ma ha dato à questa spetie più ch' all' altre questo nome, perche in essa, non fondandosi il Poeta, nè nello stesso connettimento delle cose, e nella stessa favola, nè in segno alcuno che la persona stessa, che s'ha da riconoscere, gli offerisca inanzi; egli, per questo, come libero divenuto, à suo mero (quasi) arbitrio, reca, finge, e pone in bocca della persona à voglia sua, quella occasione di riconoscimento che più gli piace,"

&c. [p. 230.] — Yet, as this sense is rather inferred from the explanation subjoined, (

ταυτα γὰρ αυτος λεγει ῾Α ΒΟΥΛΕΤΑΙ Ὁ ΠΟΙΗΤΗΣ, ἀλλ' οὐχ Ὁ ΜΥΘΟΣ

) than expressed by the words themselves, I am much inclined to suppose some omission in the text.

The other reading,

ΟΥΚ ἀτεχνοι

, is very plausibly supported by the Abbé Batteux, from a passage of Aristotle's Rhetoric, which has been already mentioned in NOTE 104. ²⁵¹ I doubt, however, whether that passage be fairly applicable to this. But though it were, the sense above given, and which I think must be given, to the expression

πεποιημεναι ὑπο του Π.

seems hardly reconcilable with this reading. For can we conceive that Aristotle would assign as a reason why such discoveries are not inartificial, that they are arbitrarily (and therefore easily,) invented by the Poet? —

ΔΙΟ οὐκ ἀτεχνοι

I must observe, however, that though these two readings are diametrically opposite,

ἀτεχνοι

οὐκ ἀτεχνοι

— yet, it is some comfort, that whichever we adopt, the general sense of the passage will be the same. As such discoveries are of the Poet's invention, they are not

ἀτεχνοι

, in the rhetorical sense: as they require very little invention, compared with those which arise from the action itself, they may, in this view, be denominated,

ἀτεχνοι

. In either reading, therefore, Aristotle will be found to say the same thing; i. e. that the discoveries of this second species are, in point of art and ingenuity, superior to the first species, and inferior to all the rest.

124. mvp-aristotle-comment-124

NOTE 124. P. 96.

16.6 ORESTES, AFTER HAVING DISCOVERED HIS SISTER, DISCOVERS HIMSELF TO HER.

The Greek is —

ἀνεγνωρισε την ἀδελφην, ἀνεγνωρισθεις ὑπ᾿ ἐκεινης

: — this, as Victorius has observed, seems to say the reverse; i. e. that Orestes discovered his sister after having been discovered by her: which is not the fact. One would rather have expected —

ἀναγνωρισας την ἀδελφην, ἀνεγνωρισθη ὑπ᾿ ἐκεινης

: which would also have been clearer, and not have given occasion to the commentators to suppose, that the discovery of Iphigenia by the letter was meant to be included in this second and faulty species of discovery; whereas the expression

ΟΙΟΝ Ορ. ΑΝΕΓΝΩΡΙΣΕ την ἀδελφην

, leads very naturally to that idea. But it is easy to see, upon the least reflection, that the discovery of Orestes only is the example here intended. This is sufficiently explained by Dacier after Victorius. It was natural enough, however, for Aristotle to mention the other discovery, in passing, as being the counterpart of a double

ἀναγνωρισις

in the same drama. [See cap. xi. at the end. Transl. Part II. Sect. 9.] — But this whole passage, I may say, this whole chapter, has undoubtedly been most miserably mangled in transcription.

125. mvp-aristotle-comment-125

NOTE 125. P. 96.

16.6 BUT ORESTES, BY [VERBAL PROOFS] &c.

The reading which Victorius regarded as most authentic is this: —

ἐκεινος δε * * * * ταυτα γὰρ αυτος λέγει ἃ βέλεται ὁ ποιητης, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὁ μυθος

. — But four Medicean manuscripts, and, it seems, all those in the King of France's library, agree in reading —

ἐκεινου δε αυτος λέγει, κ. τ. λ.

²⁵² and, in the latter, we are told, the words are written without any hiatus. This last reading, however, appears to me short and deficient. I cannot but think that the author, after the words

ἐκεινος δε

, — had expressed the means of the discovery, and by them denominated this species, as he has all the others: —

δια σημειων

—

δια μνημης

—

ἐκ συλλογισμου

—. But how the vacancy was filled, it is impossible to determine; and it is of the less consequence to determine, as we are in possession of the Tragedy itself. —

Δια σημείων

, which Victorius found in one MS. or,

δια τεκμηρίων

, as Dacier ingeniously conjectured from the words of Euripides himself, seem most probable.

In point of meaning, it is indifferent by which of these appellations these discoveries were distinguished;

τεκμηριον

being, according to Aristotle's own definition in his Rhetoric, only a species of

σημειον

Τουτων δε ( . . των σημείων,) το μεν ἀναγκαιον, τεκμηριον

. ²⁵³

Σημειον

is a sign, or token:

Τεκμηριον

, a certain, decisive sign, such as puts an end to all doubt, according to the derivation of the word given by Aristotle in the passage just referred to. We see, therefore, with what strict propriety the word is used by Euripides, when Iphigenia demands, and Orestes professes to give, a decisive proof: Iphig. in Taur. v. 808.

ἔχεις τι τωνδε μοι ΤΕΚΜΗΡΙΟΝ ;

And Orestes, presently after, when he produces his last and strongest proof, says — Iphig. in Taur. v. 822.

῾Αδ᾽ ἐιδον αυτος, ταδε φρασω ΤΕΚΜΗΡΙΑ.

²⁵⁴

It is, indeed, some objection to

δια σημειων

, in this passage of Aristotle, that it would appear to confound this discovery with the first, by giving it the same denomination. But this, perhaps, would be sufficiently obviated by the explanation immediately subjoined: —

δια σημείων ΤΑΥΤΑ γὰρ αυτος ΛΕΓΕΙ ἃ βέλεται

, &c.

Σημειον

, in the first species of discovery, is used for visible, external proofs: here, it would be used for verbal, argumentative proofs; as it is used, continually, in this treatise. And it may also be observed, that Aristotle himself, at the end of this chapter, (if the integrity of the text be admitted,) refers to this sort of discovery, among others, under the denomination of

πεποιημενα ΣΗΜΕΙΑ

126. mvp-aristotle-comment-126

NOTE 126. P. 96.

16.6 FOR SOME OF THE THINGS, FROM WHICH THOSE PROOFS ARE DRAWN, ARE EVEN SUCH AS MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AS VISIBLE SIGNS.

Εξην γαρ ἂν ἐνια και ἐνεγκαν

. In the sense which I have given to this obscure sentence, the only sense that I thought could fairly be extracted from the words, I am glad to find myself supported by the judgment of Victorius.

"Quare propè dictum peccatum est: (ὅ ἐγγυς της ειρημενης ἁμαρτιας ἐστιν.) quia si illa quibus usus est Orestes non omninò signa fuerunt; neque enim ostendi potuerunt; — propè tamen illa accesserunt; atque ita propè ut quædam ex ipsis illius prorsus generis fuerint, quamvis ita ipsis ille usus non sit. Hoc enim arbitror valere, 'licebat enim quædam etiam portare' id est, manu tenere, et jubere ut ipsa videret ac reminisceretur,"

&c.

Ενια

, because all the proofs of Orestes were not of this kind, but only Electra's work, and the lance.

127. mvp-aristotle-comment-127

NOTE 127. P. 96.

16.7 THE DISCOVERY BY THE SOUND OF THE SHUTTLE,

Ἡ της κερκιδος φωνη

— Dacier, after some other commentators, makes a speaking shuttle of this; and wonders, as, indeed, he well might, that the great critic should let so monstrous an absurdity pass without a severer censure than that of its wanting art. Others understand, much more reasonably, not the literal, but the metaphorical, voice of the shuttle, in the epistolary web by which Philomela is said to have conveyed to her sister the dismal tale of her sufferings, —

ἱστῳ ποικίλμασι ΣΤΟΜΑΤΙ χρησαμένη

, in the language of that most curious of all Poets, John Tzetzes. ²⁵⁵ But as this seems to have been the current traditional story, I do not see how it could be adduced as a circumstance invented at pleasure by the Poet. I should rather suppose, that the discovery in question, whatever it might be, was effected by the sound of the shuttle, which Aristotle calls,

φωνη

, voice, not, probably, in his own language, but in the poetical language of the Tragedy itself to which he alludes. For these

κερκιδες

, it seems, were a very vocal sort of things, nothing like the shuttles of "these degenerate days." Every one recollects the

"arguto pectine"

of Virgil. But this is nothing to the amplification of some Greek epigrammatists, who scruple not to compare them to swallows, and even to nightingales;

Κερκίδας ὀρθρολαλοισι ΧΕΛΙΔΟΣΙΝ εικελοφωνους

— And,

Κερκίδα δ' εὐποἰητον ΑΗΔΟΝΑ

— . ²⁵⁶ Hence the ridiculous fancy of Joseph Scaliger, that the metamorphosis of Procne into a swallow was exhibited in the Tereus of Sophocles, and that a shuttle was made use of, instead of a whistle or bird-pipe, to imitate the swallow's voice!

128. mvp-aristotle-comment-128

NOTE 128. P. 96.

16.8 THUS IN THE CYPRIANS OF DICÆOGENES

That this was a distinct Poem from the

Κυπρια

mentioned afterwards in cap. xxiii. seems clear from this single circumstance, observed by Victorius, that the Epic Poem called The Cypriacs, —

τα Κυπρια ἐπη

, — is mentioned there by Aristotle, as it is, generally, by other antient writers, in terms that imply a doubt of its author: ²⁵⁷ whereas here the author is named, without any expression of uncertainty. Whether the Poem was Epic, or Tragic, cannot be determined; nor, from the ambiguity of the case,

τοις Κυπριοις

, whether the title of it was Τα Κυπρια, or Κυπριοι — The Cypriacs, or, The Cyprians. The latter is, certainly, the most probable title for a Tragedy, and therefore, as Dicæogenes is recorded only as a Tragic and Dithyrambic Poet, I have ventured to adopt it.

129. mvp-aristotle-comment-129

NOTE 129. P. 96.

16.8 IN THE TALE OF ALCINOUS.

See Od. VIII. 521 . There is another discovery of the same kind in the 4th book , where Menelaus recognizes Telemachus by the tears he sheds at the mention of his father. There is not, I think, either in Homer, or in any other Poet, a more natural and affecting picture of friendly regret on the one hand, and filial affection on the other. "Of all the friends I have lost," says Menelaus, addressing himself to Telemachus without knowing who he was — "one there is, whom I lament more than all the rest:" Od. Δ. 105.

ὅστε μοι ὑπνον ἀπεχθαιρει και ἐδωδην Μνωσμενῳ· ἐπει οὔτις Αχαιων τοσσ᾿ ἐμογησεν Ὁσσ᾽ Ὀδυσευς ἐμογησε και ήρατο — τῳ δ᾽ ἀρ ἔμελλε Αυτῳ κηδε᾽ ἐσεσθαι, ἐμοι δ᾽ ἀχος ἀιεν ἀλαστον Κεινου, ὅπως δη δηρον ἀποιχεται· οὐδε τι ίδμεν, Ζωει ὅγ᾽, η τεθνηκεν. . . . . . . . Οδυρονται νυ που αυτον Λαέρτης θ' ὁ γερων, και ἐχέφρων Πηνελοπεια, Τηλεμαχος θ᾽, ὃν ἐλειπε νεον γεγαωτ᾽ ἐνι οἴκῳ. Ὡς φατο — τῳ δ' ἀρα πατρος ὑφ' ἵμερον ὦρσε γοοιο. Δακρυ δ᾽ ἀπο βλεφαρων χαμάδις βαλε, πατρος ἀκουσας, Χλαιναν πορφυρεην ἀντ᾽ ὀφθαλμοῖν ἀνασχων Αμφοτέρησι χερσι· νοησε δε μιν Μενελαος.

²⁵⁸

That the title,

Αλκινοου

, or

Αλκινου ἀπολογος

, was understood to refer chiefly to the long narration of Ulysses, which occupies four books of the Odyssey, seems clear, even from the proverbial application of the expression.

Απολογος Αλκίνου· ἐπι των φλυαρούντων, και μακρον ἀποτεινοντων λογον

. — Suidas. And so Jul. Pollux: —

ἐπι μακρων ῥησεων

. ²⁵⁹ But a passage in Aristotle's Rhetoric leaves no doubt. He there expressly mentions Homer's account of the speech of Ulysses to Penelope, Od. xxiii. 310, &c. as being the

Αλκινου ἀπολογος

compressed into an abridgment of thirty verses.

Παραδειγμα ὁ Αλκινου ἀπολογος, ὅτι προς την Πηνελοπην ἐν τριακοντα ἐπεσι πεποἰηται

. ²⁶⁰ Now those verses are, in fact, a mere table of contents to the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th books, which contain the narrative of Ulysses at the court of Alcinous. This title, therefore, (

Αλκινου Απολογος

) must at least have extended to those four books. But the passage which is the subject of this note, seems to prove that it extended still farther; for here we are referred to the eighth book under that title; though the speech, the

μακρα ῥησις

of Ulysses, does not commence till the ninth. The editions prefix the title,

Αλκινου ἀπολογΟΙ

, only to the eighth book. The fact seems to be, that the titles, by which the different parts of Homer's Poems were first distinguished, were applied to parts of very unequal lengths; so that afterwards, when the equal, or nearly equal, division into books took place, it would not always coincide exactly with the other division, formed by the different distinct subjects or episodes of the Poem; but one title would sometimes comprehend several books, and different parts of the same book, would sometimes be distinguished by different titles. Thus, for example, the fifth book of the Odyssey had two titles,

Καλυψους Αντρον

, and

Σχεδια

, or

Τα περι την σχεδιαν

: and the last book three,

Νέκυιαν

—

Τα ἐν Λαερτου

— and,

Σπονδαι

. ²⁶¹ And thus, on the other hand, the title,

Αλκινου Απολογος

, is not, I apprehend, to be considered as appropriated to any one book, but, probably, comprehended five books — from the eighth to the twelfth, inclusively; perhaps, was understood to refer, generally, to the whole Episode of Alcinous; as indeed the expression

ΑΛΚΙΝΟΥ ἀπολογ.

— the "story OF ALCINOUS" — seems rather to imply. And the different parts of this long Episode were, again, subdistinguished by other titles; such as,

Κυκλωπια, Νέκυια, Τα Κιρκης

, &c. Indeed, the title,

Αλκινου Απολογοι

, though prefixed only to the eighth book, seems evidently extended beyond that book by the title subjoined as its equivalent,

η, τα του Οδυσσεως παρα Αλκινῳ

. But how the word

ἀπολογος

got into the plural number here, I do not well understand. This circumstance, however, together with the idea of its being confined to this single book, has, I think, led Perizonius and other learned men into mistakes concerning the reason of the appellation. Perizonius (ubi sup.) thinks the eighth book was so called, "because there are several speeches of Alcinous in it;" and others suppose, that the title alludes to the songs of Demodocus. ²⁶²

130. mvp-aristotle-comment-130

NOTE 130. P. 96.

16.9 THE DISCOVERY OCCASIONED BY REASONING, OR INFERENCE; SUCH AS THAT IN THE CHOEPHORA-.

Here is much obscurity and confusion. One thing, however, seems clear; that

ἐκ συλλογισμου

, cannot mean as some interpreters have understood it to mean, "by reasoning or inference in the mind of the person who makes the discovery;" because this is common to all the modes of discovery. When Electra recognizes her brother, does she not infer, or, in the philosopher's language, syllogize? "This man has seen the lance — nobody could see it but Orestes — This is Orestes." And the same may be said of all the other recognitions. Discovery by inference, therefore, on the part of the discoverer, cannot be made a distinct species. The discovery Aristotle means, is plainly a discovery, not made, but occasioned, by inference. Throughout all his instances, he considers only the means, or occasion, of discovery, as furnished, in some way or other, by the person discovered. With respect to bodily marks, bracelets, &c. the letter of Iphigenia, and the verbal

τεκμηρια

of Orestes, this is obvious enough. But the case is the same with the discovery by memory: in both the examples of that species, the persons are discovered, not by recollection in the discoverers, but by the effects of it in themselves. And so here too, in the three last examples of discovery

ἐκ συλλογισμου

, however obscure in other respects, this at least seems clearly enough expressed, that the persons are discovered by their own reasoning, or inference; that is, by something which it leads them to say. ²⁶³

But, the difficulty is, that Aristotle's first example, appears not to accord with this idea, and with the other examples. ²⁶⁴ The inference here, appears to be, even from the words themselves, and, if the Choephora of Æschylus be intended, as the commentators suppose, certainly is, — inference in the mind of the person who makes the discovery. ²⁶⁵ But as this, for the reasons already given, cannot, I think, be admitted, we must either leave this knot as it is, or solve it by supposing some other Tragedy, not extant, to be meant, in which the conclusion mentioned was, as in all the other instances that follow, the occasion only of the discovery. Nor will this appear a very improbable supposition, if we recollect the swarm of Tragic Poets who were continually exercising their invention upon a few popular subjects, and the number of different Tragedies which, in consequence, we find recorded, not only on the same subject, but even with the same title; often with some slight variation only, in the mode of a discovery, and other episodic incidents of the plot, which would still leave a general resemblance, a sort of family likeness, between them, such as, in fact, we find in Tragedies on the same subject now extant; in the Electra of Sophocles, and that of Euripides, and the Choephora of Æschylus.

But we may say, farther, that this supposition seems to be favoured by the Tragedy of Æschylus, itself; ²⁶⁶ with which, what Aristotle here says, appears to me by no means exactly to correspond. The reader, who will take the trouble to examine the whole passage supposed to be here alluded to, from v. 166, to v. 233, will, I believe, think with me, that the discovery, in that play, cannot with propriety be denominated a discovery made by inference from resemblance. The circumstances of the lock of hair, and the footsteps, produce in Electra's mind no more than a glimmering of hope —

σαινομαι δ᾽ ὑπ᾿ ἐλπιδος

[v. 192.] and she is so far from discovering Orestes by them, that even when he appears before her, she is not convinced till he produces the

ὑφασμα

— the vest, or veil. This is justly remarked by Brumoy; ²⁶⁷

"Tout cela (i. e. the hair, &c.) ne fait que la rendre plus inquiete: Elle demeure donc dans ce trouble jusqu' à ce qu' Oreste paroisse à ses yeux. Il se montre tout à coup, et se fait reconnoitre pour son frere, en lui présentant un voile qu'elle a tissu elle-meme."

This I take to be the true

ἀναγνωρισις

of this drama; and it belongs rather to Aristotle's first class —

δια σημειων

; if not even to the worst sort of that class, where the sign is produced

πιστεως ἐνεκα

, — by way of proof. Indeed, even admitting that Electra may be considered as recognizing her brother by inference from the resemblance of the lock of hair and the footsteps only, still, as Piccolomini acutely and solidly observes, this instance would belong to the first species of discovery by signs.

"Questo riconoscimento non è della quarta specie, ma della prima; nato, non da sillogismo, ma da segno: posciache Elettra, preso per segno d'Oreste la capigliatura, sopra tal segno, quasi sopra mezzo termine, fabrica il sillogismo che ella fa in se stessa, argomentando, che colui fusse Oreste: havendo io già detto, ch' in ogni riconoscimento suol intervenir sillogismo ed argomentatione dentro all'animo della persona riconoscente."

p. 236.

131. mvp-aristotle-comment-131

NOTE 131. P. 97.

16.9 "HE CAME TO FIND HIS SON, AND HE HIMSELF MUST PERISH."It is not very obvious, how these words are to be brought to any thing like, reasoning, or inference. But all here is darkness. The far-fetched explanation which Dacier has condescended to borrow, without notice, from Castelvetro, for whom, in his preface, he expresses so much contempt, only serves to make the "darkness" more "visible."

I know not whether it be worth while to remark a mere resemblance of expression, but a very close one, in Homer: Od. Ο. 90.

Μη πατερ᾿ ἀντίθεον ΔΙΖΗΜΕΝΟΣ, ΑΥΤΟΣ ΟΛΩΜΑΙ.

132. mvp-aristotle-comment-132

NOTE 132. P. 97.

16.10 THERE IS ALSO A COMPOUND SORT, &C.When the meaning of an author cannot be satisfactorily explained, all that a translator can do, is, to be particularly careful to render faithfully his words. This I have endeavoured to do here: but whether I have done even this, the manifest corruption of the text must leave uncertain. Whatever sense may be enveloped in the Greek, I hope remains enveloped in the English. But what that is, I will not undertake to say.

With respect to the title of the drama,

Οδυσσευς Ψευδαγγελος

, if I have not given it its only possible sense, I have, surely, given it its most natural and obvious sense: — Ulysses in the disguise of a messenger. For I am really not able to see, how the words, without violent twisting, can be made to signify passively, as Castelvetro would have it,

"Ulisse di cui sono recate false novelle;"

though Victorius has pronounced a man to be a fool, who pretends to determine which of these two meanings is the right one.²⁶⁸ Had a false Ulysses been meant, it seems probable, that the word

Ψευδοδυσσευς

would rather have been used; as

Ψευδηράκλης

, The false Hercules, was the title of a Comedy of Menander.

Αναγνωριεντα . . τε θεατρου

: I see no other construction, as the text stands. And so Victorius:

"Spectatores ita accepisse illam vocem, tanquam si ipsi, rei illius auxilio, ipsum agnituri essent."

Ulysses seems to have been a rich and valuable resource to the dramatic writers. His history furnished the subjects of many Comedies, as well as Tragedies. See Cassaubon upon Athenæus, p. 297 . There were, Ulysses Wounded — Ulysses Mad — Ulysses the Deserter — Ulysses Shipwrecked — Ulysses Weaving, &c. — The subject of the play here mentioned seems to have been suggested by Homer, Od. Τ. 120 . But, what it was — how this discovery was compound (

συνθετος

) — or how, indeed, it was a discovery at all — what the precise paralogism was, &c. I confess myself totally unable, from the short, perplexed, and probably corrupt words of the text, to make out. The reader may see, however, a great variety of different conjectures in the commentators; and I believe when he has read them all he will find himself just where he was. For my part, I leave this bow of Ulysses to be bent by stronger arms than mine: —

Ω φίλοι, οὐ μεν ἐγω τανυω — λαβετω δε και άλλος.

133. mvp-aristotle-comment-133

NOTE 133. P. 97.

16.11 BUT OF ALL DISCOVERIES, THE BEST IS THAT WHICH ARISES FROM THE ACTION ITSELF--.I agree with those commentators, who understand this to be given by Aristotle as a species of

ἀναγνωρισις

distinct from any of the preceding. This appears, 1. From his examples, which are very different from all those before produced, and not reducible, I think, to any of his classes. The discovery of Iphigenia by the letter, is, indeed, mentioned under his second class, but not as an instance of that species. — See NOTE 124. 2dly, and principally, from his saying, "After these, the next best are the discoveries by inference" naming an entire species; which he would not, surely, have done, had his best of all discoveries been such, as might be found equally in the other species; had he been speaking, as some understand him, only of the best way of using the discoveries already enumerated.

134. mvp-aristotle-comment-134

NOTE 134. P. 98.

16.11 SUCH DISCOVERIES ARE THE BEST, BECAUSE THEY ALONE ARE EFFECTED WITHOUT INVENTED PROOFS, OR BRACELETS, &C. NEXT TO THESE ARE THE DISCOVERIES BY INFERENCE.If the words,

πεποιημένων σημείων

, refer, as it is generally understood, to the second sort of discoveries exclusively, it is not easy to see how it can be true, that the fifth and best sort of discoveries, that

ἐκ πραγματων

, is the only one that is effected without invented signs, bracelets, &c. for, on this supposition, the same may evidently be said of the third and fourth classes, those by memory, and by inference, which are expressly distinguished from the two first classes.

This inconsistence is not, I think, to be removed, but by understanding the words

πεποιημενα σημεια

, here, to be used in a wider sense, as including the third and fourth species, and, in general, all discoveries that have any degree of the defect which Aristotle means to point out by the expression

πεποιημεναι ὑπο του ποιητου

, used in describing the second species, as opposed to what he calls,

ἐξ ἀυτων πραγματων

;²⁶⁹ though that second species only is expressly so denominated, because it had this fault in the most glaring degree.

Any incident, or single action, of that combination of actions that compose a fable, is said, I think, to be

ἐξ αυτων πραγματων

, when it is prepared in the texture of the plot, and appears to follow so naturally and of course (

κατα το ἀναγκαιον ἢ το ἐικος

) from the incidents which precede it, that the spectator does not see how it could have been otherwise.²⁷⁰ On the contrary, those incidents are not

ἐξ ἀυτων πραγματων

, which are not thus gradually prepared, but have, more or less, the appearance of expedients brought in to answer the purpose of the moment; which suggest the idea of occasional and easy contrivance; which, though not, perhaps, improbable, yet have not such a degree of probability, as answers fully the purpose of dramatic illusion, by acting upon the mind of the spectator as necessity, and keeping his attention rivetted to the action, without suffering him, as it were, to turn his eyes a moment from it, to the resources of the Poet’s invention.

Now the third and fourth sorts of discovery appear, when we examine them, to be of this kind. They are not prepared and brought on gradually by the previous circumstances of the fable, as in the examples given from the Oedipus, and Iphigenia in Tauris, but effected by contrivances, more or less naturally introduced by the Poet, at the moment when they are wanted; by tears suddenly shed at the sight of a picture, by an exclamation suddenly uttered. These, therefore, are not improperly included under the denomination of

πεποιημενα

(

ὑπο του ποιητου

); and they are, also, in the proper and logical sense of the word,

σημεια

; the tears, in the one case, and the illative reflection, or exclamation, in the other, being tokens, by which the persons are recognized. And thus, what Aristotle here says seems true that the discovery which arises out of the action itself, is the only sort that is entirely effected

ἀνευ των πεποιημενων σημείων και περιδεραιων

: by

περιδεραια

, meaning the first class of discoveries, and under

πεποιημενα σημεια

comprehending the three other classes.

He has, plainly, arranged his modes of discovery, as he had before arranged the modes of managing the

παθη

, or disastrous incidents, of Tragedy ( cap. xiv. ) — in the order of their comparative excellence; beginning with the worst, and proceeding gradually to the best. When he tells us, that the discoveries by inference are the next best, he evidently considers them, as not being, strictly at least,

ἐξ ἀυτων πραγματων

; and so far, I think, is intelligible: but, in what respect they are better than the preceding species,

δια μνημης

, he has not told us. The discovery by recollection may, perhaps, in this respect be regarded as less

ἐξ ἀυτων πραγματων

, more of the "Poet’s making," as it seems to require the introduction of something accidental and extraneous, such as the picture in his first instance, and the Bard and his performance, in the second; circumstances, which have more the appearance of expedients than the reflection of Orestes, for example, in the Tragedy of Polyides. For that reflection arose, at least, naturally, and solely, from his situation, and that situation was essential to the fable.

But it is time to release the reader, and myself, from the embarrassments of one of the most corrupt, confused, and ambiguous chapters of this mutilated and disfigured work.

135. mvp-aristotle-comment-135

NOTE 135. P. 98.

17.2 THIS, THE POET, &c.

Ὁ μη ὁρωντα τον θεατην ἐλανθανεν

. — Dacier has, at least, I think, satisfactorily proved, that this passage wants some emendation, and that the sense must be — "escaped the Poet, (not the spectator,) for want of his seeing, or conceiving himself to see, the action." He might have added to his other reasons, that the word

λανθανει

, applied just before to the Poet, seems to fix the same application of

ἐλανθανε

here. The opposition, as he has observed, is strongly marked: — it escaped the Poet;

ἐπι ΔΕ της ΣΚΗΝΗΣ

, &c. but upon the stage, &c. Castelvetro had seen this before Dacier, and conjectured,

ὁ μη, ὁρωντα, ΩΣ τον θεατην, ἐλανθανεν ΑΝ

"La qual contrarietà non sarebbe potuto essere celata a Carcino, se avesse riguardata la sua Tragedia non come Poeta, ma come veditore."

²⁷¹ The ingenuity of the conjecture may be allowed; not so, I fear, the accuracy of the Greek.

136. mvp-aristotle-comment-136

NOTE 136. P. 98.

17.3 IN COMPOSING, THE POET SHOULD ALSO, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BE AN ACTOR.

Τοις σχήμασι συναπεργαζομενον ποιειν

. — The same expression occurs in the Rhetoric III. 8 .

ἀναγκη τους συναπεργαζομενους σχήμασι, και φωναις, και ἐσθητι, και όλως τη ὑποκρισει, ἐλεεινοτερους ειναι

. But there, this is mentioned only as the means, by which the Orator may excite greater emotion in the hearer, immediately: here, as the means, by which the Poet may excite a stronger emotion, a greater reality of imagination and feeling, and a more perfect alienation of person, if I may venture so to call it, in himself, immediately; in order to produce afterwards a correspondent effect upon the spectator, by the force and truth of his imitation.

"I have often observed,"

says the admirable author of the Inquiry concerning the Sublime and Beautiful,²⁷²

"that on mimicking the looks and gestures of angry, or placid, or frighted, or daring men, I have involuntarily found my mind turned to that passion whose appearance I endeavoured to imitate; nay, I am convinced it is hard to avoid it, though one strove to separate the passion from its correspondent gestures."

I believe, however, it is hardly possible to put on the bodily appearance of any passion, without previously turning the mind, in some degree, to that passion. But it is certain, that the effect, in this case, will react upon the cause, and convert a slight and nascent emotion into a more steady, strong, and real feeling of the passion.

A singular instance of the practice of this rule of Aristotle —

σχημασι συναπεργαζομενον ποιειν

— in a sister art, is given in the following curious account, from Felibien, of Domenichino, a painter remarkable for expression.

"Il ne pouvoit comprendre qu’il y eut des peintres qui travaillassent à des ouvrages considérables avec si peu d’application, que pendant leur travail ils ne laisassent pas de s’entretenir avec leurs amis. Il les regardoit comme des ouvriers qui n’avoient que la pratique, et nulle intelligence de l’art; etant persuadé qu’un Peintre, pour bien réüssir, doit entrer dans une parfaite connoissance des affections de l’esprit et des passions de l’ame; qu’il doit les sentir en lui même, et s’il faut ainsi dire, faire les memes actions et souffrir les mêmes mouvemens qu’il veut représenter: ce qui ne se peut au milieu des distractions. Aussi on l’entendoit quelquefois parler en travaillant, avec une voix languissante et pleine de douleur, ou tenir des discours agréables et joyeux, selon les divers sentimens qu’il avoit intention d’exprimer. Mais pour cela, il s’enfermoit dans un lieu fort retiré, pour n’être pas apperçu dans ces differens états, ni par ses eléves, ni par ceux de sa famille; parcequ’il lui étoit arrivé quelquefois, que des gens qui l’avoient vû dans ces transports, l’avoient soupçonné de folie. Lorsque dans sa jeunesse il travailloit au Tableau, du Martyre de S. André qui est à S. Gregoire, Annibal Carrache étant allé pour le voir, il le surprit comme il étoit dans une action de colére et menaçante. Après l’avoir observé quelque temps, il connut qu’il representoit un soldat qui menace le S. Apôtre. Alors ne pouvant plus se tenir caché, il s’approcha du Dominiquin, et en l’embrassant, lui avoüa qu’il avoit dans ce moment-là beaucoup appris de lui."

²⁷³

I will just observe, farther, that this precept, or rather counsel, of Aristotle, would appear the less strange to the Poets of his time, because, as he himself tells us, the earlier Tragic Poets were also actors:

ὑπεκρινοντο γαρ αυτοι Τραγῳδιας οι ποιηται το πρωτον

. — Rhet. III. 1 . But, indeed, I am so far from seeing any thing strange or improbable in this advice, that, on the contrary, if it be liable to any objection at all, it is, perhaps, rather to that of being unnecessary: for I scarce believe, that any Poet of genius, antient or modern, ever yet composed a Tragedy without practising involuntarily, in some degree or other, what the critic here recommends. No dramatic Poetry, I think, can be less chargeable with the

μανικον

, than that of the French. Yet M. Marmontel sees no difficulty in this precept. In his account of this part of Aristotle’s work, he says,

"Il recommande que l’on soit présent à l’action que l’on veut peindre, que l’on se penetre soi-meme des sentimens que l’on doit exprimer, et qu’on imite, en composant, l’action des personnages qu’on met sur la scene: méthode qui contribue réellement à donner au style plus de chaleur et de vérité."

[ Poet. Franc. I. p. 15.] Mr. Mason says of the late ingenious and amiable Mr. Whitehead, whose dramatic compositions, whatever other merit may justly be allowed them, certainly bear no marks of any unmanageable phrensy in the Poet, that "he is apt to believe, that he always acted, or at least declaimed, while he was composing for the stage." If, then, even the modern Tragic Poet is, almost necessarily, more or less, "an actor in composing," there can surely be little difficulty in conceiving an Aeschylus, or a Sophocles, in their free, solitary, and unwritten meditations, to have given still greater scope to their imaginations, and,

ΟΣΑ ΔΥΝΑΤΟΝ

, at least,

σχημασι συναπεργασασθαι

. We must, for once, divest ourselves of modern ideas, and think, not of a spruce Poet of "these degenerate days," shut up in his study, with his pen in his hand, and his writing-table before him — but of Euripides, retired into that lonely, dark, and shaggy cavern, which is said to have been the favourite scene of his Tragic meditations.

"Philochorus refert, in insulâ Salamine speluncam esse tetram et horridam, quam nos vidimus, in quâ Euripides Tragedias fcriptitarit."

— Aul. Gell. xv. 20 .

137. mvp-aristotle-comment-137

NOTE 137. P. 98.

17.3 FOR BY NATURAL SYMPATHY, &C.

Πιθανωτατοι γαρ ἀπο της αυτης φυσεως δι ἐν παθεσιν εισι

. — Nothing, I think, can be more forced and improbable, than the sense given to the words,

ἀπο της αυτης φυσεως

, by Victorius, and, after him, by Goulston and Dacier:

"eorum qui pari naturâ ingenioque præditi, &c."

"De deux hommes qui seront d’un égal genie, celui qui se mettra dans la passion sera toujours plus persuasif."

If the text be right, the only sense I see is that given by Heinsius:

"propter similitudinem ejusdem naturæ:"

i. e. "from natural sympathy." — But I am much disposed to suspect, that we should read,

ἀπ᾿ ΑΥΤΗΣ ΤΗΣ φυσεως

—

ab ipsa naturâ

; —

Ipsa naturâ comparatum est, ut, &c.

A similar, but contrary, transposition, of the same words, occurred at the end of the second chapter:

ἐν ἀυτῃ δε τη διαφορα

— plainly, as Victorius observes, instead of

ΤΗ ΑΥΤΗ

. And, indeed, this sense is so obvious, that Robortelli, Castelvetro, and Piccolomini, have all given it in their translations, though certainly not warranted by the text. However, as the other reading seems to express, though somewhat obscurely, the same idea, I have not departed from it any farther, than by adopting the explanatory version of Heinsius, which takes the meaning, and leaves the obscurity.

138. mvp-aristotle-comment-138

NOTE 138. P. 98.

17.3 WE SHARE THE AGITATION OF THOSE WHO APPEAR TO BE TRULY AGITATED-THE ANGER OF THOSE WHO APPEAR TO BE TRULY ANGRY.

Χειμαινει ὁ χειμαζομενος, και χαλεπαινει ὁ ὀργιζομενος ἀληθινωτατα

. I have given that sense of this passage, in which all the commentators I have seen are perfectly agreed. But I cannot dissemble a difficulty which has always occurred to me in this interpretation, though, to my surprise, I have not found it any where taken notice of. I mean, that it gives a transitive sense to the verbs,

χειμαινει

, and

χαλεπαινει

With respect, particularly, to the verb

χαλεπαινειν

, (for the other occurs but seldom,) the difficulty from the general, if not the constant, use of it, as a verb neuter, seems not easily to be overcome. This use of it, by Aristotle himself, and by other prose writers, is so common and well known, that it would be mere trifling to produce instances. That it is never used by them transitively, it would be rash, perhaps, even in those, whose Greek reading is much more extensive than my own, to affirm. I can only say, that I have never seen a clear instance of it, either in prose, or verse. The lexicographers, indeed, send us to Homer: but without giving any instance that appears to me to be at all decisive.²⁷⁴ And, on the other hand, the word occurs clearly in its usual and intransitive sense in other passages: as, Il. Ξ. 256. Π. 386. Σ. 103, &c. But even admitting the verb to be now and then used by Homer in a sense indisputably transitive, it seems very unlikely, that Aristotle should transplant so rare, and poetical, a use of the word, into plain and philosophical prose; especially as other verbs were probably at hand, if he meant what he is supposed to mean, which would not have been liable to this ambiguity.

This difficulty has sometimes led me to suspect, that the passage may possibly, after all, admit of a different sense; and that Aristotle may have meant only to say this: — "The Poet should work himself, as far as may be, into the passion he is to represent, by even assuming the countenance, and the gestures, which are its natural expressions. For they, of course, have most probability and truth in their imitation, who actually feel, in some degree, the passion: and no one expresses agitation of mind (

χειμαινει

) so naturally, (

ἀληθινωτατα

,) as he who is really agitated, (

χειμαζομενος

,) or expresses anger (

χαλεπαινει

) so naturally, as he who is really angry (

ὀργιζομενος

.)" — Thus, the forms,

χειμαινει

χαλεπαινει

, will retain their neuter signification, referring to the Poet’s expression of the passion in his composition; as,

χειμαζομενου

, and

ὀργιζομενου

, refer to the internal feeling of the passion, which he has excited in his own mind.

Χειμαζεσθαι

— to be violently agitated in mind: —

Χειμαινειν

— to express that agitation by words or actions:

ὀργιζεσθαι

— to be angry:

χαλεπαινειν

— to express that anger by words or actions.

It will, perhaps, be objected, that

χαλεπαινειν

, used as a verb neuter, appears to be synonymous with

ὀργιζεσθαι

. That it may be often so, I will not take upon me to deny: but numerous instances may certainly be produced, where it is not so — where it clearly denotes something beyond the mere internal passion. In this line of Homer, for example;

Ζευς, ὅτε δη ῥ' ἀνδρεσσι ΚΟΤΕΣΣΑΜΕΝΟΣ ΧΑΛΕΠΗΝΗΙ.

Il. Π. 386. —

"iratus sæviat;"

— where the anger of Jupiter is expressed by

κοτεσσάμενος

but

χαλεπήνη

goes on to the external demonstration of it,

ὅτε λαβροτατον χεει ὑδωρ

. [ v. 385 ]²⁷⁵

So, too, Od. Τ. v. 83 .

Μη πως τοι δεσποινα κοτεσσάμενη ΧΑΛΕΠΗΝΗ

— which, in vulgar language, would be fairly rendered, "lest your mistress should be angry, and scold."

Thus, again, Il. Ο. 256 , of Jupiter:

ὁ δ᾽ ἐπεγρομενος ΧΑΛΕΠΑΙΝΕ ΡΙΠΤΑΖΩΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΔΩΜΑ ΘΕΟΥΣ.

In the very passage adduced to exemplify the transitive use of this verb, Il. Τ. 183 , it appears to have the same sense: for the words,

ὅτε τις προτερου χαλεπηνη

, allude to Agamemnon’s own words, Il. Β. 378 .

Και γαρ ἐγων Αχιλευς τε μαχεσσαμεθ᾽, εἵνεκα κουρης, Αντιβίοις ΕΠΕΕΣΣΙΝ· ἐγω δ᾽ ΗΡΧΟΝ ΧΑΛΕΠΑΙΝΩΝ.

Χαλεπαινειν

is here, I think, put as synonymous with

μαχεσθαι ἔπεεσσιν

. Agamemnon confesses, that he himself gave the first verbal provocation — alluding, I think, to his speech, v. 131, where he first hints at the seizure of Briseis. For though Achilles speaks, indeed, somewhat roughly to the king in the preceding speech, yet his wrath cannot properly be said to commence before the subsequent speech,

Ω μοι, ἀναιδείην

, &c. [ v. 149 .]

I shall add only an instance or two more. In the first book of Plato’s Repub. Socrates says to Thrasymachus,

ἐλεεισθαι οὖν ἡμας πολυ μαλλον εικός ἐστι παρ᾽ ὑμων των δεινων, ἢ ΧΑΛΕΠΑΙΝΕΣΘΑΙ

— i. e. "we deserve rather to be pitied by you wise men, than to be scolded at." In the passage quoted NOTE 22, p. 188, Plato says of a dog,

ὃν μεν ἂν ἴδῃ ἀγνωτα, ΧΑΛΕΠΑΙΝΕΙ· — ὃν δ᾽ ἂν γνωριμον, ΑΣΠΑΖΕΤΑΙ

: "fawns on those he knows, and barks at strangers." In the Memorabilia of Xenophon, II. 2 , we have —

Αισθομενος δε ποτε Λαμπροκλεα, τον πρεσβύτατον υἱον ἑαυτου, προς την μητερα ΧΑΛΕΠΑΙΝΟΝΤΑ

: i.e. "when he had heard him speaking angrily to his mother." It seems, then, that the passage will fairly admit of the meaning I have proposed, And whether that meaning would not be more to Aristotle’s purpose, than the other, I willingly submit to the reader’s consideration. For why recommend it to the Poet to help his imagination by action, when he composes? — plainly, for the sake of the effect of this method upon his poetry; that his expression of passion may have more of truth and nature; that his characters may

χειμαινειν

, or

χαλεπαινειν

ἀληθινωτατα

.²⁷⁶ Now it seems more consonant to this purpose, that the words which follow as the reason of the advice, should refer to this immediate effect upon the Poet’s work, which is the object of the advice, than to the more remote and implied effect of the work upon the spectator. It seems, indeed, to have been this reference to the audience, in the usual way of understanding the passage, that led Madius into the mistake of supposing this precept intended, not for the Poet, but for the Player.

Such are my objections to the sense hitherto given to this passage, and my reasons for thinking, that its meaning may have been mistaken. I abandon them, without reserve, to the judgment of the learned reader: in my own, it is impossible for me to confide, when I reflect, that the whole band of commentators, who have preceded me, have acquiesced, without doubt or scruple, in that interpretation which to me appears so unsatisfactory.

139. mvp-aristotle-comment-139

NOTE 139. p. 98.

17.4 GREAT NATURAL QUICKNESS OF PARTS

Εὐφυὲς ἡ ποιητική ἐστιν. Εὐφυΐα—ΟΞΥΤΗΣ.

Hefychius . See also Casaub. upon Athenaeus, p. 454 , and Suidas , voc.

Εὐφυᾶ

, and

Εὐφυΐα

, where the passage he quotes from Alex. Aphrod. shews what was the common idea of

εὐφυΐα

, though its propriety is disputed. The

εὐφυεῖς

were generally understood to be

ὁι ῥᾳδίως μανθάνοντες, ὁμοἰως δὲ ἔχοντες πρὸς πάντα τὰ μαθήματα

, &c. The passage seems to allude to Ethic. Nicom. III. 5. p. 113. ed. Wilk.

No epithet can be more exactly adapted to the

εὐφυής

, than that of

εὔπλαστος

, which follows; a man of quick, mimetic parts, who can turn himself, as we say, to every thing with equal facility, and mould himself, without effort, to every form. But the word had considerable latitude, and would have been applied by the antients, to the genius of a Shakspeare, the talents of a Foote, or the docility of a school-boy²⁷⁷.

140. mvp-aristotle-comment-140

NOTE 140. p. 98.

17.4 OR, AN ENTHUSIASM ALLIED TO MADNESS

μανικοῦ.

— My translation here will, I fear, be thought too paraphrastical. But this is one among many passages, that have occurred, where I have found it impossible to give, at the same time, word for word, and idea for idea. This, indeed, is the great misfortune of translation; for what Mr. Harris has observed is too true, that "much of the force of the original will necessarily be lost in the translation, where single words in one language cannot be found corresponding to single words in the other." The word,

μανικοῦ

, wanted no explanation to Greek readers, to whom, from the writings of Plato, in particular, it was familiar to consider enthusiasm of every kind, as a species of madness²⁷⁸. They would understand no more, from Aristotle's expression, than that comparative insanity which Cicero has so exactly expressed:— "Poetam bonum neminem sine inflammatione animorum existere posse, et sine quodam afflatu quasi furoris." — But what can a mere modern reader think, when he is told, in Dacier's translation, that, to succeed in Poetry,

"il faut avoir un genie excellent, ou etre FURIEUX?"

Nor could I, without danger of confounding the philosopher's distinction, have rendered

εὐφυΐα

by the single word genius; which, as we usually apply it to the fine arts, implies much of that very warmth, and illusive power, of imagination, that

"inflammatio animorum"

which Aristotle meant to express by the other word,

μανικοῦ

I must not omit, that this whole passage receives considerable illustration from another, in the Problems , pointed out by Mr. Winstanley in his edition, p. 292²⁷⁹. If Aristotle had given any instance of the

μανικοῦ

among the Tragic Poets, it would, in all probability, have been Æschylus. It is pleasant to observe the appearance which the wild invention and ferocious sublimity of his PROMETHEUS, had to the eye of a French critic, of admirable good sense, indeed, but,

καρδίᾳ νήφοντος

"Je crois,"

says Fontenelle, "qu' Æschile etoit UNE MANIERE DE FOU, qui avoit l'imagination trés-vive, et pas trop reglée." ²⁸⁰ He would probably have said much the same of Shakspeare. The charge certainly cannot be retorted upon the French Tragic writers. It is related of the unfortunate Nat Lee, that, when he was in Bedlam, somebody had the inhumanity to tell him, it was a very easy thing to write like a madman. "No," replied the Poet, "it is not an easy thing to write like a madman; but it is a very easy thing to write like a fool." I believe these two things are almost equally difficult to our ingenious neighbours. It would be hard to detect Racine writing like a fool. But I confess I never read him without wishing he had written a little more like a madman.

We must allow him much merit;—but he never "rolled his eye" in the "fine phrensy" of the Poet; he knew little of "the tricks" of "strong imagination." The character given of him by Lord Kaims appears to me perfectly exact and just; that "he is always sensible, generally correct, never falls low, maintains a moderate degree of dignity without reaching the sublime, paints delicately the tender passions, but is a stranger to the genuine language of enthusiastic or fervid passion." ²⁸¹

I have often wondered, what it was that could attach Mr. Gray so strongly to a Poet whose genius was so little analogous to his own²⁸². I must confess I cannot, even in the dramatic fragment given us by Mr. Mason, discover any other resemblance to Racine, than in the length of the speeches. Its fault, indeed, is Racine's; its beauties are, surely, of a higher order. What pity, that a work of genius, should have been smothered in its birth, by a little cold and trifling criticism!— We have, indeed, been told, that

"it was certainly no loss to the English stage, that Agrippina was never finished:"

but we have been told it by the same critic who has pronounced, also, that the BARD of Gray, only "endeavours at sublimity;" who saw in the juvenile Poems of Milton "no promise of Paradise Lost;" and who has admitted, with seeming complacence, into the catalogue of English POETS, such names as Blackmore, Yalden, and Pomfret—

"Alcandrumque Haliumque Noemonaque Prytanimque!"

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 Victorius²⁸³.

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 invention²⁸⁴. 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 means²⁸⁵. 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

²⁸⁶;—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 Poem²⁸⁷.

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.

148. mvp-aristotle-comment-148

NOTE 148. p. 100.

18.2 I CALL COMPLICATION, ALL THAT IS BETWEEN THE BEGINNING OF THE PIECE, AND THE LAST PART, &c.

Aristotle is here, as usual, very short and dry in the information he bestows upon us concerning this

δέσις

and

λύσις

. I wish he had given us a definition of their meanings, instead of a mere designation of their places. One would suspect, on the first view, from the mention of a change

εἰς εὐτυχίαν

only, (in which reading all the MSS. I think, agree,) from his instance, (if it be the same Tragedy as he before cited, cap. xi.) and from the common acceptation of the word

λύσις

itself, that he was speaking only of those Tragedies in which the principal characters are extricated from the difficulties they were involved in, and the end is happy.

And, indeed, the way in which Le Bossu, and others after him, explain this

nœud

and

denouement

, leads naturally to this idea, and seems hardly consistent with their allowing, as they do, that the denouement may be either calamitous or prosperous²⁸⁸. For they explain the

nœud

, or

δέσις

, by

"obstacles à vaincre"

—

"efforts contraires— i. e. aux efforts du heros pour l'execution de son dessein."

— "Les obstacles présentés s'appellent nœuds, et la maniere dont on les force, se nomme, denouement." —This will do very well for Æneas, or Ulysses. But when Oedipus finds himself guilty of parricide and incest, and, from a state of regal dignity and happiness, becomes a wretched, blind, and banished vagabond—this is but a strange way of surmounting obstacles.

The truth is, that the obstacles of the

δέσις

, or the knot, are those which are presented to the mind of the spectator; the difficulty overcome is that of seeing how the piece will terminate. And thus, indeed, the Abbé Batteux more accurately expresses himself elsewhere:—

"Le nœud dans le Cinna est, de sçavoir si Cinna tuera Auguste,"

&c.²⁸⁹ The

λύσις

is, to the spectator, the solution of the problem, "How will all this end?" And we may add, the more difficult the problem, the greater the pleasure of the solution.

It may be objected, that this is applicable only to those Tragedies, the subjects of which are totally unknown to the spectator; and it may be asked, "Where is the problem to be solved, in those dramas, which we have repeatedly seen and read, and of which we are perfectly acquainted with the catastrophe, and every incident that leads to it?" To this I can only answer, that it is a fact, and certainly a curious fact, that it makes little difference, or none at all, in the sympathetic interest which a spectator feels during the course of the action, whether he knows, or does not know, beforehand, how the piece will end. "Quelque prévenu que l'on soit de la maniere dont tout va se réfoudre, la marche de l'action en écarte la reminiscence: l'impression de ce que l'on voit empêche de réfléchir à ce que l'on sçait; et c'est par ce prestige que les spectateurs qui se laissent toucher, pleurent vingt fois au même spectacle."

The term

λύσις

, therefore, is as applicable to the calamitous catastrophe of the Oedipus, as to the satisfactory conclusion of the Iphigenia in Tauris. For Aristotle expressly gives these parts, as parts of every Tragedy.

Ἔστι δὲ ΠΑΣΗΣ τραγῳδίας, τὸ μὲν, δέσις, τὸ δὲ, λύσις.

149. mvp-aristotle-comment-149

NOTE 149. p. 100.

18.3 THE LYNCEUS OF THEODECTES

Castelvetro has guessed, with some ingenuity, the subject and plot of this Tragedy, from Hyginus, Fab. 45 . See Goulston's supplemental version, which is taken from him. It seems, however, very improbable, that a Tragedy should be denominated from a person who had no other share in the action, than that it passed under his roof. Dacier understands this to be the Lynceus mentioned before, cap. xi. All I see is, that his application of the word,

παιδίον

, to Lynceus the husband of Hypermestra, cannot be admitted. The diminutive

παιδίον

, is, I believe, never used but to signify a child. In this respect, certainly, Castelvetro's conjecture has greatly the advantage; as it has, also, in the explanation of

αἰτιάσεως τοῦ θανάτου

, which, in Dacier, is terribly forced. See his version.

150. mvp-aristotle-comment-150

NOTE 150. P. 100.

18.4 THERE ARE FOUR KINDS OF TRAGEDY, DEDUCIBLE FROM SO MANY PARTS WHICH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED.

It is incumbent on a commentator to state, as clearly as he can, the difficulties of his author, whether he be able to remove them, or not. This has not been done with respect to this passage, in any of the comments that I have seen.

Aristotle says,

Τραγῳδιας δε ειδη εισι τεσσαρα τοσαυτα ΓΑΡ και τα μερη ελεχθη.

"There are four species of Tragedy; for so many also are the parts which have been mentioned." This is saying, as expressly as words can say it, that the four different species of Tragedy correspond to, and, of course, arise from, four different parts already mentioned. Now what are those parts? Four parts of quantity have indeed been mentioned; (cap. xii.) but these are quite out of the question. If we have recourse to what are called the parts of quality, these are six; and if, with Dacier, we reduce them to four, by throwing out the decoration and the music, the four that remain, i. e. fable, manners, sentiments, and diction, will furnish out, among them, only one of the species of Tragedy enumerated—that which is denominated

ηθικη

. These, then, cannot be the four parts pointed at as the foundation of the four species. There remain only the parts which Aristotle calls

μερη ΜΥΘΟΥ

: the parts, not of Tragedy, but of one of the essential parts of Tragedy—the Fable. These he enumerated in the 11th chapter, and to these, the commentators, in general, are agreed in understanding Aristotle to allude.

But the difficulty here is, that he refers to four parts mentioned, and here are only three—i. e.

περιπετεια, αναγνωρισις

, (which he expressly calls

δυο μυθα μερη

,) and, thirdly,

παθος

ΤΡΙΤΟΝ δὲ, παθός

. There is no mention of

ηθος

, to furnish his third species, the moral Tragedy; nor, indeed, was it, by any means, to be expected there, where he is professedly enumerating the parts of the Fable.

Παθη

, in the sense in which the word is there used, may, unquestionably, be considered as parts of the Fable;

ηθη

, or manners, cannot. ²⁹⁰²⁹¹²⁹²

The Abbé Batteux thinks the ethic species is tacitly implied, as the opposite, or negative, of the pathetic. The three parts of the fable,

περιπετεια, αναγνωρισις, παθος

, give, directly, only two species of Tragedy; the two first constituting, (one, or both of them,) the complicated, (

πεπλεγμενην

,) and the third, the pathetic, or disastrous, Tragedy. The two other species are only the negatives of these. If the fable is without revolution or discovery, the Tragedy is simple, as opposed to complicated; ²⁹³ if, without

παθη

, or disasters, it is

ηθικη

, as opposed to

παθητικη

. ²⁹⁴ —Such is the explanation of this ingenious writer; which seems to be much favoured by the manner in which these species are arranged afterwards, when applied to Epic Poetry in cap. xxiv.; where we have—

η γαρ ΑΠΛΗΝ η ΠΕΠΛΕΓΜΕΝΗΝ, η ΗΘΙΚΗΝ η ΠΑΘΗΤΙΚΗΝ, δει ειναι

; and, also, by the frequent opposition of

παθος

and

ηθος

παθητικον

and

ηθικον

, in antient writers ²⁹⁵. It may, indeed, be objected, that this cannot be reconciled to Aristotle's words

τοσαυτα γαρ και τα μερη ΕΛΕΧΘΗ

; which seem to refer clearly to four parts that had been all expressly mentioned. But, if we should suppose Aristotle here to consider that as said, which was only implied, and as explained, which was only hinted, we should, perhaps, take no liberty that is not warranted by the magisterial and elliptic brevity of his general style, and even by similar instances in his writings ²⁹⁶.

But even this will not entirely remove the difficulty, while, by the parts alluded to, we understand Aristotle to mean only the

μερη μυθου

of the 11th chapter: because, as I before observed,

ηθος

could be neither mentioned, nor implied, as a part of the fable. Perhaps, therefore, he meant to use the word

μερη

in a general sense, as he clearly does use it, cap. xxiv.

και τα ΜΕΡΗ, εξω μελ. και οψεως, τ'αυτα και ΓΑΡ περιπετειων δει

, κ. τ. αλ.—where the

και ΓΑΡ

shews, that the parts he had just mentioned included both the six constituent parts of Tragedy, and the three parts of the fable which he enumerates. If we understand

μερη

in this way, the meaning will only be, that so many different parts, (of one kind or other,) have been mentioned (

ελεχθη

,) from which these species may be deduced: these are, the three

μερη μυθου

, which furnish the complicated, the simple, and the pathetic, species; and the second of the essential parts of Tragedy,

ηθος

, which, though indeed it be a part of every Tragedy, admits, according to Aristotle's own account, of more or less, and, when predominant, may be characteristic of another species, the ethic, or moral Tragedy, naturally enough opposed to the pathetic.

I confess I see no other possible consistent sense that can be given to this passage, as we now read it: for four parts are here mentioned and four parts cannot be made out, if we confine ourselves to the

μερη ΜΥΘΟΥ

in cap. xi.

Dacier seems to have perceived this; and his explanation agrees so far with mine, that he, also, makes

"la peripetie, la reconnoifance, la paffion, et les mœurs,"

the four parts that produce the four forts of Tragedy. But when, in order to reduce the seven parts, (i. e. fable, manners, diction, sentiments, discovery, revolution, disasters,) to the four which he wants, he rejects three, i. e. fable, diction, and sentiments, because they are common to all Tragedy, he makes a distinction for which there seems to be no foundation; the manners being equally included by Aristotle among those parts which are expressly

ΠΑΣΗΣ τραγωδιας μερη

. ²⁹⁷²⁹⁸ But, though all these parts necessarily belong, in some degree or other, to every Tragedy, any one of them may be so predominant, as to characterize a Tragedy, and give it, if we please, a specific denomination. Thus, there may be, and there is, such a species as the sentimental Tragedy, of which, in the critic's language,

το ολον Διανοια

:—another, of which the language may be the most striking character—

ης το ολον η Λεξις

; and he himself speaks of a fort of Tragedy that might very well be denominated,

η Οπτικη

, ²⁹⁹ of which examples are not wanting on the modern stage. The Italian opera is a Tragedy,

ης το ολον εστιν η Μελοποιϊα

. But Aristotle's business was not to enumerate all the different species which want of taste or judgment might produce, but those only which were considered as legitimate, and such as sound criticism would approve. Hence, he has recourse, for the formation of the four regular and authorised species, only to the two first and most important of the six constituent parts of Tragedy—the FABLE, and the MANNERS. ³⁰⁰

But after all, when we have made the best we can of the text in this passage, we must allow, I believe, that it is more for the credit of Aristotle to suppose it faulty. And that it is so, I am the rather inclined to think, as one difficulty still remains. The expression—"there are four forts of Tragedy; FOR so many parts have been mentioned"—seems clearly to imply, not merely, that those four forts are deducible, in some way or other, from those parts, but, as I at first observed, that they, respectively, arise from those parts, each of which produces its correspondent species of Tragedy. But this, as we have seen, is by no means the case. Of the four parts, only

παθος

, and

ηθος

, produce directly their correspondent species, the

παθητικη

, and the

ηθικη

. The other two parts,

περιπετεια

, and

αναγνωρισις

, denominate one species from their presence, (the

πεπλεγμενη

,) and another, (the

απλη

,) from their absence.

151. mvp-aristotle-comment-151

NOTE 151. P. 100.

18.7 ANOTHER, THE MORAL Ηθικη.

"Videant studiosi hujus libri, an intelligi debeant, et tanquam

απο κοινου

repeti, et hic et infra, verba illa quæ in explicatione fabulæ implexæ posuit: intelligo, inquam, hæc

ης το ολον εστι περιπετεια και αναγνωρισις

: et quod præterea utroque loco convenit, inde sumptum, [

i. e. παθη η ηθη

] ut, quemadmodum inquit in describendâ illâ perplexa—

ης το ολον εστι περιπετεια και αναγνωρισις

,—ita, in pathetica,—

ης το ολον εστι παθη

; et in moratâ,

ης το ολον εστιν ηθη

So Victorius; and the observation seems just and important.

ηθικη

, I cannot think, that the mere absence of

παθη

is meant, as M. Batteux supposes, or, as Dacier and others take it, the mere moral tendency of the example. ³⁰¹ I understand the

τραγῳδια ηθικη

to be, in the most obvious and usual sense of the word, that kind of Tragedy,

ης το ολον εστιν ηθη

—of which the manners are the predominant part; which seems sufficiently to imply the absence of that violent perturbation, deep distress, and terrible catastrophe, which distinguish the pathetic species. This obvious sense of

ηθικη

is confirmed by Aristotle's exemplification in cap. xxiv. For there, he plainly opposes it to the

παθητικον

of the Iliad, and applies it to the Odyssey; ³⁰² a poem eminently characterized as a picture of life and manners. The word is also used, evidently, in the same sense in the Rhetoric; where the two species of the drama,

ηθικον

, and

παθητικον

, are mentioned, as being, each of them, accommodated to action, and preferred, on that account, by the players, as peculiarly favourable to the display of their mimetic powers. ³⁰³ Now this would not be the case, if by

ηθικη

nothing more than a moral lesson and a virtuous example were intended. Yet this idea is by no means excluded by the other; and Victorius seems to have rightly adjusted this matter.

"Animadvertendum autem Tragoediam illam vocari moratam, quæ non solùm accuratè mores exprimit, sed eos etiam inducit probos; quod ipse significavit suprà, ubi de moribus differuit; primum enim præcepit ut

χρηστα ηθη

fingerentur."

³⁰⁴

If it be objected, that, the delineation of manners being the peculiar province of Comedy, this account of the

Τραγῳδια ηθικη

confounds the limits of these two opposite species of the drama; we may answer, that the moral, or rather mannered Tragedy, (for we seem to want a word here,) though allowed by Aristotle, was certainly not that which he himself considered as the best, or the most Tragic: yet, that even this was sufficiently distinguished from Comedy by the kind of manners which it imitated. They were to be, if possible, good, (

χρηστα

,)—at all events they were to be, on the whole, serious

σπουδαια

: whereas the object of Comedy, with respect to manners, as to every thing else, was the ridiculous. We must remember too, that, as I have before observed, the two dramas were by no means, in Aristotle's time, so rigorously separated as they now are. There were, then, but two dramatic muses, the muse of Tragedy, and the muse of Farce. Yet there is something between a flood of tears and a broad laugh; and as Farce obstinately refused to put any degree of restraint upon her muscles, Tragedy, who, as we have seen, was so accommodating, as even, occasionally, to approach to the very laugh of Farce, frequently condescended to dry her tears, and to put on, without scruple, the intermediate smile, which Comedy should have supplied.

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.

153. mvp-aristotle-comment-153

NOTE 153. P. 102.

18.14 BUT IN THE DRAMA, THE EFFECT OF SUCH A PLAN IS FAR DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS EXPECTED.

Πολυ παρα την υποληψιν αποβαινει

:—literally, "it turns out very differently from what was expected, or supposed, by the Poet." The

υποληψις

, the view, and expectation of the Poet, when he crowds so many incidents into his piece, is, that he shall make it interesting and pleasing by its variety. But the contrary happens. The necessity of not exceeding the usual length, and time of representation, reduces the proposed variety to a confused and huddled mass of incidents, not long enough dwelt on, or sufficiently detailed, to be either interesting, or clear. His Poem will be

καταπεπλεγμενου τη ποικιλια

, as the critic well expresses it in another passage that should be compared with this. ³⁰⁵ Thus, the Poet, in this ill-judged attempt, is disappointed in the same manner as the architect, who aims at a beautiful variety by a multitude of small and crowded ornaments, which spoil the general effect, and, at the same time, are too many, and too minute, to afford pleasure by separate inspection. And thus,

πολυ παρα την υποληψιν αποβαινει

; or, as the ingenious author of the Analysis of Beauty has expressed the same idea, in a chapter which affords no bad illustration of this passage from a sister art, "variety, when overdone, is a check upon itself." ³⁰⁶

Such appears to me to be the meaning of this passage, which, I think, has not been fully seen by any of the commentators.

154. mvp-aristotle-comment-154

NOTE 154. P. 102.

18.15 As EURIPIDES, BUT NOT ÆSCHYLUS, HAS DONE &c.

This passage affords a good specimen of the distressing ambiguity that prevails so remarkably throughout this work. It fairly admits of two different constructions, and two different senses. It may be thus:

οσοι περσιν Ιλιου ολην εποιησαν και μη κατα μερος, (ωσπερ Ευριπιδης Νιοβην, η Μηδειαν, και μη ωσπερ Αισχυλος,) εκπιπτουσιν

κ. τ. αλ. Or thus:

οσοι περσιν Ιλιου ολην εποιησαν, και μη κατα μερος (ωσπερ Ευρ. Ν. η Μ. [sc. κατα μερος εποιησε,] και μη ωσπερ Αισχ. [sc. ολην εποιησε.]) εκπιπ.

κ. τ. αλ.—In the first of these ways, the censure will fall on Euripides; in the other, on Æschylus. Victorius contends for the first, but his reasons, though plausible, seem not decisive. The whole, as he observes, turns upon this—whether the

ωσπερ

refers to the whole sentence—

ολην εποιησαν και μη κατα μερος

,—or, only to the words immediately preceding, i. e.

κατα μερος

. On the whole, the last construction, I think, offers itself most naturally; and it seems rather favoured, too, by the similar application of

μη ωσπερ

, to the Poet censured, presently after; where, speaking of the Chorus, he says it should

συναγωνιζεσθαι, ΜΗ ΩΣΠΕΡ παρ Ευριπιδη, αλλ' ΩΣΠΕΡ παρα Σοφοκλει

.—But this, after all, is one of those passages, where the

"æquato examine lances"

are so nicely balanced, that a commentator might continue in suspense for ever, if the necessity of going on did not oblige him to turn the scale by a touch of his own hand. ³⁰⁷

155. mvp-aristotle-comment-155

NOTE 155. P. 102.

18.16 FOR, IN REVOLUTIONS, AND IN ACTIONS OF THE SIMPLE KIND, THESE POETS SUCCEED WONDERFULLY IN WHAT THEY AIM AT; AND THAT IS, THE UNION OF TRAGIC EFFECT WITH MORAL TENDENCY, &C.

Those annotators who make the words,

Εν δε ταις περιπετειαις

—the beginning of a separate precept relative to the use of the wonderful, have the natural construction of the text, and the uniform reading of all the MSS. against them. The natural and obvious construction, surely, is,

εν τουτῳ μονῳ· εν ΔΕ ταις περ.

κ. τ. αλ. And this is also confirmed by the mention of Agatho again, presently afterwards. All the MSS. too, it seems, give

θαυμαστως

, which can never be forced into the sense of

"per admirabile."

³⁰⁸ The alteration proposed by Heinfius—

στοχαζεται

, and

βουλεται

—in order to make this refer exclusively to Agatho, seems unnecessary.

Στοχαζονται

refers, very naturally, to Agatho in conjunction with the other Poets just mentioned, whose mistake, and whose failure, were the same.

I have ventured to render this passage in a manner somewhat different from any translator or commentator that I have seen.

Τραγικον γαρ τουτο, και φιλανθρωπον

. The question is, to what

τουτο

refers? The commentators are divided. It appears to me, that it refers to the purpose, at which these Poets are said to have aimed; and the

τουτο

, which follows, explains the

τραγικον και φιλανθρωπον

.—

τουτο ΓΑΡ

—"for this (i. e. which they aim at,) is both Tragic and Moral." The reader will see how exactly what follows suits this sense; and how this passage helps to confirm the sense given to the word

φιλανθρωπον

, in cap. xiii. [See NOTE 94.] where,

ελεεινον και φοβερον

, is plainly equivalent to

τραγικον

here. The difficulty was, to reconcile these two effects. Aristotle's expression,

στοχαζονται ΘΑΥΜΑΣΤΩΣ

—"surprisingly well"—implies this difficulty, and, that he does not speak of the practice as perfectly agreeable to his own theory of the Tragic drama. In the subjects here instanced, there was the

φιλανθρωπον

, because the

αδικια

and

πονηρια

were punished: and, at the same time, the

τραγικον

, though not amounting to what the critic required, was not wanting, because there was the unexpected reverse of fortune, a calamitous event,

παθη

, &c. ³⁰⁹ The persons suffering, too, were distinguished by eminent wisdom and courage; and though such characters are not what Aristotle recommends as the fittest for Tragic purposes, ³¹⁰ yet, by the substitution of admirable and splendid, for moral and estimable, qualities, they are made to produce, in some degree, a similar effect upon the spectator. ³¹¹

This appears to me to be the sense of the passage; and it leads me strongly to suspect, that, instead of

εν τοις ΑΠΛΟΙΣ πραγμασι

, we should read—

εν τοις ΔΙΠΛΟΙΣ πρ.

How easily the mistake might happen, is obvious to the eye. My reasons are these: 1. The

φιλανθρωπον

—moral tendency—poetical justice, &c. was the very characteristic of the double fable, (

διπλη συστασις

) and the very reason, probably, why the Platonic critics, as well as the good-natured audiences, preferred it as the best plan. 2. The instances here given seem to accord exactly with this idea. They are plainly examples of the

διπλη συστασις

, not of the simple fable—i. e. the fable without revolution or discovery. The expression,

τραγικον

γαρ τουτο και φιλανθρωπον

, implies, that the Tragic and Moral were aimed at, and effected, by these Poets, both in the

περιπετειαι

, and in the other actions mentioned, whatever they were—

εν τοις περιπ. και εν τοις πραγμασι

: and, consequently, his subsequent examples of the

τραγικον και φιλανθρωπον

must equally accord with both. But, if we read

απλοις

, this will not be the case; for those examples are such as necessarily imply revolutions, and a sudden and unexpected turn of events, which suit very well with

ΔΙΠΛΟΙΣ πραγμασι

, but are incompatible with

απλοις

; the simple fable being defined by this very circumstance, that it is

ανευ περιπετειας

, &c. (cap. x.) ³¹²

156. mvp-aristotle-comment-156

NOTE 156. P. 102.

18.18 SUCH EVENTS, AS AGATHO SAYS, &c.This alludes to these two lines of Agatho :—

Ταχ᾿ ἂν τις εικαι αυτο τετ᾿ είναι λεγοἰ, Βροτοισι πολλα τυγχανειν ἐκ ἐἰκ εικοτα.

Even this, it may be said, is probable, That many things improbable should happen, In human life.

See Rhet. II. 24, p. 581, ed. Duval. —And Bayle’s Art. AGATHON, note [F] , who mentions a similar maxim of St. Bernard’s :

"Ordinatissimum est, minus interdum ordinatè fieri."

"Il est tout à fait de l’ordre, que de tems en tems il se fasse quelque chose contre l’ordre."

This general, and, if I may call it so, possible sort of probability, may be termed, the probability of romance; and these lines of Agatho furnish a good apologetical motto for the novel writer. It might be prefixed, perhaps, without impropriety, even to the best productions of the kind—to a CLARISSA, or a CECILIA. Nothing is so commonly complained of in such works, as their improbability; and often, no doubt, the complaint is well founded: often, however, the criticism means nothing more, than that the events are uncommon, and proves nothing more, than the want of fancy, and an extended view of human life, in the reader. If the events were not uncommon, where would the book find readers?

Diderot, De la Poes. Dram. at the end of his Pere de Famille, p. 306.

"Si la nature ne combinoit jamais des evenemens d’une maniere extraordinaire, tout ce que le Poete imagineroit au-delà de la simple et froide uniformité des choses communes, seroit incroyable. Mais il n’en est pas ainsi. Que fait donc le Poete? —Ou il s’empare de ces combinaisons extraordinaires, ou il en imagine de semblables. Mais au lieu que la liaison des événemens nous échappe souvent dans la nature, et que, faute de connoitre l’ensemble des choses, nous ne voyons qu’une concomitance fatale dans les faits; le Poet veut lui qu’il regne dans toute la texture de son ouvrage une liaison apparente et sensible; en sorte qu’il est moins vrai, et plus vraisemblable que l’historien."

157. mvp-aristotle-comment-157

NOTE 157. P. 102.

18.19 THE CHORUS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS ONE OF THE PERSONS IN THE DRAMA AND A SHARER IN THE ACTION.This is not, I think, contradicted, but only properly limited and explained, by what the author says elsewhere—that, to all, is,

ἐκ δίκειον χορῳ· ἐστι γαρ ὁ χορού ΚΗΔΕΥΤΗΣ ΑΠΡΑΚΤΟΣ· ἐννοιαν γαρ μονον παρέχεται δις παρεστι

. ³¹³ He is, there, comparing the Chorus with the persons of the drama. In that view, the Chorus might be said, comparatively, to have no share in the action. But here, he is comparing those Choruses whose songs are properly connected with the action, and who are interested in its event, with such as appear to have no concern with it, and to be, not merely inactive, but indifferent, spectators.

In this view, it was as natural to say—the Chorus should be regarded as a person of the drama, and a sharer in the action: a sharer, that is, not by the active part, but by the warm interest, which it takes, and expresses, in that action. However, the word

ἀπρακτα

must not be taken in its strictest sense. We find the Chorus, in the Greek Tragedies, frequently contributing, in some little degree, to the progress of the action, by active offices of friendly attention and assistance; as, for example, in the Philoctetes, and the Ajax of Sophocles .

158. mvp-aristotle-comment-158

NOTE 158. P. 103.

18.20 THEIR CHORAL SONGS, &C.There cannot, surely, be the least doubt, that, for

ΔΙΔΟΜΕΝΑ

, we should read,

ΑΙΔΟΜΕΝΑ

: an emendation so obvious, that it occurred to me the first time I ever read the passage. But I afterwards found, that it had occurred, long ago, to Madius ; a circumstance, which, to my great astonishment, has been passed over in utter silence by all the subsequent commentators that I have seen.

The words of Madius are—

"Mendum igitur in verbis omnino esse censeo; ac primum in voce

διδομενα

, quæ in locum vocis

ᾠδομενα

irrepsit: nam verbum

δειν

, quod paulò post ponitur, aperte indicat, locum, ut nos fecimus, castigandum."

—I can attribute it only to some inadvertence, or mistake, that Mr. Winstanley , in his note, p. 294, has omitted to take notice of this most material part of Madius's comment on the passage. The emendation is confirmed by the

ᾠδεσι

, and

ᾠδειν

, which follow; by the extreme facility of the mistake, and by the difficulty of giving any reasonable explanation of the other reading.

Διδόμενα

, says Victorius ,

"quia magistratus eos (sc. choros) dabat."

But he agrees that

μελη

is understood; and though we read, often, of the magistrate's giving a Chorus, (

δεναι χορον

,) that is, furnishing the expence of the choral dresses, &c. we no where read, I believe, of their giving the Choral Odes.

159. mvp-aristotle-comment-159

NOTE 159. P. 103.

19.5 BUT IT IS EVIDENT, THAT, WITH RESPECT TO THE THINGS THEMSELVES ALSO, &C.

Και ἐν τοις πραγμασιν

. The alteration of Heinsius ,

δραμασιν

, appears to me, not only to be unnecessary, but to pervert Aristotle's meaning.

Τα πραγματα

, here, are, I think, the things themselves—the circumstances and incidents of the action or fable, as opposed to

Διανοια

, the sentiments, or thoughts, and to

ὅσα ὑπο τε ΛΟΓΟΥ

κ. τ. αλ

. He had referred to the rhetorical treatises for what concerns the

διανοια

; he goes on, (after a short explanation of

διανοια

and its various branches,)—"But it is plain, that, not only for the

διανοἰα

, or sentiments, but also for the things themselves, (

ΚΑΙ ἐν τοις πραγμασιν

,) how they are to be made terrible, piteous, &c. the Poet should draw from the same sources, and may be referred to the same treatises."—Thus, for example, in the second book of Aristotle's Rhetoric , he may learn what sort of things, persons, and events, are proper to raise terror, or pity, the peculiar objects of Tragic imitation. ³¹⁴ After which observation, he goes on, very naturally and properly, to remark, as Dacier has well observed,

"la difference entre les choses que traitent les Orateurs, et celles que traitent les Poetes."

For the rest, my idea of this passage accords with that of Dacier, (note 3) ; but he does not appear to have seen the force of the expression,

ΚΑΙ ἐν τοις πραγ

. Indeed, he entirely drops the conjunction, which is here of great importance; for it seems to fix the sense of

πραγμασιν

, and to point its opposition to

διανοια

:—

Τα μεν ἐν περι την ΔΙΑΝΟΙΑΝ ἐν τοις ῥητ. κεισθω δηλον δε, ότι ΚΑΙ ἐν τοις ΠΡΑΓΜΑΣΙΝ ἀπο των αυτων ειδων δει χρησθαι

In Goulston’s version, which follows Castelvetro , this opposition is rightly expressed; but in what follows, Aristotle's meaning is, I think, mistaken: for the difference he is shewing, (

πλην τοσέτον διαφερει

, &c.) is not, I apprehend, the difference between the things and the sentiments, in Tragedy, but, between the things themselves only, considered in different views, as the subject of the Orator, or of the Poet. These commentators understand the expressions,

ἐν τῷ λόγῳ

, and,

τα λεγοντα

, of the dramatic speech, and speaker.

160. mvp-aristotle-comment-160

NOTE 160. P. 103.

19.5 MUST DRAW FROM THE SAME SOURCES.

Απο των αυτων ειδων δει χρησθαι

.—The expression,

χρησθαι ΑΠΟ

, is, I believe, uncommon. It seems rightly explained by Victorius —"to borrow from:"

"quasi utendum illinc sumere atque mutuari."

161. mvp-aristotle-comment-161

NOTE 161. P. 103.

19.6 WITHOUT BEING SHEWN TO BE SUCH.—

Ανευ διδασκαλίας

"Senza che si dica e che s'insegni che fian tali."

— Piccolomini :—I believe, very exactly. The reader may compare Rhet. I. 2. p. 514, B. —and III. 1. p. 584, B. and, (

διδασκαλικη

,) I. 2. p. 515, A.

The truth of what the philosopher here observes, may appear from this single consideration. Suppose two Tragedies written by two Poets on the same subject, and of which the plot and princi- pal incidents are the same: and suppose two pleadings of the same cause, by two speakers. It seems very plain, that the difference of the effect upon an audience in the former case, would bear much less proportion to the difference between the Poets, than it would, in the other case, to the difference between the Speakers. ³¹⁵

162. mvp-aristotle-comment-162

NOTE 162. P. 104.

19.6 IF THEY ALREADY APPEAR SO IN THEMSELVES.

Ει φαινοιτο ήδεα

.—That

ήδεα

is wrong, I have no doubt. For if we admit it, we must take it, as Victorius does, for a single instance; as if Aristotle had said,

"aut jucundæ, aut tristes, aut atroces, &c,---: quamvis enim nunc unum horum ponat, i. e. jucunda, reliqua tamen audienda sunt."

—But how improbable it is, that he should not chuse his single instance, if he meant to give one, out of those which had just been mentioned? that he should not rather have said,

ἐι φαινοιτο ἐλεεινα, δεινα

, than

ήδεα

jucunda

; which, besides, is evidently not at all to his purpose.

I cannot, therefore, help thinking it something more than probable, that Aristotle wrote this,

φαινοιτο ΗΔΗ

τοιαυτα

—that is,

ἐλεεινα, δεινα

, &c.) "If they appear already so;—in themselves." The elliptic brevity of the expression will hardly be objected to, in a writer who abounds with instances much more harsh and obscure than this. In the same manner,

τοιαυτα

is understood with

φαινεσθαι

just before:—

τα μεν δει φαινεσθαι

(

τοιαυτα

)

άνευ διδασκαλίας

The same conjecture had, I find, occurred, long ago, to Castelvetro , but, which I think somewhat singular, has not been taken notice of by any of the commentators I have seen. He says—

φαινοιτο ήδεα

"coloro, li quali non riconoscono che qui sia errore, assegnino à queste parole, se possono, senso degno e conveniente ad Aristotele. Adunque io crederei che non fosse male à leggere

ήδη

, in luogo d'

ήδεα

, e'l senso sarebbe convenevole."

[p. 406.] The reader may see a very different explanation of this whole passage in the Abbé Batteux’s notes; but an explanation which cannot, in my opinion, be reconciled to the text. His censure of Dacier and others, that they have rendered this chapter

"à contresens,"

seems to me to recoil upon himself.

163. mvp-aristotle-comment-163

NOTE 163. P. 104.

19.7 FIGURES OF SPEECH

Τα σχηματα της λεξεως

—. Dacier , Batteux , and indeed almost all the commentators, seem to take

σχηματα

, here, for the gestures, modifications of countenance, and tones of voice, that accompany speech.

But, first, I much doubt whether the Greek will fairly admit of such a sense. Aristotle says,

σχηματα ΛΕΞΕΩΣ

, figures, or forms, of the speech itself, not of the speaker. The same expression occurs several times in the Rhetoric, and always means the form of the diction itself; ³¹⁶ never the gesture with which it is delivered.—2. Aristotle explains himself by—

διον, ΤΙ εντολη και ΤΙ ευχη

, &c. i. e. what they are, not, what action or tone of voice they require;

"avec quel ton et quel geste on ordonne,"

as M. Batteux ³¹⁷ unwarrantably translates it. ³¹⁸ —3. Aristotle says, that no blame, or none worth regarding, (

άξιον σπεδης

,) can fall upon the Poetry, (

εις την ποιητικην

,) in consequence of the Poet's ignorance of these matters, or of his not knowing them technically. A remark, surely, very unnecessary, if mere action and pronunciation were intended by

σχηματα

.—But, 4. The thing seems evident from the instance given of a criticism of this kind. Protagoras plainly charged Homer with ignorance, or inaccuracy, with respect to these

σχηματα λεξεως

, whatever they were. Now, according to the common explanation, the criticism could fall only on Homer's pronunciation or action: but, of this, Protagoras knew nothing; all he appears to have meant, is, that Homer had made an improper use of the imperative mood; that is, had used one

σχημα λεξεως

, where he should have used another.

But what, then, are we to understand by these

σχηματα λεξεως

?—The learned reader will immediately see, that, as Victorius has observed, they are not to be confounded with those

σχηματα λεξεως

, of which we hear so much from Cicero , Quintilian , Dion. Hal. &c. those

"figuræ verborum,"

which are opposed to the

σχηματα διανοἰας

, the

figuræ mentis, sententiarum

, &c. Indeed, no such division of

σχηματα

is, I believe, to be found in Aristotle. It seems to have been the invention of the later Rhetoricians; and how little they were agreed, as to the number and the species of these

σχηματα

, the propriety of the division itself, and even the precise sense of the word

σχημα

, may be seen in Quintilian IX. 1. —The

σχηματα λεξεως

of Aristotle, in this place, are plainly such, as would have been denominated by later writers,

σχηματα διανοἰας

—figures of the thought or sense. Indeed we find them actually enumerated among the figures of that class. See Dionys. Halicarn. de Struct. &c. Sect. 8. —So Quintilian :

"Figuras quoque mentis, quæ

σχηματα διανοιας

dicuntur, res eadem recipit omnes, in quas nonnulli diviserunt species dictorum, (i. e. of jokes, bons mots.) Nam et interrogamus, et dubitamus, et affirmamus, et minamur, et optamus."

³¹⁹

I see, therefore, not the least reason, why the expression

σχημα λέξεως

should not be rendered here, exactly as in the other passages above referred to,

"figura orationis"

—form, or configuration, of speech. For

λέξις

, it must be observed, is here used, not in the particular sense of diction, or style and manner of expression, (as it is used Rhet. III. 8. ) but in the general sense of

λογ

, speech, as we find it used in the beginning of the next chapter.

But though I cannot admit, that

σχηματα

means

"configurationes oris,"

&c. or, should be so rendered, yet I certainly admit, that Aristotle appears plainly to consider these different forms of speech, or sentences, with a view to action, or delivery; and, possibly, the observation of Victorius may be well founded, that—

"vocatæ hæ figuræ ita videntur, quia aliter atque aliter vultus, totumque corpus, cum variantur illa, conformantur; ut meritò hâc de causâ,

σχηματα

, figuræ, ipsæ appellatæ sint."

—I find the same thing in the following passage of Aristides Quintilianus , which seems evidently to allude to this very part of Aristotle's treatise, and may be thought to afford some illustration.—

Περι δε της των ΣΧΗΜΑΤΩΝ φυσεως, δις προσαγειν χρη τα νοηματα, πολλα λέγειν δειν ήγομαι. ΙΚΑΝΗ ΓΑΡ Ἡ ὙΠΟΚΡΙΣΙΣ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΔΗΛΩΣΑΙ. Και γαρ τατων ἐκασον [i. e. each of these

σχηματα διανοἰας

, or

νοηματων

,] συςέλλει πως, ὡς αι παραιτησεις, ἀνιησιν, ὡς ἁι συγχωρησεις, την διανοιαν και ήτοι μικροπρεπεις, ὡς ἀι διορθωσεις, μεγαλειες, ὡς αι γνωμολογίαι και ἀφηγησεις, ἀπεργαζονται. ὧν ἐκασε την ἐνεργειαν ΕΚ ΤΩΝ ΤΥΠΩΝ ΑΡΙΣΤ᾿ ΑΝ ΔΙΑΓΝΟΙΗΜΕΝ, ΩΝ [leg. forte ΟΥΣ] ΕΚΑΣΤΟΝ, ΚΑΤΑ ΤΟΝ ΤΗΣ ΥΠΟΚΡΙΣΕΩΣ ΚΑΙΡΟΝ, ΤΟΙΣ ΣΩΜΑΣΙΝ ΕΝΤΙΘΗΣΙ· ΠΑΡ Ὁ ΚΑΙ ΣΧΗΜΑΣΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ ΣΥΝΕΒΗ ΚΛΗΘΗΝΑΙ

. I rather suspect, we should read

ΠΡΟΑΓΕΙΝ

, in the beginning of this passage; in the sense of

ἐκφερειν, προφερειν

, &c. Meibomius ³²⁰ renders

σχηματων

"gestuum,"

which cannot be the meaning; for by the

τετων ἐκασον

, and the exemplification which follows, (

παραιτησεις, συγχωρησεις

, &c.), and, indeed, by all the rest of the passage, it is clear, that he speaks of the configurations of the speech or sentence, of which he goes on to describe the different effects, first on the mind, and, ultimately, on the action, of the speaker. The version should, therefore, have been thus:—

"De figurarum natura quibus animi notiones proferenda,"

&c. Or, if

προσαγαν

be right, the meaning, I think, must be—"to which those

νοηματα

are to be referred under which they are to be classed." See the passage above, from Quintilian , and that of Dion. Hal. Sect. 8. which is much to the purpose.

Why Aristotle should dismiss this subject, as of much more concern, to the Actor, than to the Poet, requires no explanation. There could scarce, indeed, be any other occasion for the study of these

σχηματα

, but in order to learn, or to teach, in what manner, with what variations of tone, countenance, and gesture, propriety required them to be pronounced. At the same time, it will not appear strange that he should mention them, if we recollect, that the Poets themselves were, at first, actors also, in their own pieces, and, afterwards, no doubt, instructed their actors; and hence perhaps, after all—not, as is commonly understood, from the moral teaching of the drama itself—the well known phrases,

διδασκειν τραγῳδιαν

docere fabulam

, &c. ³²¹ may, most naturally, be accounted for.

Nor was this practice peculiar to antient times. We know with what eagerness and animation Voltaire taught his Tragedies, almost to his latest hour. During his last visit to Paris, where he died,

"Il n'y vit rien, ne songea à y rien voir; il n'y vécut que pour des Comediens, qu'il fatiguoit, en voulant leur donner des leçons de declamation"

. ³²²

164. mvp-aristotle-comment-164

NOTE 164. P. 104.

19.7 THE PROFESSED MASTERS OF THAT KIND—

Τε την τοιαυτην ἐχοντα ᾿ΑΡΧΙΤΕΚΤΟΝΙΚΗΝ

.—For this word, see Eth. Nicom. I. 1, 2. Thus, here, it seems to mean that master art, which teaches the principles of elocution, the art of public speaking, in general.

165. mvp-aristotle-comment-165

NOTE 165. P. 104.

19.8 THE CAVIL OF PROTAGORAS.See Hermes, I. 8, p. 144. This, it seems, was his usual style of criticism; for,

διανοιαν άφεις, προς τ'ενομα διελέχθη

, as Diog. Laertius says of him. He seems, indeed, to have been the inventor of these

σχηματα λεξεως

. At least the same writer says,

διειλε τον λόγον ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ἐις τεσσαρα ΕΥΧΩΛΗΝ, ΕΡΩΤΗΣΙΝ, ΑΠΟΚΡΙΣΙΝ, ΕΝΤΟΛΗΝ· (δι δε, εις ἑπτα κ. τ. αλ.) ὡς και πυθμένας είπε λογων

:—"the foundations of speech". ³²³ There is something amusing in the history of this man. He was originally a porter; and might have continued so, if his extraordinary genius for tying up wood had not attracted the notice of Democritus , by whose instructions and encouragement, from an eminent porter, he became as eminent a sophist. ³²⁴ The reader may see the story in Aulus Gellius, V. 3. —The public was, certainly, not much obliged to Democritus. Protagoras was of more use to mankind when he invented porter's knots, ³²⁵ than when he invented the

σχηματα λεξεως

, and undertook to teach, at the price of a hundred minæ, the art of Belial—"to make the worse appear the better reason:"—

τον ήττον λογον κρειττον ποιειν

. ³²⁶

"If a cobler,"

says Socrates in the Meno of Plato ,

"or a taylor, should return the shoes, or the clothes, he undertook to mend, in a worse condition than that, in which he received them, he would soon lose his business, and be starved for want of work. But it is not so with the sophists. PROTAGORAS was able to carry on, for forty years together, without detection, and with great credit, the trade of spoiling all those who became his disciples, and sending them back much worse than he found them."

166. mvp-aristotle-comment-166

NOTE 166. P. 104.

20.1 TO ALL DICTION BELONG, &c.See Diss. I. p. 37. —After having discussed three of the constituent parts of Tragedy, the fable, the manners, and the sentiments, Aristotle now comes to the diction (

Λεξις

), upon which he bestows three chapters. His subject plainly required him to speak of the diction of Tragedy, not of poetic diction in general; much less, to descend to the grammatical elements of language in general. Yet, of his three chapters on diction, the first is merely grammatical, and such, as even in a rhetorical treatise would appear misplaced; and even the two following chapters relate to poetic language in general, without any thing applicable to the diction of Tragedy in particular—his proper subject—except a single observation, or, rather, hint, at the end of the third chapter. ³²⁷

Dacier , who discharged, with as much fidelity as any commentator ever did, the duty of seeing nothing amiss in his author, has zealously defended the propriety of this grammatical chapter: but all he says amounts, I think, to little more than this—that the chapter should be there, because it is there. ³²⁸ No man is nice about reasons, when the point to be proved has been determined before he looks for them.

167. mvp-aristotle-comment-167

NOTE 167. P. 104.

20.1 DISCOURSE OR SPEECH—.

ΛΟΓΟΣ

.— Mr. Harris, in the Hermes, p. 19 , has rendered the word, sentence. He took that part of the idea, that suited his subject; but, that this is not the whole sense of the word, but only a sense included in the word, is evident from what is said below, in the definition of

λογος

, where the entire Iliad is comprehended under that term. Had I here rendered

λογος

by sentence, I must, to have been consistent in my translation, have there called the Iliad a sentence.

The word

λογος

here plainly answers—not to sentence, exclusively, nor yet, exclusively, to what Mr. Harris calls

"Oration or Discourse,"

as composed of several sentences; but, it is a general term, comprehending both these, and applicable, like the Latin word

oratio

, or the English, speech, to every significant combination of words, whether consisting of a single sentence, or of many; as, indeed, appears from Aristotle's definition itself. Nay, the word appears not even to have been limited to a complete assertive sentence; for the philosopher, in the treatise περι Ἑρμηνειας , gives the denomination of

λογος

to these two words—

καλος ίππος

. He says,

ἐν ΤΩ ΛΟΓΩ

, (

in hac oratione

καλος ίππος

. It was what he calls a merely significant

λογος

, as distinguished from an assertive

λογος

, or proposition, such as,

καλΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ ίππος

I was unable to find any English word, that would express

λογος

adequately, and clearly. And it seems somewhat remarkable, that the Greek language, rich and copious as it is, should not afford—at least I am not aware that it does—any single word perfectly synonymous to our word, sentence.

Λογος

, as I have observed, is too wide; it serves equally to express a single sentence, or a whole speech, or even less than a sentence. It is applied by Aristotle to a combination of two words—a substantive and an adjective, without a verb—and, to the Iliad.

Περιοδος

was only one particular kind, or form, of sentence. ³²⁹

Κωλον

did not necessarily contain a complete sense, or thought, which is essential to our word, sentence. ³³⁰

168. mvp-aristotle-comment-168

NOTE 168. P. 105.

20.4 IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE MOUTH.

Τοποις

.—Clearly right; nor can I conceive, what should have induced any critic to suspect this reading. See Dionys. Halicarn. Sect. 14 . his curious and accurate analysis of articulation: and Aristides Quintil. p. 89, ed. Meib. —where, in describing the formation of the letters, these expressions occur:—

ἐκ των περι τους όδοντας ΤΟΠΩΝ

—and,

ἐκ μεσου του φωνητικου ΤΟΠΟΥ

. See, also, Hermes, III. 2, p. 322. —

ΤΟΝΟΙΣ

, which had occurred to Mr. Winstanley, ³³¹ would be mere tautology; for that idea is fully expressed afterwards, by

ὀξυτητι και βαρύτητι

. Thus, Rhet. III. 1.

τοις ΤΟΝΟΙΣ, ΟΙΟΝ ὀξεια και βαρεια, και μεση

169. mvp-aristotle-comment-169

NOTE 169. P. 105.

20.4 AS THEIR TONE IS ACUTE, GRAVE, OR INTER-MEDIATE.

Οξύτητι, βαρύτητι, και τω μεσω

.—All the commentators seem agreed, that by

τῷ μέσῳ

is meant the circumflex. Mr. Foster, in his Essay on Accent, &c. expresses some degree of doubt about this ; and, I confess, it appears to me to be somewhat more than doubtful. Certainly, the only obvious and proper sense of the word mean, or middle, thus applied to the pitch of sound, is, that which is between

ὀξυ

and

βαρυ

; not, that which is compounded of the two, as the circumflex is always represented to be. At least the expression, in this latter sense, would not be very accurate and philosophical. A circumflexed syllable is described to be, a syllable that has both an acute and a grave accent;—

ἀμφοτερας τας τασεις

, as it is expressed by Dion. Halicarn. Sect. 11. The voice first rises, and then falls, on the same syllable. A man would be thought to speak very strangely, who should describe any object painted half white and half black, by saying, that it was of a colour between black and white.

But, farther, I observe, that in other passages of Aristotle's works, where he speaks of accents, the word

μεσον

no where occurs. Indeed, he uses neither this, nor any other word, to denote the circumflex accent. He mentions only

ὀξυ

, and

βαρύ

, acute, and grave. See De Soph. Elench. p. 284, C. — 288, A. — 304, A. — 306, A. ed. Duval. In the last of these passages especially, his expression is remarkable:

ἐι παρα προσῳδιαν όξειαν, Ἡ ΒΑΡΕΙΑ προσωδια λυσις· ἐι δε παρα βαρειαν, Ἡ ΟΞΕΙΑ

. That is—"If the sophism supposes the acute accent, the answer is—it is the grave accent; and vice versa." ³³² Here are no traces of the triple division of accents, given by later writers, into acute, grave, and circumflex. Nay more; he speaks in the same way, even when the very ambiguity in question lies between an acute, and a circumflex, accent; as

οὐ

, ( non,) and

οὗ

( ubi). See the passage, p. 304, A: where the circumflexed is expressed by the word

βαρυτερον

.—This, I confess, much increases my doubt with respect to the word

μεσῳ

in the passage before us. For, had that been Aristotle's term for the circumflex accent, as the common explanation supposes, we probably should have found the expression in some of the passages referred to; at least, in that last mentioned.

I cannot, surely, be misunderstood, as meaning to infer, from these passages, that the flexure itself of the voice upon a single syllable, which was afterwards denominated by Grammarians,

περισπωμενη

, was unknown to Aristotle and the earlier writers. The thing, undoubtedly, has always existed, and must exist, more or less, in every language. But these passages do, I think, afford a pretty strong presumption, that the circumflex had then no appropriated term, and, consequently, that, in this passage, the word

μεσον

has a different, and its usual and proper, meaning; ³³³ that, in which it is used continually by the writers on Harmonics. ³³⁴

But, farther, it appears to be so used by Aristotle himself, in a similar passage of his Rhetoric. In the beginning of the third book, speaking of oratorical action or delivery, (

ὑποκρισις

) as far as it relates to the voice, he says,

ἐσι δε άυτη μεν ἐν τη φωνη, πως αυτη δει χρησθαι προς ἐκασον παθος· διοι, ποτε μεγαλη, και ποτε μικρα, και ποτε μεση· και πως τοις τονοις, διον, ὀξειᾳ, και βαρειᾳ, και ΜΕΣΗ

. Now, even supposing this to relate to accents, it seems, that

μεσῃ

, here, should naturally have the same meaning, with respect to

ὀξειᾳ

, and

βαρειᾳ

, as it has when applied immediately before to

μεγαλῃ

and

μικρᾳ

, where it plainly means the medium between loud and soft.—But I think the passage clearly does not relate to the mere syllabic accent: for he is there professedly speaking of the accommodation of the voice to the expression of different passions; he must therefore mean such variation of tone or pitch, as depends upon the speaker's choice; not that of the accentual acuteness and gravity; for this is always spoken of as a fixed and invariable thing. ³³⁵ Aristotle therefore means, I believe, exactly what Cicero has expressed in the following words; and, from the similitude of the expres- sion, it seems probable, that he had this very passage of Aristotle before him, or in his memory. ³³⁶

"Nam voces, ut chordæ, sunt intentæ, quæ ad quemque tactum respondeant, acuta, gravis; cita, tarda; magna, parva; quas tamen inter omnes est sua quoque in genere mediocris."

That is, as it seems rightly explained by Dr. Pearce, every one of these differences of voice, high and low, loud and soft, &c. has its medium—

μεσον

To this passage of Cicero, I shall add one from Quintilian to the same purpose, and which affords a still clearer commentary upon that in the Rhetoric of Aristotle.

"Utendi voce multiplex ratio. Nam præter illam differentiam quæ est tripartita, acuta, gravis, flexa, tum intentis, tum remissis—tum elatis, tum inferioribus modis, opus est,— spatiis quoque lentioribus aut citatioribus. Sed iis ipsis MEDIA interjacent multa."

³³⁷ If the reader compares this with the passage of Aristotle, he will see how exactly it answers to the Greek. Here are three differences of voice corresponding plainly to the three mentioned by Aristotle. The difference of

intentis

and

remissis

(loud and soft) expresses his

μεγαλη και μικρα

; that of,

elatis

et inferioribus modis

, (acuter, or graver, tones or pitches,) his

ὀξεια και βαρεια

; and that of

spatiis lentioribus

, &c. (quicker or slower times) his

ῥυθμοις τισι

, &c. And, that Quintilian did not understand, by

ὀξειᾳ

and

βαρειᾳ

, the acute and grave syllabic accent, is clear from his expressly saying, that there are those three differences besides that of the different accents—

"præter illam differentiam,"

&c.—Lastly, the

"media interjacent multa,"

plainly alludes to the

μεση

of Aristotle.

The following passage, from the clear and accurate musical treatise of Euclid , will serve to illustrate, at the same time, both the terms of Aristotle,

τονοις

³³⁸ and

μεση

. Enumerating the different accep- tations of the word

τονος

, one of which is

τασις

, tension or pitch, his instance of that sense of the word, is,

ὁ δε, ὡς τασις, τονου λεγεται, καθ' ὁ φαμεν ὀξυτονειν τινα, ἢ βαρυτονειν, ἢ ΜΕΣΩ, ΤΩΙ ΤΗΣ ΦΩΝΗΣ ΤΟΝΩΙ κεχρησθαι

: i. e. a middling pitch of voice. ³³⁹

On the whole, then, I see no reason why we should not understand the word

μέσῳ

to be used in the same sense in the passage which is the subject of this note. For though, indeed, Aristotle is there speaking of single letters, and therefore can only mean syllabic accents or tones, yet it is plain, that these accents must have admitted of the distinction of high, low, and intermediate, even in single words, when of more than two syllables; ³⁴⁰ much more, in whole sentences or periods, where what Mr. Foster calls the oratorial accent, (if, indeed, it be compatible with a fixed syllabic accentuation of single words, of which I profess myself not yet convinced,) must necessarily have varied the tone or pitch of the same nominal syllabic accent, from word to word.

But whatever sense of the word

μέσῳ

we adopt, there is a difficulty, in this passage, which I must leave as I find it. The mention of tone or pitch of voice here, seems to me to be strangely misplaced. Accent, or tone, belongs to syllables, not to letters, of which Aristotle is here speaking. The vowels, indeed, may be acute or grave; but as syllables making a part of words, not as letters, separately considered, as they here are. Besides; the other differences mentioned are fixed, essential differences. Of these letters, he says, some are formed in this manner, and others, in that: some are aspirated, and others smooth—some long, others short. But, can it be said, with any propriety, that some are acute, and others grave? Are there vowels that are always acute, as there are vowels that are always long? This seems not more accurate, than it would be to conclude an enumeration of the differences of words, by adding that some are said, and some are sung: or rather, it seems just the same, as if a man, describing the different sorts of bricks that are made, should conclude with telling us, that some are put at the top of a wall, some at bottom, and some in the middle.

170. mvp-aristotle-comment-170

NOTE 170. P. 105.

20.6 A CONJUNCTION IS A SOUND, &c.--The whole of this first definition of the conjunction appears to me to be corrupt beyond all hope of restoration from conjecture. Mr. Harris plainly passes it over as inexplicable, and takes the second definition only. I may well, therefore, be excused for not attempting to translate, what I confess myself totally unable to comprehend.

I do, indeed, understand very well, that a conjunction,

"neither hinders nor constitutes—neither gives nor takes away—the meaning of the sentence in which it stands."

But how this can be regarded as a definition of a conjunction, I do not understand. To define a thing only by what it does not do, (for it is here given as a separate and complete definition,) is hardly reconcileable with Aristotle's logical accuracy. ³⁴¹ Dacier , in his translation, has obviated this objection, by uniting the two definitions; but without any authority from the text.

I must, again, confess, that what follows, about the situation of the conjunction in different parts of a sentence, has not been made intelligible to me, by any explication I have seen; particularly, the expression,

καθ' αυτον

, which M. Batteux , after Castelvetro , renders,

"by its nature:"

—

"à moins que par elle-même elle ne soit faite pour être au commencement."

But this sense cannot be admitted; nor, I think, any other, than—

"by itself—alone."

This Mr. Winstanley explains by

ἄνευ ἀνταποδοσεως

: but I cannot see how his translation—

"modo eas conjunctiones excipias quæ in initio periodi,

καθ' αυτους

, —ritè stare non possunt,"

&c. accords with Aristotle's words—

ὴν μη άρμοττῃ ἐν ἀρχῃ λογου τίθεναι καθ' αυτον

i. e. "unless they are such as should be placed in the beginning, by themselves." To make these words correspond to Mr. Winstanley's version, another negative seems wanting.

171. mvp-aristotle-comment-171

NOTE 171. P. 105.

20.7 AN ARTICLE MARKS THE BEGINNING OR THE END OF A SENTENCE.The commentators all tell us, that this means the prepositive, and the subjunctive article; but none of them have clearly and fairly shewn us, how the one, because it is placed before a word, marks the beginning of a sentence or discourse, (

ΛΟΓΟΥ ἀρχην

;) or, how the other marks the end of it, because it follows the word to which it belongs. In the very sentence before us, for example,

Αρθρον δε ἐστι φωνη άσημα Ἡ λογου άρχην ἢ τελος, ἢ διορισμον, δηλοι

—in what sense does the subjunctive article,

Ἡ

, mark the end of the sentence—

τελος λογου

"L'article subjonctif,"

says Dacier ,

"est celui qui marque la fin du discours: c'est-à-dire, qu'il suit la chose qu'il designe, comme, qui, lequel."

—It is easy to explain things in this manner.

For my part, I see not what is to be made of this, unless we may understand Aristotle to mean only that power of the article, by which, in the Greek language, it distinguishes the subject from the predicate, in certain propositions, and determines the order of construction. See Hermes, II. 1. p. 230. —But, then, this is no other than a species of

διορισμα

, and is, indeed, given by Mr. Harris as one example of the definitive or ascertaining power of the article.

The second definition of the article, (

—φωνη άσημα —— to συντίθεσθαι

) I have omitted. It is the first definition of the conjunction repeated verbatim. It may, indeed, be true of both; but if so, it must inevitably follow, I think, either that the two things must be the same, or, that the words are not truly a definition of either. Yet this passes smoothly with all the commentators I have seen, except Madius and Piccolomini .

172. mvp-aristotle-comment-172

NOTE 172. P. 105.

20.8 FOR EVEN IN DOUBLE WORDS, &C.Compare cap. ii. and iv. of Aristotle's treatise Περι Ερμηνειας . This is rendered by Piccolomini , with his usual accuracy,

"perochè nei nomi doppij [ò ver composti] non usiamo le parti d'essi, secondo che, da per se prese, hanno significatione: come, (per essempio) in questo nome Theodoro, quella parte (doro) non é significante."

³⁴²

173. mvp-aristotle-comment-173

NOTE 173. P. 106.

20.9 INDICATION OF TIME IS NOT INCLUDED, &c. —

Ου ΠΡΟΣΣΗΜΑΙΝΕΙ το ποτε

. See Hermes, I. 6, note (d), p. 96 . Aristotle has given a fuller definition of the verb, in the book περι Ἑρμ. cap. iii.

174. mvp-aristotle-comment-174

NOTE 174. P. 106.

20.10 OTHERS RELATE TO ACTION OR PRONUNCIATION —

Ἡ δε, κατα τα ὑποκριτικα

— sc.

σχηματα

: meaning the

σχηματα λεξεως

mentioned just before, cap. xix. with which these modes plainly coincide; for the

πτώσεις ῥηματων

here mentioned are no other than the

Ἐγκλισεις

, modes, or moods, of the Grammarians. — [See Hermes, I. 8, p. 144 , and particularly the notes there.]

Και κατα ποιας ἐγκλισεις, ὡς δη τινες ΠΤΩΣΕΙΣ ΡΗΜΑΤΙΚΑΣ καλεσι.

Dion. Hal. de Struct. &c. Sect. 6. — But he speaks of the term as applied only to the modes; for the tenses,

διαφοραι χρονων

, are immediately after mentioned by him, as not included in that term. But Aristotle, in the περι ἐρμην. expressly mentions the tenses also, as

πτωσεις ῥηματων

. See cap. iii. Sect. 5.

175. mvp-aristotle-comment-175

NOTE 175. P. 106.

20.12 FOR ALL DISCOURSE IS NOT COMPOSED OF VERBS AND NOUNS: THE DEFINITION OF MAN, FOR INSTANCE —

Ου γαρ άπας λογος ἐκ ῥηματων και ὀνοματων συγκειται· διον, ὁ του ἀνθρωπου ὁρισμος· ἀλλ᾽ ἐνδεχεται άνευ ῥηματων είναι λογον.

This is very ambiguously expressed. We are left to make out, as well as we can, whether the "definition of man," is referred to as an instance of a sentence without a verb, or of a sentence with both noun and verb. The construction seems, indeed, to lead more naturally to the latter interpretation. But the other, I think, is more to Aristotle's purpose, (for, an example of a sentence with both noun and verb, it was hardly necessary to produce,) and is confirmed by the following passage in his book περι Ἑρμηνειας :

Αναγκη δε παντα λογον ἀποφαντικον

(every assertive sentence or speech)

ἐκ ῥηματος είναι, ἢ ἐκ πτωσεως ῥηματος· και γαρ ὁ του ἀνθρωπου λογος

(i. e.

ὁρισμος

, definition; for so

λογος

is continually used by Aristotle,)

ἐαν μη το, ἐστιν, ἢ, ην, ἢ, ἐσται, ἢ τι τοιουτον ΠΡΟΣΤΕΘΗι, ουπω λογος ἀποφαντικος

. ³⁴³ The definition itself, (the same, probably, to which he alludes in the passage before us,) follows; it is,

ζωον πεζον διπουν

. ³⁴⁴ Now these three words alone constitute the definition, and it is of this only that Aristotle here speaks. In the full, assertive sentence, Anthropos esti zoon pezon dipoun, the two first words are no part of the definition itself, but, as Victorius has well observed, only indicate the thing defined. And accordingly, the philosopher, we see, in the above quotation, considers the verb as superadded to the definition.

However, this sense would be so much more clearly expressed, if the words —

διον, ὁ του ἀνθρωπου ὁρισμος

followed, instead of preceding, the words

ἀλλ' ἐνδεχεται άνευ ῥηματων είναι λογον

, that I should hardly doubt of their being misplaced, if this sort of embarrassment were less frequent than it is in Aristotle's writings. This whole passage receives much illustration from that part of the treatise περι ἐρμ. to which I have referred. ³⁴⁵ A sentence without a verb is what Aristotle calls a significant sentence, but not an assertive sentence, or proposition; i. e. that affirms or denies something, and of which it may be predicated, that it is true, or false. Such only, in that logical work, it was to his purpose to consider; the other, the merely significant sentence, ³⁴⁶ he dismisses, as belonging rather to rhetoric and POETRY.

Οι μεν ουν άλλοι [λογοι], ἀφεισθωσαν· ρητορικης γαρ, ἢ ΠΟΙΗΤΙΚΗΣ, οικειοτερα ἡ σκεψις· ὁ δε ἀποφαντικος της νυν θεωριας.

³⁴⁷

176. mvp-aristotle-comment-176

NOTE 176. P. 106.

20.12 SIGNIFICANT, AS THE WORD CLEON IS, &C.It has been observed, that the sense seemed to require an instance of a sentence with only one significant word; at least, not composed of both verb and noun, as

βαδίζει Κλεων

is. But I rather believe, that Aristotle did not intend this as an instance of such a sentence, but merely as an explanation of the

σημαινει

, and

καθ' άυτα σημαινει τι

, that precede. "It is not," says he, "essential to what I call

λογος

oratio

, that it should contain both a noun and a verb, i. e. that it should be a complete proposition: but some significant part it must have; significant, I mean, as a whole word, separately taken, as Cleon is, for example, in the sentence, Cleon walks; not as making a part of a word, like

δωρον

in the compound name

Θεοδωρος

, which has, indeed, a meaning, but not

καθ' αυτο κεχωρισμενον

— by itself as a word in the sentence."

That this is the meaning, seems probable from the chapter in which

λογος

is defined in the book περι Ερμηνειας . For there, as soon as he has given the definition, (

Λογου δε ἐσι φωνη σημαντικη ἧς των μερων τι σημαντικον ἐσι ΚΕΧΩΡΙΣΜΕΝΟΝ

,) he immediately proceeds to explain the expressions; declaring what fort of significant part he means. "Significant," he says, "as the word

ανθρωπος

is; that is,

κεχωρισμενον

, by itself; not as, syn-anthropos is, or uk esti, which signify as assertive sentences, nor yet, as a syllable, or part of a simple word, (like

υς

μυς

,) or, even as a word making part of a compound word." ³⁴⁸ Now, what Aristotle there expresses fully, he meant, I think, to say, more briefly, in the words,

ΜΕΡΟΣ μεντοι άει τι σημαινον ἐξει· διον ἐν τῷ, Βαδίζει Κλεων, ὁ Κλεων.

177. mvp-aristotle-comment-177

NOTE 177. P. 107.

20.13 A DISCOURSE MAY BE ONE, IN TWO SENSES, &C.Compare, περι Ερμην. cap. v. p. 38. — Analyt. Post. lib. ii. cap. 10. p. 169, E. Metaphys. VII. 4. p. 910, D. (where he uses

τῳ συνεχει

, as equivalent to

συνδεσμῳ

) and VIII. 6, p. 931, C.

178. mvp-aristotle-comment-178

NOTE 178. P. 107.

21.3 LIKE MANY OF THOSE USED BY THE MEGALIOTA.I have read, in some ludicrous book, of a country that was "lost by the ignorance of geographers." This seems to have been the case of these Megaliota, if such a people ever existed. They are nowhere recorded. — Dacier reads,

μεγαριζοντων

—

"ceux qui disent de grandes choses"

: and cites Hesychius

Μεγαριζοντες — μεγαλα λεγοντες

. But this is too distant from the present reading,

Μεγαλιωτων

. Mr. Winstanley's conjecture —

μεγαλειων, ως

, ³⁴⁹ is somewhat nearer, and, in other respects, preferable: but it is, I think, a strong presumption against its truth, that Aristotle constantly uses

διον

, when he gives an instance; never, as far as I recollect,

ὡς

I have sometimes thought it not very improbable, that the passage might originally have stood thus:

των μεγαλΑ ΔιώΚΟΝτων

: i. e. of those who affect, aim at, are fond of, grandeur and pomp of expression; who love hard words, as we say. Nothing more common than this sense of

διωκειν

. They who are versed in emendatory criticism, and the theory of transcriptive blunders, know it to have been one source of corruption in antient manuscripts, that the transcribers, when they found vacuities and lacunae which they could not fill up, rather than reduce the price of their copy by visible imperfection, often chose to write the passage as if there had been no such chasms; especially when that could be done, as in this case, with some passable appearance of a meaning. ³⁵⁰ And thus, here, if we suppose the letters I have distinguished by capitals to have been destroyed, or rendered illegible, in the original MS.

"upo notias kai seton,"

³⁵¹ they would leave exactly the letters we now have —

μεγαλ...ωτων

If a commentator, harrassed by obscurity and perplexity, can now and then relieve his labour by treating a passage of desperate corruption as a riddle, and can amuse himself by guessing the meaning, when he cannot inform his readers by discovering it, who will envy him this harmless privilege? I have here hazarded my guess with others; but I give it for what it is. None of us, I believe, have yet deprived our successors of the same amusement. The riddle, probably, still remains, and will remain, till the arrival of those

"codices expectandi"

of which the critics talk so much; those precious manuscripts, that are always to be waited for, and never to be expected.

179. mvp-aristotle-comment-179

NOTE 179. P. 107.

21.5 BY COMMON WORDS, I MEAN &C. —

Κυριον

. I have translated this, common, not proper, because this last term would convey a wrong idea; for

κυριον

here is plainly opposed, not to

μεταφορα

only, but to all the other species of words just enumerated: not to what is figurative only, as the Latin

proprium

is, but to whatever is unusual. This appears indeed from the definition — "a word that every body uses." What we call proper words are only one fort of the

κυρια όνοματα

of Aristotle. The expression must even include all those words, which, though originally metaphorical, are, as Mr. Harris says, "so naturalized" by common use, "that ceasing to be metaphors, they are become, (as it were,) the proper words." ³⁵² That is, as an excellent writer has expressed it, "they have nothing of the effect of metaphor upon the hearer. On the contrary, like proper terms, they suggest directly to his mind, without the intervention of any image, the ideas which the speaker proposed to convey by them." ³⁵³

The same clear opposition of

κυριον

to whatever is uncommon in speech appears throughout the next chapter, where

γλωττα, μεταφορα

, &c. are all said to be

ΠΑΡΑ το κυριον

, and included under one common term of

ξενικα

. See also Rhet. III. 2. p. 585, A.

180. mvp-aristotle-comment-180

NOTE 180. P. 107.

21.6 SO THAT THE SAME WORD MAY BE BOTH COMMON AND FOREIGN, &C.If

κυριον

here meant only native, in opposition to foreign, (

γλωττα

) as some commentators have supposed, it would be arrant trifling to observe, that the same word might be, at the same time,

γλωττα

and

κυριον

, i. e. foreign and native, to different nations. For it could not possibly be otherwise; as Robortelli observes, p. 246 , and calls the observation, which he explains as Aristotle's,

"magnoperè adnotandum, et PULCHRUM SCITU."

Dacier follows him:

"Cela ne sçauroit être autrement, le même mot qui est etranger pour celui qui l'emprunte, ne peut qu'être propre pour celui qui le prête."

But, if it must be so, why does Aristotle say it may be —

είναι δυνατον

? — The truth is, that a foreign word is not necessarily a common word, in his sense of

κυριον

, among the people to whom it is native; it may, or may not, be so; it cannot, indeed, be to them

γλωττα

, but it may be a metaphorical word, or a word of any of the other species enumerated as

ΠΑΡΑ το κυριον

. — Aristotle seems to have added this observation on purpose to prevent the very mistake which these expositors have made — to prevent

κύριον

from being taken merely as the opposite to

γλωττα

181. mvp-aristotle-comment-181

NOTE 181. P. 108.

21.9 A THOUSAND IS A CERTAIN DEFINITE MANY. —

Το γαρ μύριον, πολυ ἐστι.

— Here, I may venture, I believe, for once, to adopt the positive tone of emendatory criticism.

Legendum omnino,

πολυ ΤΙ.

The sense, indeed, no one can mistake: but the text, as it stands, does not express that sense. It says only, "for a thousand is many, which he now uses instead of many." There can be no doubt, that Aristotle added

ΤΙ

here, as in all the other instances,

ἐσταναι ΤΙ — ὠφελεων ΤΙ.

³⁵⁴ But, to put the matter beyond all doubt, he afterwards, speaking of the same fort of metaphor, says,

το γαρ Παντες άντι του Πόλλοι, κατα μεταφοραν, είρηται· το γαρ Παν, ΠΟΛΥ ΤΙ.

³⁵⁵ I am surprised that so very obvious an error should have escaped the notice of all the commentators I am acquainted with.

182. mvp-aristotle-comment-182

NOTE 182. P. 108.

21.10 FOR HERE, THE POET USES ταμειν --- INSTEAD OF ἀρυσαι, &c.Here a commentator is not perplexed by a little glimmering of light, that promises to shew him something, and shews him nothing; but is relieved at once from all trouble by a total and comfortable obscurity. The quotations are so short, and, in all probability, so incorrect, that it seems impossible to apply to them Aristotle's definition of this metaphor, or to see how, where the Poet has used

ταμειν

ἀρυσαι

would have been the proper word, and vice versa. Yet the commentators slide over this difficulty. Victorius , however, has noticed it, and, giving up the quotations as inexplicable and incorrigible, proposes a more intelligible example from the Rhetoric, III. 2. —

το φάναι, τον μεν πτωχευοντα, ευχεσθαι· τον δε ευχομενον, πτωχευειν· ὅτι ἀμφω αιτησεις.

Dacier has entirely omitted the passage, and substituted another from the Rhet. III. 11. p. 597, B. — Not, however, that he did not understand the passage; it was an inviolable rule with him always to understand his author: but only, it seems, because the example could not conveniently be expressed in French —

"il ne peut être traduit en nôtre langue."

Castelvetro gives a very pleasant illustration. He does not pretend to see how

ταμειν

and

ἀρυσαι

are put for each other in the Greek examples: but he says, that, to draw, and to cut off, might be thus metaphorically put for each other; if, for example, we should say, "Take this pruning hook, and draw some branches from the olive-tree: or, Take this pail, and cut off some water from the fountain." ³⁵⁶ — Undoubtedly any man may speak in this way, who choses it.

183. mvp-aristotle-comment-183

NOTE 183. P. 108.

21.11 IN THE WAY OF ANALOGY, WHEN OF FOUR TERMS, &C.The difficulty here is, to distinguish clearly this, which Aristotle calls the analogical or proportional metaphor, from the metaphor which precedes it — that from species to species: for as to the two first sorts, that from genus to species, and vice versa, they plainly belong, as has been observed, to the trope since denominated Synecdoche; the word

μεταφορα

being clearly used by Aristotle in its most general sense, including all the tropes — all the ways in which a word is transferred to a meaning different from its proper meaning. See Cic. Or. cap. xxvii. Of the four species of

μεταφοραι

here mentioned, only the two last seem to answer to our METAPHOR — the metaphor founded on some resemblance between the thing from which, and that to which, the term is transferred.

The difference between these two sorts of metaphors, as far as I am able to comprehend it, appears to me to be only this. Each of them is founded on some resemblance; but in the first, the resemblance perceived is between the two things themselves; in the other, between the relations which they, respectively, bear to two other things. Those are metaphors

ἀπ᾿ ἐιδους ἐπι ειδους

, where the likeness is perceived, as Aristotle elsewhere expresses it, "by the genus;" that is, where the common quality, which constitutes the likeness, immediately occurs, and it is, therefore, sufficient simply to substitute the one word for the other. Those are metaphors

κατ᾿ ἀναλογιαν

, where the resemblance is not thus perceived by the common quality, but by the common relation, of the two things; ³⁵⁷ where, therefore, that relation must be pointed out, more or less expressly. Thus, to take Aristotle's own examples, when old age, or rather, an old man, is called "stubble," the resemblance is sufficiently perceived, by a comparison of the things themselves; in Aristotle's language, we perceive it "by the genus:" —

όταν γαρ ἐιπῃ [Όμηρος] το γήρας ΚΑΛΑΜΗΝ, ἐποιησε μαθησιν και γνῶσιν δια του γένους· ΑΜΦΩ γαρ ΑΠΗΝΘΗΚΟΤΑ.

³⁵⁸ But when old age is called "evening," what strikes us is the resemblance with respect to two other things, life, and day; a resemblance of relation.

In this idea of the analogical metaphor I have the concurrence of Piccolomini .

"La metafora di proportione è quella, che sopra la somiglianza dei rispetti che hanno l'une cose con l'altre, sarà fondata;"

&c. See his annotations, p. 305, and his clear and useful, though prolix, Parafrase della Retor. d'Arift. tom. iii. p. 52, &c. In the rest of his explanation he does not satisfy me.

184. mvp-aristotle-comment-184

NOTE 184. P. 108.

21.12 AND, SOMETIMES, THE PROPER TERM IS ALSO INTRODUCED, BESIDES ITS RELATIVE TERM. —

Και ἐνιοτε προστιθεασιν ἀνθ᾿ ὁυ λεγει προς ὁ ἐστι.

— No words can well be more obscure and perplexing. Taking them as they are, they seem to admit, fairly, of only one sense — that which Victorius gives them.

"Et quandoque apponunt, pro quo dicit ad quod est."

That is, as he explains this literal and obscure version, they add, "ad quod refertur illud nomen quod omittunt, et pro quo aliud vocabulum usurpant."

Προστιθεασι, προς ὁ ἐστι [sc. τουτο] ἀνθ᾿ ὁυ λεγει

: i. e. they add, to the substituted word ( cup), the word to which the proper word ( shield) relates; i. e. Mars. They not only name cup, instead of shield, but call it the cup of Mars.

My objection to this sense of the passage is, that it seems to confound the analogical metaphor with that from species to species, in which one word is simply put in the room of the other, as

καλαμη

is used in the passage of Homer, referred to by Aristotle as an example of that fort of metaphor: ³⁵⁹

Αλλ' ἐμπης καλαμην γε σ' οἴομαι ἐισοροωντα / Γινώσκειν.

Od. ξ. 214.

For if, "sometimes,"

ἐνιοτε

, this addition is made, it is implied, that not only sometimes, but generally, and for the most part, the analogical metaphor is used in the same manner as that

ἀπ' ἐιδους

&c. and cup is merely called shield, and old age, evening. But, if I understand the matter rightly, it is essential to this kind of metaphor to express two terms, at least, of the four which constitute the analogy; i. e. to express with the metaphorical word, either the thing to which the proper word belongs, (as, evening of life,) or, as Aristotle presently after says, a negative epithet. See NOTE 189.

And the philosopher himself seems to have said this, (for I confess the passage is not perfectly clear,) in the following words:

ΑΙΕΙ γαρ ΕΚ ΔΥΟΙΝ λεγονται [sc. ἐικονες, comparisons], ΩΣΠΕΡ Ἡ ΑΝΑΛΟΓΟΝ ΜΕΤΑΦΟΡΑ· διον, ἡ ἀσπις, φαμεν, ἐστι ΦΙΑΛΗ ΑΡΕΟΣ, και, τοξον, ΦΟΡΜΙΓΞ ΑΧΟΡΔΟΣ· ουτω μεν ουν λεγουσιν, ΟΥΧ ΑΠΛΟΥΝ το δ᾿ ἐιπειν το τοξον “φορμιγγα” ἢ την άσπιδα “φιάλην,” ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΝ.

³⁶⁰ Thus

"capitis nives"

³⁶¹ for gray hairs; evening of life; morning of the year; eye of day; and, among many instances in the Rhetoric,

δημε ροπαλον — λημη του Πειραιεως — ὁδου των λόγων

, &c. ³⁶² The fact, indeed, seems to be, that this analogical metaphor is only a way of stating metaphors founded on resemblance, when that resemblance, depending wholly, or chiefly, on relation, would not be obvious, and the metaphor, consequently, would be harsh and obscure, unless the relation were, by some means or other, pointed out. ³⁶³ — Victorius himself allows, that, in Aristotle's own examples, the mere substitution of cup for shield, and of evening for old age, would be

"nimis durum."

I think, then, that Aristotle meant to say, and, in some way or other, had said, "And sometimes," (

ἐνιοτε

,) now and then, for the sake of clearness, "they add the proper word, (the word,

ἀνθ᾿ ὁυ

for which, the metaphorical word is put,) to, or besides, the

προς ὁ ἐστι

— i. e. that to which the proper word relates." They not only call the shield, the cup of Mars, but they mention shield also, and say, the shield is the cup of Mars: or, taking the other instance, old age is the evening of life. Thus all will follow naturally:

ΚΑΙ ἐνιοτε

— And, sometimes, they add the proper term, &c.

Ένιοις δε, ουκ ἐστιν όνομα — ἀναλογον.

— But, in some analogical metaphors, there is no proper term; in that case, therefore, the meta- phor cannot be used: yet it may be used in the first, and most common way, as well as if such proper term subsisted; it is still an analogical metaphor, and may be used as such: —

ουδεν ήττον, ὁμοιως

[i. e.

ἀναλογως

, as Castelvetro rightly explains it,]

λεχθησεται

. Thus, in the metaphor exemplified, of sowing, applied to the sun, we may say the sun sows his rays, though we cannot assign any proper term, for which sows is put — any word appropriated to the dispersion of light from the sun, as, to sow, is appropriated to the dispersion of seed. Such appears to me to be the connection of this passage.

It will, undoubtedly, be objected, that the sense I would give the words

προστιθεασι

&c. cannot be fairly obtained from them as they now stand: and I confess it cannot; unless we might be allowed to render the words thus, taking

προς

as a repetition of the preposition in

προστιθεασιν

: "they add the word, for which they use, or say, the metaphorical word, (

ἀνθ᾿ ὁυ λΕΓΕΙ

το ὁ ΕΣΤΙ

To what it is — to the word which is used: they add the word that should be to the word that is." But this appears to me so harsh and improbable a construction, that I would rather suppose the passage to be defective. Perhaps it might originally be thus: —

Και ἐνιοτε προστιθ. ἀνθ᾿ ὁυ λέγει, ΠΑΡΑ [το] προς ὁ ἐστι

— i. e. besides adding the thing to which the proper term relates. ³⁶⁴ But there seems to be still another fault in the passage. I cannot reconcile the plural

προστιθεασιν

, with the singular,

λέγει

. Goulston renders

"apponit;"

and I am surprised that no MS. should exhibit

προστίθησιν

. That

λέγει

is right, is highly probable, from the singular verb

ἐρει

, repeatedly used here, and the

ἐποι

, afterwards:

ἐι την ἀσπίδα ΕΙΠΟΙ κ. τ. αλλ.

185. mvp-aristotle-comment-185

NOTE 185. P. 108.

21.12 THE SHIELD, THE CUP OF MARS, &C.

Φιαλην Αρεως

. The

φιαλη

seems to have been a large, expanded, (

ἐκπεταλον

,) kind of vessel, like a ewer. See Il. 4. 270 , and the notes. Hesych. v. Αμφιθετο . — It had also, sometimes, an

ὀμφαλος

, or

umbo

. See Athen. p. 501 . It had probably, therefore, some resemblance to a shield, which makes the metaphor appear less strange; as Piccolomini has remarked, p. 306 : who also observes, very well, that this kind of metaphor is then most clear and perfect, when the resemblance of relation is aided by some degree of resemblance between the things themselves and that here, for example, if lance were used instead of shield, the metaphor would be spoiled, though the common relation would still subsist.

This seems to have been a favourite instance of this sort of metaphor; for it occurs several times in the Rhetoric. See III. 4, p. 588 , and 11, p. 596, E . In the former of these passages Aristotle says, that an analogical metaphor ought to admit of inversion: thus, says he, if we may call the cup the shield of Bacchus, we may, with equal propriety, call the shield the cup of Mars. But Demetrius observes, alluding to that passage of the Rhetoric, that this is not the case of every such metaphor:

ἐπει την ὑπωρειαν μεν της ἴδης, ποδα ἐξην ἐιπειν τον ποιητην, τον δε του ἀνθρωπου ποδα, ἐκετι ὑπωρειαν ἐιπειν.

Sect. 79.

186. mvp-aristotle-comment-186

NOTE 186. P. 108.

21.13 OR AS EMPEDOCLES HAS EXPRESSED IT, LIFE'S SETTING SUN.

Δυσμας βιου

. — Victorius has pointed out this expression in Plato's sixth book De Legibus , where the Athenian says,

ἡμεις δ᾽ ἐν δυσμαις του βιου, οι δε, ὡς προς ἡμας, νεοι

: probably alluding, in Plato's usual manner, to the very passage of Empedocles . ³⁶⁵ See also Ælian, Var. Hist. II. 34 .

ἐπι δυσμαις ἐσμεν

: where, as the metaphor was sufficiently explained by the subject of the conversation, the word

βιου

is not added.

Victorius remarks, also, the

βιου ΔΥΝΤΟΣ αυγαις

of Æschylus, Agamem. v. 1123 . The rest of that passage is very obscure; ³⁶⁶ but this expression seems, clearly enough, to describe the dying eye, that opens, for the last time, upon the light: —

Βλεψαι προς ΑΥΓΑΣ βουλεται τας ήλιου, / Ως οὐποτ᾿ ἀυθις, άλλα νυν πανυστατον, / Ακτινα, κυκλονθ᾿, ήλιου προσοψεται.

Eurip. Alcest. 203.

or, in the finest picture of the kind, I think, that Poetry affords, —

oculisque errantibus, alto / Quæsivit cælo lucem, ingemuitque reperta.

Æn. IV. 691.

— The poetical reader, I believe, will pardon me, if I wander so much farther from my subject, as to take occasion, from these beautiful passages, to point out three lines of Petrarch , which shew, that his powers were not confined to the expression of amorous tenderness, but were capable of rising, on occasion, to the true sublime. In the sonnet,

"Se lamentar augelli,"

&c. written after the death of Laura , he imagines himself to hear her voice, in his solitude, consoling him for his loss, in these lines: —

Di me non pianger tu; ch' i miei di fersi / Morendo eterni; e, NEL ETERNO LUME, / Quando mostrai di chiuder gli occhi, APERSI! —

Ed. di Gesualdo, p. 288.

187. mvp-aristotle-comment-187

NOTE 187. P. 108.

21.14 THERE IS NO PROPER ANALOGOUS TERM, &C.

Όνομα κειμενον

. —

Κειμενον

, here, is equivalent to

κυριον

; a word established by common usage.

Ετι, ἐι ΜΗ ΚΕΙΜΕΝΟΙΣ όνομασι χρηται, διον Πλατων, ὀφρυοσκιον, τον ὀφθαλμον· παν γαρ ἀσαφες το ΜΗ ΕΙΩΘΟΣ.

— Topic. VI. 2. p. 242. See also, Categ. c. vii. p. 23, C.

188. mvp-aristotle-comment-188

NOTE 188. P. 109.

21.14 SOWING ABROAD HIS HEAVEN-CREATED FLAME.

Σπειρων θεοκτισταν φλογα

. — Part of an Iambic verse, and probably from some Tragic Poet. The commentators quote Virgil's

"Spargebat lumine terras."

This, however, is not exactly applicable, because

spargere

does not, I think, appear to have been the proper, specific word, for sowing, as

σπειρειν

was. The passage of Lucretius is more apposite: —

Sol etiam summo de vertice dissupat omnes / Ardorem in partes, et lumine CONSERIT arva.

p. 211.

Every reader will recollect Milton's beautiful application of this metaphor to the stars: —

And sow'd with stars the heav'n, thick as a field. —

P. L. VII. 358.

— and to the dew-drops, metaphorized into pearls, V. 1. But the idea of pouring, applied to the great fountain of light, seems both a more just, and a more elevated, metaphor. It is happily touched by Virgil in this line: —

Jam sole infuso, jam rebus luce retectis.

Æn. IX. 461.

— a sketch which Thomson has finely filled up, and finished: —

young day pours in apace, / And opens all the lawny prospect wide: / The dripping rock, the mountain's misty top, / Swell on the sight, and brighten with the dawn; / Blue, thro' the dusk, the smoaking currents shine.

Summer, 52.

In his hymn, he has taken up the metaphor in a sublimer tone: —

Great source of day! best image here below / Of thy Creator, ever POURING wide, / From world to world, the vital ocean round!

l. 66.

— To which I cannot restrain myself from adding a fine passage of the same kind in the hymn of Dionysius to the sun: —

᾿Ακτινα πολυστρεφον ἀμπλεκων, / ᾿Αιγλας πολυδερκεα ΠΑΓΑΝ / Περι γαιαν άπασαν ἑλισσων. / ΠΟΤΑΜΟΙ δε σεθεν ΠΥΡΟΣ ΑΜΒΡΟΤΟΥ / Τικτουσιν ἐπηρατον άμεραν.

³⁶⁷

189. mvp-aristotle-comment-189

NOTE 189. P. 109.

21.16 THE WINELESS CUP. —

Φιαλην ἀοινον

. This emendation of Victorius , (instead of

ἀλλα οινου

, the reading of all the editions and MSS.) seems confirmed, beyond all doubt, by Rhet. III. 6, p. 590, A. and 11, p. 597, A.

Metaphors, from their nature, are in danger of being obscure, or forced, though it is essential to their beauty and effect, that they should be clear and apposite. For this purpose, a metaphor may be guarded in various ways. ³⁶⁸ If the simple substitution of the improper, for the proper, term, would be obscure, or harsh, the metaphor may be converted into an image, or comparison; it may be used analogically, and we may say,

φιαλη ΑΡΕΩΣ

, or

φιαλη ΑΟΙΝΟΣ

; or, if that be not sufficient for perspicuity — that is, if the meaning be not sufficiently pointed out by the manner, or circumstances, in which the expression is introduced, we may join these, (

φιαλη Αρεως ἀοινος

,) or even add to either of them the proper word itself. ³⁶⁹

There is a fine instance of this negative mode of explaining a metaphor, in Isaiah, li. 21 .

"Thou drunken, but not with wine."

³⁷⁰ The same end is often answered by an epithet, affirming of the thing expressed some quality belonging to the thing signified; thus, ships are "floating bulwarks," and the lyre a "chorded shell," ³⁷¹ where Dryden has made the same use of the affirmative epithet, chorded, that Theognis did of the negative,

ἀχορδον

, in his metaphorical expression for a bow —

φορμιγξ άχορδος

. ³⁷² Sometimes the explanatory epithet is itself a metaphor; as in the

πτερωτοις άρμασι

of Euripides ; "winged chariots." Here we have a double metaphor, chariot for ship, and wing for sail.

It should be remembered, that these negative epithets are very common in the Greek Poets. Victorius points out many instances:

κωμον ἀναυλοτατον

, Eurip. Phoeniss. 818 .

θιασον ἀβακχευτον

, Orest. 319 .

μηνυτηρα ἀφθεγκτον

, Æfch. Eumen. 245 .

ἀπτεροις πωτημασιν

, ibid. 250 , &c.

190. mvp-aristotle-comment-190

NOTE 190. P. 109.

21.17 AN INVENTED WORD, &C.Between this and the preceding definition Aristotle must have placed that of

Κοσμος

the ornament, or ornamental word. That it was purposely passed over by him is hardly credible. This is, most probably, one of the lamentable

διαβρωματα

that Strabo talks of. ³⁷³ The commentators differ widely as to the meaning of

κοσμος

. Castelvetro says, the word admits, here, of five different senses, which he sets up, like nine-pins, for the pleasure of knocking them all down. — The only reasonable account of the matter seems to be that given by Dacier from Victorius . It seems clear enough, that what Aristotle here calls

κοσμος

, is included, at least, under what he calls

ὀικειον

in the Rhetoric. For he says, at the end of the next chapter (cap. xxii.) speaking of those species of words that are used in prose, that they are these three,

το κύριον

, και

μεταφορα

, και

ΚΟΣΜΟΣ

: and in the Rhetoric, after referring to the very enumeration of words in this chapter, and setting aside such as he calls poetical, (i. e.

γλωτται, διπλα ὀνοματα

, &c.) he says,

το δε κυριον, και το ΟΙΚΕΙΟΝ, και μεταφοραι, μοναι χρησιμοι προς την των ψίλων λόγων λεξιν· παντες γαρ μεταφοραις διαλεγονται, και τοις ΟΙΚΕΙΟΙΣ, και τοις κυρίοις

. ³⁷⁴

And these

ὀικεια ὀνοματα

, again, seem plainly synonymous with

ἐπιθετα

, mentioned presently after: —

δει δε και τα ἐπιθετα και τας μεταφ. κ. τ. λ.

— By

ὀικεια

and

ἐπιθετα

, Aristotle seems to have expressed the genus, of which,

κοσμος

, the ornamental or embellishing epithet, was a species. But as he has not, by any means, explained himself fully, nor given any definition either of

ὀικειον

ἐπιθετον

, the mist which he has left upon this subject must remain. I shall only remark, that the word

κοσμος

is once, (and I think but once,) used by him in his Rhetoric, apparently in the same sense as in this chapter. For, speaking of the propriety of diction, and its correspondence to the subject, he observes, that "an ornament should not be applied to a mean word; for this," says he, "has the appearance of burlesque; which is the case with Cleophon , who has used expressions of this sort as ridiculous, as it would be to talk of an "AUGUST fig-tree." ³⁷⁵ The word

κοσμος

here, and the example by which he explains it, seem to prove, that

κοσμος

, in the treatise on Poetry, means such an epithet as embellishes or elevates the thing to which it is applied. For I do not imagine that the term includes what the Grammarians call perpetual epithets, such as

"humida vina,"

γαλα λευκον

, &c. because Aristotle expressly says, that the

κοσμος

is used in common speech: now these redundant epithets are banished, both by him, and by Quintilian , even from oratory; much more from ordinary discourse. ³⁷⁶

It may be objected, as it has been objected by Piccolomini (p. 337) , that, as an epithet may, at the same time, be a foreign word, a metaphorical, an extended, or of any of the other sorts, it could not be enumerated by Aristotle as a distinct species of words among the rest. But the truth is, that he is not there enumerating so many distinct species of words, which exclude each other, but only a number of distinct properties of words, several of which may subsist together in the same word. Thus, an extended word may, manifestly, be, at the same time, a metaphorical, or a foreign word, or both: a metaphorical word may be, also, an invented, extended, altered word, &c. But none of these words can be, at the same time,

κυρια

, common words; and the only exclusive distinction that Aristotle intended, is between the common word, and the others; all of which are words, on some account or other, uncommon.

191. mvp-aristotle-comment-191

NOTE 191. P. 110.

21.21 NOUNS ARE DIVIDED, &C.In passages where great corruption and little importance meet, a commentator may be reasonably indulged in silence, or brevity. What all this has to do in the midst of an analysis of poetical language, as distinguished from that of prose, I confess myself totally unable to see.

The defects of the passage have been fully pointed out by almost all the annotators. See Mr. Winstanley's note, p. 300, ed. Ox. 1780 . — But we have lately been told, that all the commentators have entirely mistaken the sense of the passage, and supposed it, without reason, to be imperfect, merely because they did not see, that Aristotle here speaks, not as a Grammarian, but as a Philosopher, and is considering, not the conventional gender of verbal inflection, but the real gender of the things signified. Thus, it is admitted, indeed, that all words ending in

and

, are not masculine; yet, if we examine the nature of the things denoted by words of those terminations, we shall find, it seems, that they are masculine, though the words themselves are regarded as feminine. ³⁷⁷ Let us try, then.

Μητηρ

, for example, ends in

. Did Aristotle's philosophy lead him to consider a mother as of the masculine gender?

192. mvp-aristotle-comment-192

NOTE 192. P. 110.

22.1 THE EXCELLENCE OF DICTION CONSISTS IN BEING PERSPICUOUS, WITHOUT BEING MEAN

Λεξεως ἀρετη

i. e. of diction, or language, in general; not,

"elocutionis Poeticae,"

as Goulston and others render it. For Aristotle gives the same definition of the excellence of oratorical diction, in his Rhetoric; ³⁷⁸ adding, only, with respect to the degree of elevation, such a restriction as his subject there required. Now had he intended here a definition of the language of Poetry, as discriminated from that of Prose, he would hardly have confined himself to two characters common to both; viz. that it should be perspicuous, and yet not mean, or low, like colloquial language, consisting only of common and proper words, without metaphors, or any of the other ornamental words which he enumerates; some of which he makes essential to the excellence (

ἀρετην

) and proper elevation, even of prose elocution. ³⁷⁹ For, that this is the force of

ταπεινη

, is clear from his own explanation.

Still, it is obvious to ask, why the philosopher, when his subject was the excellence of poetic diction, should thus set out with a general definition, instead of giving us, at once, the definition of the species. The reason, I suppose, was, that he conceived the poetic to differ from the rhetorical language, only in the degree of elevation above ordinary speech; and to define degrees is not easy. Nor, indeed, was even this difference common to all Poetry. If the diction of the Dithyrambic and other Lyric kinds, and the Heroic, with their pompous apparatus of compound epithets, foreign and antiquated words, and boldness of metaphor, rose far above the highest elevation of prose diction; on the other hand, that of Tragedy, we know, frequently descended, in its lowest parts, even below what Aristotle assigns as the proper level of rhetorical speech, to a style differing from common speech in no other circumstance but that of metre. ³⁸⁰ — Dacier, with the stiff and inflexible dignity of French Tragedy before his eyes, appears to have been shocked at the expression,

μη ταπεινη

; for he translates, not the words only, but the ideas, of his author, into French:

"La vertu de l'expression consiste dans la netteté et dans LA NOBLESSE."

193. mvp-aristotle-comment-193

NOTE 193. P. 110.

22.2 SUCH IS THE POETRY OF CLEOPHONSee NOTE 14. From what Aristotle says of this Poet in the Rhetoric, it appears, that he sometimes variegated his vulgarity with a dash of bombast. ³⁸¹ He gave fine epithets to low words. The

ἐυτελες ὀνομα

, there, agrees with what is said of him here. See the ch. of the Rhet. last referred to. What is there said of Cleophon , La Motte says of HOMER himself.

"Homere emploie quelquefois les mots les plus vils, et il les releve aussitôt par des epithetes magnifiques."

³⁸² It must, indeed, be confessed, that, after all the apologies of critics and commentators, Homer's

Διος ὑφορβος

— "divine swineherd" — has not, to our ears, a much better effect than

ποτνια συκη

. The only reasonable way of defending Homer, is, surely, to content ourselves with saying, in general, that the expression could not have the same incongruous appearance in Homer's time; as, in that case, he certainly would not have used it. At least, this would be a better apology, than to assert, with Boileau , that

συβωτης

is one of the finest words in the Greek language. ³⁸³

194. mvp-aristotle-comment-194

NOTE 194. P. 110.

22.2 AND THAT OF STHENELUS.This seems to explain a fragment of Aristophanes , in which the Poet, alluding probably to the flatness and insipidity of the diction of Sthenelus , as wanting the poetic seasoning of metaphor, &c. introduces some hungry fellow saying, that "he could make shift to eat even some of the words of Sthenelus, if they were but dipped in salt, or vinegar."

Και πως ἐγω Σθενελου φαγοιμ αν ῥημα τι / Εις όξος ἐμβαπτομενον ἢ λευκους άλας.

Athen. IX. init.

195. mvp-aristotle-comment-195

NOTE 195. P. 110.

22.4 AN ENIGMA, IF COMPOSED OF METAPHORS.

"Ut modicus autem atque opportunus ejus usus illustrat orationem, ita, frequens et obscurat et tædio complet; continuus verò in allegoriam et ænigma exit."

— Quintil. VIII. 6.

196. mvp-aristotle-comment-196

NOTE 196. P. 110.

22.5 THE ESSENCE OF AN ENIGMA CONSISTS, &c.I can neither assent to the emendation proposed by Mr. Winstanley, nor see the least want of any emendation. The passage appears to me perfectly clear and unexceptionable, as it is.

Τα ὑπαρχοντα

must, by no means, be joined with

ἀδυνατα

. It evidently means here, in a sense very usual, things that actually exist—i. e. are true. As, Rhet. II. 25 ,

λυεται δε και τα σημεια, κ᾿αν ὑπαρχοντα

: where,

ὑπαρχοντα

is synonymous with

ἀληθες

, in lib. i. cap. ii. p. 517 —

λυτον δε, κ᾿αν ΑΛΗΘΕΣ

The passage is accurately and closely rendered by Piccolomini.

"La forma e l'effentia dell' enigma confifte in quefto, che nel dir cofe, che VERAMENTE SIANO, fi congiungbino infieme cofe ch appaiano impoffibili à ftar infieme."

—And this is an exact definition of an ænigma—such an ænigma, at least, as Aristotle means. But in the other way of constructing the passage, which is that of Castelvetro, and some other interpreters, it is no definition at all. For if the essence of a riddle consists merely in "putting together things that are incompatible and impossible," —

τα ὑπαρχοντα ἀδυνατα συναψαι

then the Italian Poet made a riddle, when he described a man fighting after he was cut in two:

del colpo non accorto, / Andava combattendo, ed era morto.

³⁸⁴

197. mvp-aristotle-comment-197

NOTE 197. P. 110.

22.5 NOW THIS CANNOT BE EFFECTED BY THE MERE ARRANGEMENT OF THE WORDS, &C.

Κατα μεν ουν την των ὀνοματων συνθεσιν.

— Heinsius

την των ΚΥΡΙΩΝ ὀνοματων

. But the

κυριον όνομα

, as I have already observed, is, throughout, opposed by Aristotle, not to

μεταφορα

only, but to all the other words. He would hardly, therefore, have used it here in a different sense, as opposed to metaphor only. ³⁸⁵ If any emendation were necessary, I should think

ΑΛΛΩΝ ὀνοματων

more probable. But perhaps no word is wanting. Aristotle had used the expression,

ἀδυνατα ΣΥΝΑΨΑΙ

—"to put together things impossible." This might lead to suppose, that an ænigma might be made by the mere

συνθεσις ὀνοματων

—by a certain arrangement or construction of the words only. Therefore he adds—"this cannot be done by the mere arrangement of the words; by the metaphorical use of them it may." ³⁸⁶

As this sense seems sufficiently clear, supposes no defect in the text, and, after all, coincides, in the main, with that of Heinsius, (for we must necessarily understand, an arrangement of words not metaphorical—) I have adopted it in my translation, after Dacier, and Batteux.

198. mvp-aristotle-comment-198

NOTE 198. P. 110.

22.5 A MAN I ONCE BEHELD, &C.See Rhet. III. 2, p. 586 , where this is called an approved, or admired, riddle:—

ἐν τῷ ἀινιγματι τῳ ευδοκιμουντι

—. I wish it may

ευδοκιμειν

with a modern reader. In Athenæus another line appears:

Ανδρ᾿ ἐιδον πυρι χαλκον ἐπ᾿ ἀνερι κολλησαντα, / Ουτω συγκολλως ὡστε συναιμα ποιειν.

Lib. ix. p. 452.

But Casaubon seems right in supposing this pentameter to have been a modern addition; for it is not found, I believe, in any more antient writer. Even in Plutarch, I observe, that the hexameter not only appears by itself, as in Aristotle, but is plainly given as the whole. See his Symposium, p. 267, ed. H. St. It appears from that passage to have been the production of a lady, Eumetis. I doubt whether, in these "degenerate days," it would have gained her a prize in the Lady's Diary. The Greeks were fond of these puzzles. The reader may find some curious specimens of this sort of wit in Athenæus, X. 448, &c.

199. mvp-aristotle-comment-199

NOTE 199. P. 111.

22.9 AS OLD EUCLID DID, OBJECTING, &C.Fontenelle talks in the same way.

"Du tems d'Homere c'étoit une grande merveille qu'un homme pût aſſujettir ſon diſcours à des meſures, à des fillabes longues et breves, & faire en même tems quelque choſe de raiſonnable. On donnoit donc aux Poetes des licences infinies, & on ſe tenoit encore trop heureux d'avoir des vers. Homère pouvoit parler dans un ſeul vers cinq langues differentes; prendre le dialecte Dorique quand l'Ionique ne l'accommodoit pas; au defaut de tous les deux, prendre l'Attique, l'Eolique, ou le commun; c'est-à-dire, parler en même tems, Picard, Gascon, Normand, Breton, & François commun. Il pouvoit allonger un mot s'il étoit trop court, l'accourcir s'il étoit trop long; personne n'y trouvoit à redire."

³⁸⁷

But, could this ingenious and sensible writer seriously suppose, that the language of Homer's poems had at all the same effect to a hearer, or reader, of his time, that an English poem would now have, if composed of all the provincial dialects of Great Britain? —We are always told, how Homer enriched his language by "visiting all the principal nations of Greece, and learning the peculiarities of their speech." ³⁸⁸ Just as if an English poet, because he had resided some time in Yorkshire, or Lancashire, might, in his next poem, put neet for night, loise for lose, or a balliblash, a very well-sounding Lancashire word, for a blaze.

This account makes the language of Homer no other than the

kainisma

which Quintilian reprobates, among the

vitia orationis

: ³⁸⁹ something worse than the "Babylonish dialect" of Hudibras;

"a party-colour'd dress / Of patch'd and piebald languages. / It had an odd promiscuous tone, / As if he'd talk'd three parts in one Which made some think, when he did gabble, / They had heard three labourers of Babel; / Or Cerberus himself pronounce / A leash of languages at once."

With such an idea of Homer's language, Fontenelle might well add—

"Cette étrange confusion de langues, cet assemblage bisarre de mots tout défigurés, etoit la langue des dieux; du moins il est bien ſûr que ce n'etoit pas celle des hommes."

—And, indeed, I firmly believe with Lord Monboddo, that "fuch a mongrel dialect was never written by any man;" and that "Homer wrote, either the language that was ſpoken in the country where he was born and educated, or that was used by the poets that had written before him, and was the eſtabliſhed language of Poetry." ³⁹⁰

200. mvp-aristotle-comment-200

NOTE 200. P. 111.

22.9 AND THEN GIVING A BURLESQUE EXAMPLE OF THAT SORT OF DICTION.

Ιαμβοποιησας ἐν ἀυτη τη λεξει.

— Two senses have been given to the word

ἰαμβοποιησας

; both of them, I think, far from satisfactory. Some render it—making Iambic verses:

"Iambis usus est."

[Vict.] But, is it likely, that Euclid, meaning to ridicule Homer's hexameters, should do it in Iambic verse?—Besides that the lines themselves, such as we find them, have not the least air of Iambics, but fall easily enough, with a little help, into hexameters. In this I perfectly agree with Dacier; though I see no reason to suppose with him, that Euclid had composed—

"un ouvrage en vers heroiques."

Others, and Madius in particular, understand the word to mean, satirizing, ridiculing, the Poet; —

"ſe moque de lui."

[Dac.] A meaning that, undoubtedly, suits the passage better; whether it suits the word itself I much doubt, but will not venture to decide. As Aristotle uses

ἰαμβοποιος

, ³⁹¹ in the sense of a satiric Poet—a maker of the

ἰαμβος

, or satiric poem, he may possibly have used the verb,

Ιαμβοποιειν

, here, in the correspondent sense of making a satire upon, or burlesquing:—

ἰαμβοποἰησας ἐν ἀυτη τη λεξει

—having ridiculed him "in that fort of diction," in the following manner, &c.

As this sense appears to me, on the whole, far more eligible than the other, I have followed it: for I see no third sense that can, with any shew of probability, be extracted from the present text. But that it is defective, and that

ἰαμβοποιησας

is an error, I have very little doubt. If conjecture might be indulged, I should be inclined to suppose, that what Aristotle had said was this; "that it is an easy matter to versify, even in common speech, (

ἐν αυτη τη λεξει

,) ³⁹² if one may be allowed to extend syllables and words at pleasure, so as to convert, for instance, an Iambic foot, which is continually occurring in common conversation, into an Heroic or Spondee." And the examples that follow, were probably two prose sentences so converted, or convertible, into hexameters. But as to the manner in which Aristotle had expressed this in the text, I have no conjecture to offer that is satisfactory, even to myself. Of the mangled lines which follow, with their perplexing variety of indeterminable readings, I shall say with Victorius,

"veritate deſperatâ, nihil amplius curæ de hac re fufcipere volui."

It is some comfort however, as M. Batteux has observed, that both the objection of Euclid, and Aristotle's answer, are clear enough, independently of the examples.

I ought to mention, that Castelvetro has explained this passage, without supposing the text wrong, in a manner different from any other interpreter, and which, in part, accords with my idea. By

ἰαμβοποιειν

he understands neither satirizing, nor making Iambic verses; but, making Iambic feet instead of spondees, in hexameter verse. And the sense he gives the whole passage is this: "It would be a very easy thing to write heroic verse, if this liberty of extension were allowed; for then, a Poet might put Iambic feet in the room of Spondees, and commit no fault, because the short syllables might be lengthened at pleasure." And the lines that follow he supposes to be examples of such defective hexameters.

There is somewhat ingenious in this explanation, as there is in many others of this acute writer: but it has likewise the fault, which many of his explanations have; that of being by no means reconcileable with the original.—See his comment. p. 481.

201. mvp-aristotle-comment-201

NOTE 201. P. 111.

22.10 WHEN THESE LICENCES APPEAR TO BE THUS PURPOSELY USED.

Το μεν ουν ΦΑΙΝΕΣΘΑΙ πως χρωμενον, κ. τ. ἀλ.

—The force, both of

φαινεσθαι

, which I understand to be emphatic here, and of

πως

, seems perfectly well explained by Castelvetro.

"Non ſo perchè alcuni vogliano rimuovere di queſto teſto, πως, eſſendoci ſtato poſto per dimostrare, che allora il vitio ſi ſcopre, e'l riſo ſi muove, quando fi comincia in alcun modo a riconoſcere, che il poeta ha uſata a ſtudio, e ricercata queſta maniera di parole."

p. 482. So, too, Piccolomini's translation—

"l'eſſer veduto---uſar coſi fatto modo di locutione."

—For

πως

, I once suspected we should read

ΑΠΡΈπως

; as presently after—

χρωμενοι ἀπρεπως

. But I believe

πως

is right:—

aliquo modo

202. mvp-aristotle-comment-202

NOTE 202. P. 111.

22.12 HOW GREAT A DIFFERENCE IS MADE, &C.

Όσον διαφερει.

Not

"quantum excellat,"

as Goulston and others translate; but, "what a difference the proper use of such words makes"—"how different the effect is." As, above, cap. x.

ΔΙΑΦΕΡΕΙ γαρ πολυ

—"it makes a great difference:" and, cap. xviii.

τι ΔΙΑΦΕΡΕΙ

.—Nothing more common than this use of the word. The difference here expressed, is, plainly, between the

ἁρμοττον

, and the

ἀπρεπως

, in the use of such words:

χρωμενα ΑΠΡΕΠΩΣ τα άυτα ἐν ἀπεργασαιτο ΤΟ ΔΕ ΑΡΜΟΤΤΟΝ όσον διαφερει κ. τ. λ.

203. mvp-aristotle-comment-203

NOTE 203. P. 111.

22.12 AND TEMPERATE USE OF SUCH WORDS.

Εντιθεμενων των ὀνοματων ἐις το μετρον

:—literally, "the words being put into the metre:" i. e. as Victorius and others explain it, "taking care, that, in changing the words, you do it

"falvo metro."

" ³⁹³ A very unnecessary caution surely; besides that the Greek hardly says that, whatever it may mean. Let us try its meaning by the fairest test, that of strict and literal translation; for we can sometimes see nonsense in English, which we cannot see in Greek. "But what difference is made by a proper use of such words, may be observed in hexameter verse, when the words are put into (i. e. as it is explained, adapted to) the metre." — What words?— Metaphorical, foreign, extended, &c. of which he had just been speaking. Very well. But how put in, or adapted to, the metre?—for not a word has yet been said about changing the words. Goulston understands, putting in these poetical words instead of the proper and common words. I see nothing of this in the original.

In short, it appears to me, that nothing tolerable can be made of the phrase,

ἐις το μετρον

, taken in this sense. If it might be taken, as some have taken it, adverbially, for

μετρίως

—to a moderate degree—all would be well. ³⁹⁴ "Let it be considered in heroic verse, what a difference is made by such words, when properly used, and not inserted, or introduced, too frequently." But I cannot think that the expression will admit of this sense, though somewhat favoured, perhaps, by the circumstance of

μετρον

having been just before used in the sense of moderation:

το δε μετρον, κοινον άπαντων

, &c. If the article

το

were omitted, the adverbial sense would be less improbable; but,

εις ΤΟ μετρον

, can only, I think, mean into the metre. Still, however, I incline to think this was Aristotle's meaning, and that he probably wrote

ἐις το ΜΕΤΡΙΟΝ

. A single letter makes all the difference. The word

μετριον

, as far as that may add any probability to my conjecture, occurs in that part of the Rhetoric where he is treating of the very same subject—the proper and moderate use of metaphors, epithets, and other tropical and ornamental words, in oratory. Thus, III. 2, p. 586 , speaking of epithets and diminutives, he says,

ευλαβείσθαι δε δει, και παρατηρειν ἐν ἀμφοιν ΤΟ ΜΕΤΡΙΟΝ.

And again, of epithets—

δει στοχαζεσθαι ΤΟΥ ΜΕΤΡΙΟΥ.

p. 587. As this was the only satisfactory sense I could make of the words, I have ventured to give it in my version.

204. mvp-aristotle-comment-204

NOTE 204. P. 112.

22.13 FOR A COMMON AND USUAL WORD.

Κυριου ειωθοτος.

κυριον

, in Aristotle's sense, is common, the addition of

ειωθοτος

, ( usual), seems, at first view, to be mere tautology. But the case, as it is very well explained by Victorius, appears to have been this. The word

ἐσθιει

, which he here calls

κυριον ειωθοτος

, was not strictly

κυριον

, ³⁹⁵ but only a common metaphor; that is, a word which, though originally metaphorical, had acquired, by constant use as a chirurgical term, the effect of a proper word. [See NOTE 179.]

κυριον

, therefore, in Aristotle's enumeration, was opposed

μεταφορα

, as well as to

γλωττα

, and the rest of the poetical words, the application of it here, to a word that was evidently metaphorical in its original use, might seem inconsistent: the word

ἐιωθοτος

was therefore, probably, added, to obviate, in his short way, this objection.

I cannot guess what induced Dacier to render

γλωτταν

, here, by

"mot metaphorique;"

or Castelvetro to assert, that Aristotle calls

θοιναται

a foreign word, only on account of the boldness of the metaphor. By

γλωττα

, I think, we are to understand, any word that belongs either to another language, or another dialect of the same language, and that is not naturalized by common and popular use. For foreign words, by long usage, become common and popular words; like entire, dame, and a great number of other French words in our language, which were

γλωτται

when first introduced, and for a considerable time afterwards; but have now, for many years, ceased to be considered as foreign words. Such words in the Greek language Aristotle, I apprehend, did not com- prehend under the term

γλωτται

, as not being strange, uncommon,

ξενικα

. This is evident from a passage in his Rhetoric:

αι μεν ουν ΓΛΩΤΤΑΙ, ΑΓΝΩΤΕΣ· τα δε ΚΥΡΙΑ, ΙΣΜΕΝ.

³⁹⁶

There is, however, one sort of poetic words not distinctly provided for in Aristotle's enumeration; I mean, obsolete words. Yet these make so considerable a part of the privileged language of verse, that we can hardly suppose him to have overlooked them.

Γλωτται

seems the only class to which they can possibly be referred: yet his definition of

γλωττα

is, "a word,

ᾗ χρωνται ΕΤΕΡΟΙ

;" which is not applicable to an obsolete word, used by nobody. Perhaps he did not think it worth while to distinguish between words belonging to another language, or dialect, and words that once belonged to the native language, but which, having long fallen into disuse, have, when occasionally revived, the effect of foreign words.

205. mvp-aristotle-comment-205

NOTE 205. P. 112.

22.13 THE CANKEROUS WOUND THAT EATS MY FLESH.

Φαγεδαινα ἡ με σαρκας ἐσθιει ποδα.

— We should read, probably, for the sake of the metre, either

φαγεδαινα γ' ἡ

, as it is corrected in the Oxford Euripides, or, which seems still better,

φαγεδαινα δη

, which is Du Pauw's emendation. And

σαρκας

, for the same reason, must have been altered to

σαρκα

, in the verse of Euripides, as, I see, it is given in the Oxford edition.

Had Aristotle told us no more about these two lines, than that one of them was of Æschylus, and the other of Euripides, what critic would not have confidently given the

θοιναται

to Æschylus?

206. mvp-aristotle-comment-206

NOTE 206. P. 112.

22.13

Νυν δε μ’ εων ΟΛΙΓΟΣ τε και ΟΥΤΙΔΑΝΟΣ και ΑΚΙΚΥΣ.

Od. IX. 515. —In the altered line, thus:

Νυν δε μ’ εων ΜΙΚΡΟΣ τε και ΑΣΘΕΝΙΚΟΣ και ΑΕΙΔΗΣ.

Among these substituted terms, that

μικρὸς

answers to

ὀλίγος

is clear enough; but how

ἀειδὴς

answers to

ἄκικυς

, it is not easy to make out. This difficulty struck me, long before I had seen the comment of Victorius, who makes the same remark; ³⁹⁷ and I had accounted for the mistake in the same way that he does: for, if

ἄκικυς

be the true reading, the commentators must, probably, have been misled by taking it for granted, that the substituted words must necessarily correspond, in order, as well as meaning, to the original words. But it is easy to see, that

ἀειδὴς

, ugly, or deformed, cannot answer to

ἄκικυς

, which is weak; and that

ἀσθενικὸς

does exactly answer to it.

Ἀκικυς — ΑΣΘΕΝΗΣ, ἀδύνατος.

Hefych. —But my difficulty goes still farther. I do not see how

ἀειδὴς

can correspond, in meaning, to

ὀυτιδανὸς

. I once thought it should be

ΑΕΙΚΗΣ

Ουτιδανά — ὀυδενὸς ἄξια.

Hefych.

Αεικελίας — ἐυτελεῖς, ΟΥΔΕΝΟΣ ΑΞΙΟΥΣ

: and,

ΑΕΙΚΕΣ — ΕΥΚΑΤΑΦΡΟΝΗΤΟΝ.

Id. So Suidas ;

Αεικελιος — ὁ ἐυκαταφρόνητος.

But, notwithstanding the authority of lexicographers, and the common derivation of the two words,

εἰκής

and

ἀεικέλιος

, I question whether the former is ever used by Homer in the sense of

ὀυτιδανός

, contemptible, mean, &c. though

ἀεικέλιος

is.

Ἀεικὴς

seems always to mean,

indignus

, unworthy, sad, shocking, shameful, &c. It is a word of serious indignation.

Ἀεικέλιον

seems to be used sometimes in that sense, and sometimes in the contemptuous sense, as in the line of Homer which Aristotle next produces. The only passages that I have found in Homer, where

ἀεικὴς

will admit well of this sense, are Od. Ν. 199 , and Od. Ω. 249 , in the expressions,

ἀεικέα ἕσσο

, and,

ἀεικέα ἕσσαι

: yet even there, it is not necessary to render it

"meanly clad;"

it may be, as in other places, sadly, unbecomingly, indignè, &c. ³⁹⁸

With respect to the word

ὀυτιδανὸς

, Hesychius gives

ἀσθενὴς

as one of its meanings; ³⁹⁹ and

ἀσθενικὸς

might well enough answer to it here, were it not for the stronger claim of the word

ἄκικυς

; ⁴⁰⁰ which, however, after all, may possibly be a mistake. We know how variously Homer was read and quoted by the antients. Three Medicean manuscripts here give

ἀειδὴς

, instead of

ἄκικυς

; ⁴⁰¹ and so, the ed. Ald. and the version of Valla. This reading is also mentioned by Eustathius. Perhaps, then,

ἀειδὴς

might be the reading of Aristotle's copy—the precious copy

ἐκ νάρθηκος

, of which we hear so much; and he might mean to exemplify his proposed experiment of substituting common, for poetical, expression, only in the two first words; repeating the last,

ἀειδὴς

, merely to complete his verse. But whatever becomes of this conjecture, one thing I cannot help just observing—that this reading,

ἀειδὴς

, is favoured by the preceding lines in Homer. Polyphemus says—

Ἀλλ’ ἀιεί τινα φῶτα ΜΕΓΑΝ καὶ ΚΑΛΟΝ ἐδέγμην Ἔνθαδ’ ἐλεύσεσθαι, μεγάλην ἐπιειμένον ΑΛΚΗΝ. Νῦν δέ μ’, ἐὼν ΟΛΙΓΟΣ τε καὶ ΟΥΤΙΔΑΝΟΣ καὶ ΑΚΙΚΥΣ, &c.

Od. IX. 513.

One would expect the three words in this last line to answer, as opposites, to great, handsome, and strong, in the two first: which they will not do, if we read

ἄκικυς

; for

ὀυτιδανὸς

, though it may very well be opposed to

μεγάλην ἐπιειμένον ἀλκήν

, cannot be, with any propriety, opposed to

καλὸν

. Whereas, if

ἀειδὴς

be substituted for

ἄκικυς

, all will answer exactly;

ὀλίγος

, to

μέγαν

ὀυτιδανός

, to

μεγάλην ἐπιειμένον ἀλκήν

, and

ἀειδὴς

, to

καλὸν

In these examples, it is not always easy to ascertain the particular class, to which Aristotle would have referred the words which he changes. We learn, however, that all these Homeric words were

ξενικά

, uncommon, and poetical; and that all the substituted words were

κύρια

— words in common and familiar use.

207. mvp-aristotle-comment-207

NOTE 207.

22.17 P. 113. FOR IT IS THIS ALONE, WHICH CANNOT BE ACQUIRED, &C.

Well translated, though very freely, by M. Batteux .

"C'est la seule chose qu'on ne puisse emprunter d'ailleurs. C'est la production du génie, le coup-d'œil d'un esprit qui voit les rapports."

Compare Rhet. III. 2, p. 585, D. and 11, p. 595, E. where it is observed, that,

καὶ ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ, τὸ ΟΜΟΙΟΝ, ΚΑΙ ΕΝ ΠΟΛΥ ΔΙΕΧΟΥΣΙ, θεωρεῖν, ἐυστοχον.

—See Mr. Harris's Philol. Inq. p. 186, 187 , where all these passages are quoted and translated.

208. mvp-aristotle-comment-208

NOTE 208.

22.18 P. 113. THE DOUBLE ARE BEST SUITED TO DITHYRAMBIC POETRY, &C.

—Χρησιμωτάτη ἡ διπλῆ λέξις τοῖς διθυράμβοις· ὁυτοι γὰρ ψοφώδεις· ἀι δὲ γλῶτται, τοῖς ἐποποιοῖς· σεμνὸν γὰρ καὶ ἀυθάδες· ἡ μεταφορὰ δὲ, τοῖς ἰαμβείοις.

Rhet. III. 3, p. 587.

209. mvp-aristotle-comment-209

NOTE 209.

22.19 P. 113. BUT TO IAMBIC VERSE, WHICH, AS MUCH AS MAY BE, AN IMITATION OF COMMON SPEECH—.

This, as I have already observed, is the only passage in these three chapters concerning the diction, that strictly relates to the subject—the diction of Tragedy, as distinguished from that of the Epic, and other species. ⁴⁰² It is a hint only; but a pregnant hint, and one that might furnish matter for a dissertation of some length. How frequently, even in the best Tragedies, do we see the Poet, as it were, through the actor; hear him indulging himself in his own language, instead of imitating that of his characters; substituting declamation for passion, describing when he should express; and, in the unrestrained and epic elevation of his diction, losing all sight of that natural language, of which, undoubtedly, the language of Tragedy should be, according to the precept here implied by Aristotle, only an improved imitation. This improvement, indeed, admits of more or less; but should, at least, bear always the same proportion to what we conceive would be the natural language ⁴⁰³ of the persons who speak, in the situation, whatever it may be, of the scene before us. For this last circumstance makes a great difference. Tragedy has its

ἀργὰ μέρη

, its comparatively

"idle parts,"

as well as the Epic Poem; ⁴⁰⁴ and, considering how rare the talent is of true poetic fancy, and poetic expression, the critic, who would rigorously exclude them from every part of Tragedy, must be an Ariphrades, or a Euclid. The first speech of Caractacus, in Mr. Mason's exquisite drama, is highly poetical. Possibly, a severe critic might wish it somewhat less so;—but we have so little of such Poetry! No Poet, however, knows better than Mr. Mason, when the simpler tone of nature and passion should take place. When Caractacus is exhorted by the Druids to

"bethink him"

—

—if ought on this vain earth Still holds too firm an union with his soul, Estranging it from peace—

—he answers,

I had a Queen:— Bear with my weakness, Druid!—This tough breast Must heave a sigh—for she is unreveng'd. And can I taste true peace, she unreveng'd? —So chaste, so lov'd a queen!—ah, Evelina, Hang not thus weeping on the feeble arm That could not save thy mother.—

The reader will find some excellent observations on this subject in Dr. Beattie's Essay on Poetry, &c. Part II. chap. i. Sect. 1, p. 224, &c. and Sect. 3, p. 267, 268 , where a charming example of simple Tragic language is given from Othello. In his note, Dr. Beattie has

"translated it into the finical style."

But we see plainly, that he is by much too good a Poet to succeed well in spoiling good Poetry.

With respect to the Greek Tragedy, its earliest language appears to have been of a low and burlesque kind—the

λέξις γελοἰα

of its satyric origin, conveyed in the suitable vehicle of the dancing tetrameters. ⁴⁰⁵ When it was reformed and dignified, (

ἀπεσεμνώθη

,) Homer was the model; and ÆSCHYLUS, with a conception naturally sublime, and the Iliad before him, raised the tone of Tragedy above its proper pitch, not only to the pomp of the Epic, but even, frequently, to the wild, and tumid, and dark audacity of the Dithyrambic: so that, sometimes, as extremes will meet, the

λέξις γελοἰα

, which he took so much pains to avoid, came round and met him, in the shape of bombast, at the very moment when he thought himself at the greatest distance from it. There could not well be any thing in the theatrical cart of Thespis more laughable, than to call smoke

"the brother of fire,"

and dust, the

"brother of mud."

⁴⁰⁶

SOPHOCLES reduced the general language of his dialogue to a more equable and sober dignity, but still, Homer, we know, was his great model; ⁴⁰⁷ and of his diction it may, perhaps, be said, that it is often Epic, though his measure is Iambic. Most modern readers, however, will, I believe, think it, (as we are told many antient readers did,) more adapted to the genius of Tragedy than that of EURIPIDES; ⁴⁰⁸ who seems to have been regarded by the antients as the first who brought down the language of Tragedy into unison with the measure, so that the one bore the same degree of resemblance to common speech in its expressions, as the other did in its rhythm. At least, this appears to have been Aristotle's opinion, from a passage in his Rhetoric , where, after having explained the difference between the diction of Oratory and that of Poetry, and the foundation of that difference, he observes, that such a degree of embellishment as forces on the hearer the idea of art, and labour, and preparation, is to be avoided, not only by the Orator, but even by the Poet, if he would be natural and affecting: and he compares such evidently artificial language to the voices of the generality of actors, as opposed to the voice of Theodorus, which always appeared to be the real voice of the character he personated; whereas their voices were evidently feigned. ⁴⁰⁹ He then adds

"The best way to conceal artifice, and make your language appear easy and natural, is, by forming it, chiefly, of the words and phrases of customary speech, properly selected; as EURIPIDES does, who first set the example."

⁴¹⁰

A passage, that precedes this, deserves to be given entire, from its close connection with the subject of this part of the treatise on Poetry, and the curious, though short, sketch it contains of the history of Tragic diction.

"As the Poets appeared to owe their reputation to their language, which never failed to be admired, however foolish and absurd the matter it conveyed; on this account, even prose diction was, at first, poetical, like that of Gorgias. And even now, they, who use such language, are looked upon, by illiterate people, as the finest speakers; which is far from being true; for oratorical diction, and poetical diction, are different things. And as a proof of this, we see what has actually happened: for now, even among the Poets themselves, those who write Tragedy no longer make use of that sort of language; but, as they had exchanged the Trochaic verse for the Iambic, because this, of all metres, approaches the nearest to common speech; so now, they have also discarded all those words and phrases, so remote from common speech, with which the earlier Tragic Poets used to embellish their diction, and which are still employed by those who write Hexameters. It would be ridiculous, therefore, to imitate the Poets in a language, which they themselves have abandoned as improper."

⁴¹¹

The Abbé Batteux, by understanding

ἰαμβείοις

here to mean Iambic, or satirical, Poems, has, unluckily, thrown away the only passage in these three chapters, that was strictly to Aristotle's purpose. He has, also, with Dacier, misrepresented his meaning, by rendering—

"ne peut recevoir que ce qui est employé dans la conversation."

We are, undoubtedly, to understand,

ΜΑΛΙΣΤΑ ἁρμόττει

, as before: for that Aristotle did not mean absolutely to exclude the other Poetic words—the double, the foreign, &c. from every part of the Tragic dialogue, is plain from his allowing the occasional use of them even in prose. Rhet. III. 2, p. 585, C. 7, p. 590, E. 591, A.

Commentary on the Poetics (Henry James Pye, 1792) (OCR draft) (Henry James Pye's 1792 English commentary, aligned to the Kassel reference edition.) focus

2.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-4 2.1

THE PERSONS IMITATED MUST EITHER BE REPRESENTED AS BETTER THAN THOSE OF THE PRESENT TIME, OR WORSE, OR AS THEY ACTUALLY ARE.

BY better, in this place, as Mr. Twining justly observes, fuperiority in mental and bodily accomplishments is rather meant than in moral virtues; a distinction which will be confidered more at large hereafter, when poetical manners are investigated and distinguished [A]. Even Homer tells us his heroes were of a nature superior to the degenerate race of men in his time. With regard to modern compositions, this rule seems to be observed in the following manner. In tragedy and the regular epopee, the characters are drawn better, or beyond the life: in farce, in pantomime, and in the burlesque tragedy and epopee, they are drawn worse; and in the comic epopee or comedy, whether truly comic, like Tom Jones and the School for Scandal, or serious, like Grandifon and Clariffa, the School for Rakes, and the Gamester [B], as they actually are [A] See note I, chap. xv. See alfo Beattie's Essay on Poetry and Music, part i. chap. iv. page 69. [B] It may appear odd to class such imitations as Clarifsfa and the Gamester with Comedy; but so they must be, according to the definition given here by Aristotle. Even the Fatal Curiofity

ΙΟΙ POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. are at the time. Such characters as Grandison and Lovelace, though possessing virtues and vices beyond common life, and let me add, out of nature, are yet not drawn with manners different from those of the present day, which cannot be faid of Macbeth and of Pofthumus, of Hudibras, and of Pierrot. It must be observed, that many of our afterpieces, though called farces, are in reality short comedies. As a further illustration of this, it may be observed that there are few tragic fables, (taking tragic in its usual sense,) which may not be rendered comic or burlesque, by altering the station and manners of the persons. For to use the words of Dr. Beattie, ' in most human cha- ⚫racters there are blemishes moral, intellectual, or corporeal, by augmenting which to a certain degree you may form a comic character, or by • raifing the virtues, abilities, or external advantages of an individual, you • form epic, and tragic characters [c].' This subject is alluded to with some humour in Lloyd's Prologue to the Jealous Wife. Quarrels, upbraidings, jealoufies and spleen, • Grow too familiar in the comic scene; Curiosity of Lillo falls under the same circumstance, though given as a perfect mode of Tragedy, equal to the Edipus, by a most elegant Critic, whom Mr. Winstanley justly calls * vir fi quis alius ἀρισοζελικώταλος,' ، see Philological Enquiries. For a refutation of this eulogium on the Fatal Curiosity, see note III. chap. xiii, [c] Eflay on Poetry and Music, part i. chap. v. page 120. See also the Effay on the Dramatic Character of Falstaff, page 158, and Phil. Enquiries, page 159. Tinge !

، Tinge but the language with heroic chime, ''Tis paffion, pathos, character fublime. • What big round words had swell'd the pompous scene, • A king the husband, and the wife a queen!'

2.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-5 2.7

'PARODIES.'

THE prefent use of this word is strictly confonant with that of the ancients, who applied it to the giving a ridiculous turn to passages in Homer and the tragic poets. There are many in Ariftophanes. One of the happiest modern instances I know is the parody of the speech of Sarpedon to Glaucus, in the Rape of the Lock. See also the genealogy of Agamemnon's fceptre parodied in the fame poem, Canto v. ver. 87. CHAP.

3.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-6 3.7

THESE, AS WE SAID AT FIRST, ARE THE THREE DIFFERENCES OF IMITATION.

ARISTOTLE, having given examples of the different circumstances by which the varieties of imitations were diftinguished, proceeds now to shew that imitations, differing from each other in one of these circumstances, may be alike in another. It is remarkable that he gives no instance of this partial resemblance arifing from the means of imitation being the fame; which is the more to be regretted as fuch an inftance must have thrown more light on what is faid of the epopee in the first chapter, and shewn more particularly in what respect Homer's poems resembled the Mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus, the Dialogues of Socrates, and the Hippocentaur of Chæremon. CHAP.

4.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-7 4.2

THOSE THINGS WHICH WE VIEW WITH PAIN IN THEMSELVES, WE LIKE TO SEE REPRESENTED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE; SUCH AS THE FIGURES OF THE MOST SAVAGE WILD BEASTS, AND OF DEAD BODIES.

I CANNOT agree here with Mr. Twining in the reason he gives for prefering with Vittorio ἀτιμοθάτων, to ἀγριοζάτων,–' the sense of the passage • itself:-which (he says) seems to require instances of mean and dif- • gusting rather than of terrible objects;' since a dead body with which it is joined certainly comes under the last circumstance, and was a usual exhibition in ancient tragedy. For we should recollect that Aristotle, though he draws the allufion from painting, must still be supposed to keep his eye on the subject he is treating of, poetic, and more especially, tragic imitation; which could never be confidered in any light as an amusement, if the terrible scenes which it produces did not come under the cafe of the illustration here brought from painting, pleasing as an imitation though disagreeable in reality; disagreeable, not from producing mean and difgusting objects, but from awakening too strongly the pafsions by affecting and terrible ones. The author of the Essay on the Sublime and Beautiful, justly observes, when danger or pain press too nearly they are incapable of giving any delight, and are simply terrible, but at certain distances, and

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ' and with certain modifications, they are delightful, as we every day experience [A]. It must, however, be confessed, that the following remark of the fame judicious critic, is strongly in favor of Mr. Twining and Vittorio. When the object represented in painting or poetry is such as we should • have no defire of seeing in reality, then I may be sure that its power * in poetry or painting is owing to the power of imitation, and to no 'cause operating in the thing itself. So it is with most of the pieces ' which the painters call still life. In these a cottage or a dunghill, the • meanest and most ordinary furniture of the kitchen are capable of giving us pleasure. But when the object of the painting or poem is • such as we should run to see if real, let it affect us with what odd fort ' of sense it will, we may rely upon it that the power of the poem or ، ، picture is more owing to the nature of the thing itself than to the mere effect of the imitation, or to a confideration of the skill of the imitator, however excellent [B].' In the letters of Mr. Jackson of Exeter, we find an observation something fimilar as to painting. ' A deep road, a puddle of water, a bank ' covered with docks and briars, and an old tree or two, are all the cir- ، * cumstances in many a fine landscape. As clowns and half-ftarved cattle are the figures a landscape-painter chuses for his pictures; fo rough-looking fellows, wrapped up in sheets and blankets, are chofen by the history painter to express the greatest personages, and in the ، [A] Part i, sect. vii. See also part iv. sect. vii. [B] Part i. sect. xvi. P ' most

• most dignified actions of their lives [c].' Nearly the same observa- ' tion is made by M. Marmontel [D]. From this circumstance in painting, however, I have often heard a false conclufion drawn; and because the various tints of autumnal decay afford a better subject to a painter than the luxuriant charms of summer, it is not uncommon to hear that season preferred as being really more beautiful. The poet knows better; for one poetical description of autumn, there are a thousand of spring (E). As well might a real [c] Letter VI. [D] See Encyclopedie, Art. Interêt. fituation [E] 'To the appearance of spring, the imagination joins that of the seasons which are to • follow; to the tender buds that are perceived by the eye, the imagination adds, flowers, • fruit, shades, and sometimes the mysteries they may conceal. It brings into one point of ⚫ view the scenes that are to fucceed, and sees things less as they are than as it wishes them to be. On the contrary, in autumn we can only contemplate the scene before us. If we › wish to anticipate the spring, our course is stopped by winter, and our frozen imagination • expires among snows, and fogs.' EMILIUS, Vol. I. 1. 1. • Yet in these presages rude, • 'Midst her pensive solitude, • Fancy with prophetic glance • Sees the teeming months advance; • The field, the forest, green, and gay, • The dappled flope, the tedded hay, • Sees the reddening orchard blow, • The harvest wave, the vintage flow: • Sees June unfold his gloffy robe • Of thousand hues o'er all the globe; • Sees Ceres grasp her crown of corn, And plenty load her ample horn.' WARTON. In

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. situation of distress be preferred to tranquility, because it excites the feeling more in imitation. In regard to imitation as effected by the fine arts in general, I perfectly agree with Metaftafio, that to render an imitation pleasing, (especially of a terrible object, or of an object that does not of itself interest us,) it is necessary that the means of imitation should be apparent [F]. This appears in painting from the [G] greater excellence allowed to a good picture, compared with those representations of letters, newspapers and deal boards, which sometimes really deceive the eye; and in fculpture, from the great fuperiority of a fine statue, to a piece of colored wax work. Even in personal mimicry, it seems that the resemblance In painting we confine ourselves to the individual scene; in poetry we go more to cause and effect. For as Mr. Gilpin observes, the business of the poet is only to excite ideas, ⚫ that of the painter to represent them. The pencil fixes the scene in the happy moment; and ' the fading tints of autumn become perennial; but the idea excited by the poet connects the falling leaf and the disagreeable impression of decay with it, and anticipates the dreary scenes ' of winter.' [F] That which is called an imitation has always something in it that is not in the original. If the prototype and transcript be exactly alike; if there be nothing in the one which is not ' in the other, we may call the latter a representation, a copy, a draught, or a picture of the * former, but not an imitation. BEATTIE ON POETRY AND MUSIC, Part i. chap. v. p. 94. [G] Deception, which is so often recommended by writers on the theory of painting, ⚫ instead of advancing the art, is, in reality, carrying it back to its infant state. The first essays of painting were certainly nothing but mere imitations of individual objects, and • when this amounted to a deception the artist had accomplished his purpose.' NOTE BY SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS ON MR. MASON'S TRANSLATION OF FRESNOΥ. P2 may

may be too striking, as in the story of the person who was hissed for not imitating the squeaking of a pig, so naturally as his competitor, though it proved to be the animal itself, which he had concealed under his coat. The fame circumstance will be found in theatrical imitation [H]. An actor who has really a defect, will never represent such a defect well on the stage. In Hill's Actor [1] there is a very just observation on this. • There are some characters in which a representation of old age is necessary, but even in these it is better that it should be a pre- • tended than a real age we fee. The stage is the scene of reprefenta- ، ، tion, not realities. Mr. Foote pleases more in Fondlewife than an old man possibly could: and the reason is evident: we wish to fee the representation of a ridiculous, not of a pitiable old fellow. We expect to be entertained with the follies of age, not disgusted with its in- • firmities. The poet can feparate these perfectly in the character that ' he draws; and when a person of real judgment is to represent it, he ، also can feparate all that is contemptible, from what is the object [к] [H] This does not apply to excellence, as human nature is always inadequate to our idea of poetical perfection. [1] Chap. x. page 166. [K] See Ariftotle's idea of comedy, at the beginning of chapter v.. In the Dictionnaire d'Anecdotes, Art. ACTEUR, the following story is told, on what founda tion I know not. The authority quoted is a book entitled l'Anné. Litteraire. ' An actor, • after having for thirty years played with success, in several parts, had the misfortune to lame • himself, and ever afterwards limped. In spite of this misfortune, as his paffion was for tragedy, ⚫ he concluded that from this accident he was the fittest person in the world to play Richard the Third, whom Shakespear, the author of the tragedy, had represented as lame. Our actor • flattered himself with the most brilliant success. He presented himself to the audience with • the greatest confidence. But when he came to repeat these words, " the dogs bark at me « as I halt by them," there was a general laugh, and he was obliged to quit the stage.' of

POETRY OF ARISTOTLE. ' of compaffion, and shew it singly.' I remember an instance of a French gentleman, who spoke English with the accent of his country, performing the Frenchman in Lethe, on a private theatre, with very indifferent effect. Irish and Scotch characters, it is true, are often well represented by persons of those countries, but such actors are all able to speak good English in other parts, and know how far to carry the imitation. I conceive a Scotchman, or an Irishman, whose conversation was always strongly marked by their respective dialects, would succeed no better than the French gentleman I have mentioned. To apply this to the illustration of Aristotle. Certainly the picture of a dead body will in general give no disgust, or excite no painful horror, however well executed: but a dead body might be so formed in wax-work, as absolutely for a moment to deceive the eye, and then, even if the deception were declared before its exhibition, I doubt if the spectator would receive any other pleasure than what might arise from the accuracy of the workmanship. But even in a picture, if circumstances in themselves really disgusting are added, horror will rather be excited than pleasure, as in the (L) print of a robber entering a vault to plunder it, and some engravings from Holben's celebrated picture of Death's Dance, which I have seen. The fame thing is incident also to poetry, as in a little poem on the death of a lady, which begins, ' In yonder grave my Helen lies.' The effect produced on the mind, by the different degrees of exactness in picturesque imitation, may perhaps be illustrated by the common [L] See Beattie on Poetry and Music, Part i. chap. vi. page 124, note. looking-

looking-glass, the plano-convex mirror on a black foil, and the camera obfcura. The looking-glass is the exact representation, or rather reflection of nature, without any apparent alteration in the objects, (for the reverfing them is not observed ;) and a landscape seen in it, however fine, only gives the fame pleasure as when seen through a window, except from the frame, which, if the glass is not too large, both from its artificial boundary, and confining the eye to a part of the view, will give the landscape something more of a picturesque character, than when the objects are seen without it. (M) The plano-convex mirror pleases more, as having more the appearance of an imitation produced by art, and objects in themselves infignificant and mean, acquire a beauty from this, and afford delight. But the camera-obfcura gives by far the greatest pleasure, as having every property of a picture, except that it possesses the superior advantage of expreffing motion, as well as color and figure. And I am inclined to imagine, that even an affecting or terrific object seen in it, would in some measure partake of that alleviation which Aristotle ascribes to artificial imitation. As painting imitates entirely by natural means, (I mean as opposed to symbols) it is able to imitate the most exactly of any art except colored statuary; but as its means of imitation are always apparent, the imitation can never be too exact to please, except in objects that are in themselves loathsome and disgusting. The fame may be faid of statues in stone or [M] I have not the least doubt of this being the cause why we fee fome scenes in the planoconvex mirror with greater pleasure than in nature. I am surprised it did not occur to Mr. Gilpin, who is sensible of the effect, but is at a loss to account for it. REMARKS ON FOREST SCENERY, Vol. II. p. 224. If he had shewn it to the first countryman he met, in all probability he would have solved the doubt at once, by telling him it looked like a picture. metal, ง

III POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. metal, where the material, the mean of imitation is, I think, yet more apparent; but in coloured statuary, or wax-work, where the imitation may for a short time be concealed, that pleasure is not produced, which is the proper refult of imitative art, and objects of pity and terror may be so accurately represented as to be really painful. The collection of figures in wax-work coloured, dressed, and fitting down at card tables, exhibited some years ago by Mrs. Wright, on first entrance gave exactly the idea of a well dressed assembly, and the impression remained after the illusion ceased. Nothing of this fort is produced by painting or statuary, and yet how different and superior to this surprise is the pleasure we receive from a portrait of Sir Joshua Reynolds, or a statue of Banks. As to music I am very ill qualified to treat it scientifically, therefore I hope the musical reader will forgive me if my language is deficient in technical accuracy, provided I make myself understood. But I conceive where it is an imitative art, it imitates sometimes by natural means, and sometimes by compact. Its natural means are the imitation of certain sounds, as the noise of a battle, the finging of birds, the ringing or tolling of bells. Its imitation by compact consists in expreffing forrow by flow movements, anger by quick; high and low, by high and low notes: most of these imitations are rather fanciful than real [N]. The chief energy of music, (to those I mean who, in the words of Shakespear, really have it in their fouls, and with the want of which, many who possess it so as to be tremblingly alive to its effects are upbraided, [N] See Beattie on Poetry and Music, Part 1. Chap. vi. Sect. 1, paffim. because

because they take no delight in the dexterity of a performer's execution of difficult passages ;) I say to those who really feel the energy of mufic, it chiefly arises from the power it possesses of raifing, heightening, or foftening the passions. Nevertheless the influence it derives from the combination of ideas is often mistaken both for imitation and sympathy [o]. Mr. Twining, who I believe is a very good musician, observes that the • best instrumental music,' (and I prefume vocal music where the words are not heard, or not understood, comes under the fame predicament 'expref- ، fively performed,) leaves the hearer to the free operation of his emotions on his fancy, and as it were to the free choice of fuch ideas as are to him ' most adapted to re-act upon and heighten the emotion which occafions ' them.' [P]. That is, in other words, that the effect of musical expreffion depends much on the temper of our own minds, at the time. Now that temper must be greatly influenced by any ideas that a particular strain may raise in us from circumstances that have formerly attended our hearing it [Q]. Will the grenadier march have the fame effect on a warrior [o] 'Such is the secret union when we feel A fong, a flower, a name at once restore • Those long-connected scenes where first they mov'd 'The attention.' AKENSIDE. [P] Differtation on music as an imitative art, page 49. For an application of this to the different kinds of verfification, as confidered particularly congenial with different kinds of poetry, see note Iv. chap. xxiv. [Q] 'There is in fouls a sympathy with sounds; And as the mind is pitch'd, the ear is pleased • With melting sounds or martial, brifk or grave. ، Some

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. warrior whom it has led on to battle, and a man who was never at a review? But this is not peculiar to musical sounds. A nightingale fings very differently to the perfon who has only heard it in a cage in London, and the lover who has listened to its voice in the woods in the company of his mistress, or fighed to it in her abfence. The cry of a pack of fox hounds in a hollow cover, in which the sportsman hears the finest music, is the mere barking of dogs to the sober citizen. Neither is this fympathy confined to sound, it is equally active in the objects of the other senses. Roufseau says [R], 'I do not know whether to congratulate or pity the man of wisdom, but insensibility, whose bosom was never agi- • tated by the odour of the flowers that adorned the bosom of his • mistress.' From this association of ideas, however, music derives a power very much resembling imitation, and which has a very strong effect on the < Some chord in unison with what we hear ' Is touch'd within us, and the heart replies, • How foft the music of the evening bells < Falling at intervals upon the ear * In cadence sweet! Now dying all away, • Now pealing loud again, and louder still * Clear and fonorous as the gale comes on. * With easy force it opens all the cells Where memory flept; wherever I have heard • A kindred melody, the scene recurs, ' And with it all its pleasures.' COWPER. This kind of recollection resembles imitation in making pleasing objects afford additional pleasure, and in throwing some pleasure over melancholy objects, which last also will be equally destroyed in both if the sensation is too strong. [R] Emilius, Vol. 1. Part 1. paffions.

passions. The RANS DES VACHES, mentioned by Rousseau in his Dictionary of Mufic, though without any thing striking in the composition, has such a powerful influence over the Swiss, and impresses them with so violent a defire to return to their own country, that it is forbidden to be played in the Swiss regiments in the French service, on pain of death. There is also another circumftance relating to music, which makes it in some instances more than imitation. Certain musical instruments are from custom constantly attendant on certain actions, as the organ on religion, and the drum and fife on war and its preparations; therefore when these instruments are heard, our ideas are not raised by association only, but as far as the sense of hearing is concerned an actual deception takes place. If my other senses do not undeceive me when I hear a drum and fife play a march, I conclude soldiers are marching by; and if I hear a choir and an organ, I imagine myself in or near a place of religious worship. The absurd attempt to make the found an echo to the sense,' by mentioning the names of musical inftruments in language, and then accompanying that language with the found of the instruments that are named, is very justly censured by Mr. Jackson of Exeter [s]. There is a ridiculous instance of a musical pun of this kind in a fong of that agreeable compofer, Dibden, in the Padlock, where, while Don Diego is finging Horns! horns! I defy you,' he is accompanied by Frenchhorns. The effect of music when combined with poetry, is also principally eccafioned by association. The notion that the words of a fong and its [s] Preface to his Opera Iv. tune

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. tune are particularly adapted to each other, often arises from constantly hearing them together. I will not dispute that some movements are more suited to one kind of poetry than another, or deny that an elegy and a drinking song require a different kind of music to accompany them; but undoubtedly the words of a song often stamp a character on the tune which of itself it would never have acquired. Since the popular fong of Hosier's Ghost was written, how many fea songs have been put to the same tune? Would not a person be induced to think from this, that it was particularly adapted to maritime ideas? Yet it was originally composed for a fong on a very different subject, which began 'Welcome, ' welcome, brother debtor.' I am far, however, from meaning to assert that music has not strong powers of exciting our feelings, independent of the subject or the words it accompanies, or any kind of association whatever, and that there is no real difference between a jig and a dirge. A particular instance, something applicable to this, occurs to me. Dr. Armstrong, in his SKETCHES, asks • Who was it that threw out those dreadful wild expressions of • distraction and melancholy in LADY CULROSS'S DREAM, an old composition now I am afraid loft, perhaps because it was almost too • terrible for the ear?' A modern collector of old ballads has however found the WORDS, and tells us he can perceive nothing terrible in them. The natural means of imitation poffefsed by poetry are few and weak, and are solely confined to the versification. Most of the verses quoted as proofs of its power in this respect, make more impression on the imagination than the ear. I am astonished how Mr. Harris [T] could give [T] Discourse on Music, Poetry and Painting, page 73. poetry

poetry the preference to music in its ability to imitate found. I should very much doubt, should the strongest instance of verfification conveying the fenfe by the found, be repeated to a person of however good an ear, who was unacquainted with the language, if he would discover the imitation: but should the music of those two airs of Handel, which begin Hush, ye pretty warbling choir,' and 'Let the merry bells ring ' round,' be played to a person of the most irreligious ears, and the imitation would be instantly obvious. But the powers of imitation by means of compact, which are poffefsed by poetry, are infinite; they are applicable to actions and pafiions, which they can follow through all their various forms and modifications; they can comprehend every being in nature or in art, animate or inanimate; and their nobler objects and extensive field of imitation more than compensate for any inferiority in the particular means [u]. But there is one species of poetical imitation, nearer to nature, and in every respect superior to those effected by any other art; I mean the modern drama well acted. In comedy, and the private life tragedy in profe, the representation is exact, it ceafes to be imitation, it is the thing itself, and therefore, to judge by my own feelings, (I can have no other criterion to judge those of others,) such representations of scenes of terror and deep distress are dreadful, they press too nearly on the mind, the deception is for the time compleat, the horror [v] of the scene is not foftened by the apparent means of imitation so as to be pleasing. I rife from feeing fuch tragedies as George Barnwell, the Fatal Curiosity and [u] See Gerard on Taste, Part 1.. Sect. IV. [v] Encyclopedie, Art. Illusion, by Marmontel. See Note v, Chap. vI.. the

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. the Gamester, with nearly the same sensation as if I had been actually present at scenes of the fame kind in real life. In the higher tragedy, the blank verse, the [w] exalted perfonages, and the inadequacy of the theatrical [x] apparatus to the objects represented, fufficiently discover the means of imitation, and the most tragical catastrophe will not be always so affecting as to displease. I say not always, because there are, in my opinion, some cafes where the distress may be too forcibly worked up even in the higher tragedy, but this will be examined more at large when we come to confider Aristotle's idea of the proper effect of tragedy, and the most perfect construction of tragic fable [v]. It is however obvious that our theatrical language and apparatus is infinitely more natural than that of the Grecian stage. And perhaps it may admit a doubt, whether even Aristotle, if he had feen a Garrick in Lear, or a Siddons in Isabella, would have given the preference to the unhappy catastrophe, or afferted that a tragedy attained its end by reading as well as in representation [z]. W In [w] It is true, the Bishop of Worcester fays, 'Whatever be the unhappy incidents in the • story of private men, it is CERTAIN they must take faster hold of the imagination, and of < course impress the heart more forcibly when related of the higher characters in life.' Dis- SERTATION ON THE PROVINCES OF THE DRAMA, page 168; and this is corroborated by the quotation of the two concluding lines of the Hippolytus of Euripedes. I have the utmost deference for the opinion of fo elegant a critic and fo pathetic a poet, but the direct contrary is to me so CERTAIN from my own feelings and experience, that I cannot acquiefce in it. 'Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, fed magis amica veritas.' [x] See note III. on Chap. XI, and note 1. on Chap. xxvI. (Y) See Note VII. Ch. XIII. [z] Chap. xxvI. The means of imitation are as much or more liable to err from being too defective, or too apparent, than from the oppofite quality; and this I take to have been the cafe with

[A] In comedy where the effect is chearful, the complete delufion rather encreases the pleasure; and even in the serious comedy the present anxiety is alleviated by the certainty of a happy catastrophe.

4.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-8 4.9

MARGITES.

FROM the account given of this fictitious personage by Suidas, and Eustathius, he must have been an absolute ideot, and therefore an improper object of ridicule even in the grossest and lowest kind of farce. But the fragments of the poem itself, which are quoted by Aristotle, Eth. L. vI. ch. viii. and by Plato, Alcibiad. 11. especially the last, give the outline of a character that would not be unfit for modern comedy. [B] • Nor skill to dig or plow, the gods impart; • Unwife in all, he fail'd in every art.'- • Much had he learn'd but all had learn'd amiss.' The character of Mrs. Baynard, in Smollet's novel Humphrey Clinker, is fomething like the hint in the last line, 'She could read, and write, and with the ancient Greek tragedy. In the passage here referred to, it is probable that Ariftotle means to compare the tragedy when read, with the epopee, and not with the fame tragedy acted. [A] Encyclopedie, Art. Illufion. [Β] Τόνδ᾽ ἔτ᾿ ἀρ σκαπλῆρα θεοὶ θέσαν ἔτ᾿ ἀροθῆρα Ουτ᾿ ἄλλως τι σοφόν, πάσης δ᾽ ἡμάρτανε τέχνης- Πολλ᾽ ἠπίςαλο ἔργα κακῶς δὲ ἠπίςαλο πάνια. fing,

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. 。 ، fing, and play on the harpsichord, and smatter French, and take a hand ' at whift, or ombre, but even these accomplishments she knew by halves, ' and excelled in nothing.* It must be remarked, that though Aristotle says the Margites was in iambics, all the fragments we have are hexameters. But Hephæstion and M. Victorinus, quoted by Mr. Winstanley in a note, both observe that the iambics were mixed with hexameters.

4.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-9 4.10

AS HOMER THEREFORE WAS THE GREATEST POET ON SERIOUS SUBJECTS, STANDING ALONE IN POINT OF EXCELLENCE, NOT ONLY FROM THE GENERAL MERIT OF HIS IMITATIONS, BUT FROM THE DRAMATIC FORM HE GAVE THEM, SO HE ALSO FIRST TAUGHT THE PROPER SYSTEM OF COMEDY.

SO Lord Shaftesbury, 'He (Homer) paints so as to need no infcription over his figures, to tell what they are or what he intends by them; a few words let fall on any flight occafion from any of the parties he introduces, are fufficient to denote their manners and distinct character. From a finger or a toe he can represent to our thoughts, the frame and • fashion of a whole body. He wants no other help of art to personate ⚫ his heroes, and make them living. There was no more left for tragedy to do after him than to erect a stage, and draw his dialogues and characters into scenes, turning in the fame manner upon one principal • action, or event, with that regard to place, and time, which was suit- • able to a real spectacle. Even comedy itself was adjudged to this great ' master,

master, it being derived from those parodies or mock humours of which ' he had given the specimen (c) in a concealed fort of raillery, inter- ' mixed with the fublime.' ADVICE TO AN AUTHOR, Part 1. Sect. 111.

4.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-10 4.18

OF ALL VERSE THE IAMBIC IS MOST CALCULATED FOR DISCOURSE.

THIS account of iambic verse, and its distinction from hexameter, is applicable to our rhymed and blank verse. All attempts to introduce rhyme into the drama, though aided by the melodious and flowing verfification of Dryden, have failed. For to use the expreffion of Ariftotle, nature herself had pointed out the proper measure. Dryden carried his predilection for rhyme so far as to make a tragedy in rhyme of Paradife Loft. Perhaps the best specimen we have of dramatic rhyme is in the dialogue of Henry and Emma. Prior is less scrupulous about confining his sense to the couplet than Pope, or even Dryden. Whether blank or rhymed verse is the best adapted to the epopee, will be enquired elsewhere [D]. But there is a difference between epic and dramatic blank verse, the latter afsuming a greater freedom of cadence, and the frequent use of one or two redundant syllables at the end of the line, of [c] Not only in his Margites, but even in his Iliad and Odyssey.' Euftathius observes, that Thersites in the Iliad, and Elpenor in the Odyssey, are kind of sketches of the character which he drew more at large in the Margites. [D] See Note Iv. Chap. xxiv. which

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. which the opening of the Fair Penitent is a good example. In this, as in every other province of the drama, Shakespear is unrivalled. Mr. Mason, in his Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Whitehead, (fee page 59, et seq.) has given a good criticism on the excellence of dramatic language; and in his poems of Elfrida and Caractacus, a compleat model for imitation. R CHAP.

5.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-11 5.1

RIDICULE IS PRODUCED BY ERRORS UNATTENDED BY DAN- GEROUS AND FATAL CONSEQUENCES; THUS DEFORMITY OF BODY IS RIDICULOUS, PROVIDED IT IS NOT OCCASIONED BY PAIN.

MISTAKES even in language, as blunders, and provincial and foreign dialects, are among the errors of this species, and are frequently used as a fource of the ridiculous in modern farce, and even comedy; ، So though I cannot agree with Lord Kaimes, as to the cause of this. ' quick-fighted' (he says) ' is pride in blemishes, and so willing to be ، ، gratified, that it takes up with the very flighteft improprieties; such as a blunder by a foreigner in speaking our language, especially if the blun- • der can bear a sense that reflects on the speaker.' ELEMENTS OF CRITICISM, Vol. 1. Ch. XII. As for deformity of body being an object of ridicule, it must be observed that Aristotle is here speaking of the old, or middle comedy, equivalent with our farce. Such as many of Foote's pieces were, who, like Ariftophanes, brought personal characters on the stage and marked them for public ridicule, not only by their habitual manners, but by bodily deformities, infirmities, and misfortunes; violating, without remorse, the latter part of the precept of the Stagirite. This liberty, or rather licentiousness of imitation, is justly reprobated by Churchill.

• Mimics

• Mimics draw humour out of nature's fault, • With perfonal defects their mirth adorn, • And hang misfortunes out to public fcorn.' This humane qualification, as to the objects of personal ridicule, is strictly observed by Shakespear. A very ingenious critic observes, • He has given him (Falstaff) every infirmity of body that is not likely to • awaken our compaffion, and which is most proper to render both his • better qualities and his vices ridiculous.' ESSAY ON THE DRAMA- TIC CHARACTER OF FALSTAFF, Page 149 [A]. The rule of not sporting with serious misfortunes should be equally observed in comic narration. Indeed it is pointed out by nature; for he must have a heart little sensible of the feelings of humanity, who can find any thing ludicrous in the real distresses and fufferings of others, with whatever ridiculous circumstances they may be related. It is wonderful, that a people who boast so much of their refinement as the French, and whose delicacy cannot bear the exhibition of spectacles of suffering on the tragic scene for the purpose of exciting pity and terror, should approve the narration of such facts, when introduced to occafion mirth. And yet not only Scarron and Rabelais, the last of whom has defcribed very minutely, a monk kicked to death by a vicious horse, as a laughable accident; but even the works of Le Sage, abound with instances of this kind. Savage as we have often been called by our politer neighbours, our comic writers are seldom guilty of this impropriety. We have, however, one flagrant instance of it in the works of an author of [A] See alfo Beattie on Laughter and Ludicrous Composition, Ch. iii. p. 431. R2 undoubted

undoubted comic excellence. I mean Arbuthnot's Journal of the fix days preceding the death of the Bishop of Salisbury.

5.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-12 5.6

AMONG THE ATHENIANS, CRATES WAS THE FIRST WHO FORSOOK PERSONAL SATIRE, AND INTRODUCED A GENERAL SUBJECT OR FABLE.

FROM this passage it is obvious that every kind of comedy, in the time of Aristotle, was not like those of Ariftophanes, generally founded on personal ridicule; (B) and not only from this but from his obfervation in the eleventh chapter, that comic poets first form the fable, and - then add names correfpondent with the manners of the characters; and still more particularly from his assertion, that a double catastrophe, like the Odyssey, where virtue is rewarded and vice punished, is better calculated for [c] comedy than tragedy. From these remarks, and especially the laft, one would be induced to think, that comedy had affumed a higher character in the days of Aristotle than is usually ascribed to the old and middle comedy. The same idea has occurred to M. Leffing, who makes the following observation on it. • The Stagirite had feen the origin of • the new comedy, and he mentions it expreffly in his treatise on ethics, • addressed to Nicomachus, where he speaks of what is decent and what indecent in humourous converfation, "which (he says) may be illuf- " lustrated by the example of the old, and new comedy, of which the [B] Though many of the comedies of Ariftophanes are not entirely perfonal; as the Plutus, the Lyfiftrata, and the Ecclefiazuze. Yet they can hardly be faid to have a general fable. [c] See Note VIII. on Chap. XII. " humour

" humour of one confifts in gross expressions, but that of the other arifes " rather from ambiguous language [D]." It might indeed be objected, ⚫ that the middle comedy is here defigned under the name of the new comedy [E]; for before the new comedy arose the middle comedy ⚫ would neceffarily have that appellation. It might farther be added, ⚫ that Aristotle died in the fame olympiad in which Menander produced ' his first piece, and even in the year before. (Eufebius in Chronico ad • Olymp. C. XIV. 4.) But we are wrong in dating the new comedy ' from Menander only; he was the first poet of that age of comedy as ' to poetical excellence, but not as to time. Philemon, who belonged ' to it, wrote some time before, and the tranfition from the middle to the new comedy, was so imperceptible, that it is impoffible Ariftotle could * have wanted models.' DRAMATURGIE, VOL. II, PAGE 173 NOTE. Mr. Cumberland in his account of the Greek comic theatre, for which the republic of letters is much indebted to him, obferves of Philemon, * that he was fome, years elder than Menander, and no unworthy rival of 'that poet.' (Observer, No. 138.) From the fragments of the middle comedy, frequently quoted in the fame work, it appears, that fo far from being devoted to indecency and buffoonry, that species of the drama abounded in passages inculcating the noblest precepts of morality. But the deduction of Mr. Cumberland from this (F), that Aristotle has not given a just character of comedy as it stood in his time, by saying it is ، [D] Ἰδοι δ᾽ ἂν τις κὰι ἐκ τῶν κωμωδιῶν τῶν παλαιών και τῶν καινῶν. Τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἐν γελοῖον ἡ ἀισχρολογία, τοις δὲ μᾶλλον ἡ ὑπόνοια. ΕTHIC. L. IV. CAP. XIV. [E] The name appears of little consequence as the difference is so strongly marked in the quotation. [F] OBSERVER, No. 72. • a picture

، a picture of human nature worse and more deformed than the original, feems to arife from a mistake as to the idea intended to be conveyed by the word WORSE, confidered in a poetical light. As Aristotle does not require the persons of tragedy to be better in a moral view, but only in the sense explained in note 1. on chap. 11. so the characters in comedy, on which its poetical diftinction depends, are not, according to the obfervation at the beginning of this chapter, to be worse than those of the prefent time, as to depravity in general, but only to be more uniformly charged with those qualities calculated to excite laughter than is usually, or indeed ever met with in real life. That Achilles never faid an abfurd thing, or Thersites never acted wifely, or feriously, is out of common probability; but the poet who introduces these persons, or characters refembling them, on the tragic, or comic scene, would fruftrate his own purpose if he shewed an instance of ridiculous absurdity in Achilles, or serious reafoning in Thersites; and in this sense, one is drawn better, and the other worse than human nature in general (G). I believe this rule is observed by every tolerable dramatic poet, without any notion of acting according to the precepts of the Stagirite. But though this is the general diftinction of the two provinces of the drama, it does not follow but there may be some characters in comedy not deftitute of tragic dignity, as there were evidently parts of the Greek tragedy which had not only a comic but even a burlesque cast. Shakespear has not only blended tragédy and comedy in the fame piece, but he often introduces a stroke of humour in a grave, though never I believe in a pathetic scene; and a trait of dignity in a ridiculous scene. But he always preserves the propriety of character. In the field at Shrewsbury, when Worcester and Vernon come to the king's camp just before the battle, he introduces a ridiculous farcafm on Worcester's excusing his rebellion as involuntary, but he puts [G] See Note 1, Chap. xv. it

it in the mouth of Falstaff [H]. And in the tavern at Eastcheap the Prince of Wales recollects the impropriety of his conduct, at so critical a period, and [1] blames himself with great spirit and dignity; but no such reflection is uttered by any other of the party. Yet though Shakespear has avoided this confufion of character, it would be the abfurdest partiality to deny, that the mixing the ferious and the comic, in one piece, tends to destroy the efficacy of both, and is therefore a fault. That the neceffity of committing this fault was imposed on him by the taste of the public, is apparent, from the practice of all the cotemporary writers, and if he has contrived to do it with less impropriety than others, it furely is no small degree of merit. However faulty the practice of the age of Shakespear may have been in this respect, it was referved for the next, though proud of their encreasing refinement, to produce that monster of the drama, the regular tragi-comedy; where two distinct fables, the one distressful, the other ridiculous, were carried on together; not only violating the unity of action, but making so abfurd a mixture of forrow and mirth, that as Addison observes, a poet might as well think of weaving the adventures [H] Rebellion lay in his way and he found it.' Ist Part HEN. IV. Act v. Sc. r. See Note VII, Ch. xi. [1] By heaven, Poins, I feel me much to blame, • So idly to profane the precious time, • When tempeft of commotion like the North, Borne with black vapour, doth begin to melt And drop upon our bare unarmed heads. • Give me my sword and cloak.'.

Ild Part HEN. IV. Act II. SC. IV. of

of Æneas and [K] Hudibras into one poem. This comic under-plot, was not confined to the plays of Dryden which end happily, as the Spanish Friar, Love Triumphant, and Marriage Alamode; but it also mixed with the deep pathos of the Fatal Marriage, Venice Preferved, and Oroonoko. The error of Shakespear is like that of Homer, in introducing Thersites in a serious poem, but the tragi-comedy resembles the Iliad and Margites, mixed together. The following observation of Lord Kaims, in his Sketches of the Hiftory [L] of man, having fome relation to this subject, I shall cite it with a short remark. Nothing is more evident than the fuperiority of Terence • above Plautus in the art of writing; and confidering that Terence is a • later writer, nothing would appear more natural, if they did not copy • the fame originals. It may be owing to genius that Terence excelled • in purity of language, and propriety of dialogue; but how account for • his fuperiority over Plautus in the construction and conduct of a play? • It will not certainly be thought that Plautus would imitate the worst ، • constructed plays, leaving the best to those who should come after ⚫ him. This difficulty has not occurred to any of the commentators, fo ' far as I can recollect. Had the works of Menander and his cotemporaries been preserved, they probably would have explained the mystery; ' which for want of that light will probably remain a mystery for ever." I own I can perceive no mystery at all in this. It did not depend on the taste of Plautus, or Terence, but on the taste of the Roman people when they wrote. Plautus compofed for the public at large, who were best [K] Imoinda and the Widow Lackit, Jaffier and Antonio, are more discordant characters, both in manners and action, than Æneas and Hudibras.. [L] Book 1. Sketch v. Sect. 2. pleased کو

pleased with the broader humour of the earlier Greek comedy. Terence wrote at a later period and under the patronage of Scipio, and the [M] mild Lælius, whose more refined taste preferred the infipid elegance of Menander. Shakespear was guilty of the fame error in judgement, if it was one. It appears from the account of those claffic writers which were tranflated in his time, that the Menæchmi of Plautus, and the Andrian of Terence, were both before him, and we know which he chose for a model. As for the superiority of Terence over Plautus in any refpect except beauty of language, it remains to be proved, and perhaps is no more capable of proof, than the superior excellence of the modern fentimental comedy to those less regular dramas, Twelfth Night and As You Like It. Were the plays of the two Roman comic poets to be clothed in an English dress, and performed before an English audience, near the close of the eighteenth century, by no means surely an age or a country of barbarifm, I have little doubt of the judgement being in favor of the elder poet. To return more particularly to the difficulty suggested by Lord Kaims. It must be remembered that the poems of Homer were equally open to Ennius and Lucretius, as to Virgil; and yet the last is the first Roman poet who imitated, I had almost said translated, the works of the father of poetry. Of the comedies of Menander we can only judge through the medium of Terence, whose dramas, to me, have neither humour nor intereft, nor indeed any other merit than their style, which,' (to use words applied, perhaps with rather too much severity to Virgil, by a very ingenious though eccentric writer) ' is pure and exquisite, and is the pickle that has preserved his mummy from corruption [N].' [M] Mitis fapientia Lælî." [N] HERON'S LETTERS OF LITERATURE. HOR. S NOTE

5.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-13 5.8

TRAGEDY ENDEAVOURS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO CONFINE ITSELF TO ONE REVOLUTION OF THE SUN, OR ONLY TO EXCEED IT A LITTLE.

FROM this plain direction, the critics of the French school, and especially Dacier, have deduced that the action should not exceed the exact time of reprefentation, and have found out that one [o] period or revolution of the fun comprises twelve hours, which would be, at least, four times that length. That people urged by superstition, or worfe motives, should wish to give the most absurd and contradictory sense to plain and obvious passages in writings of sacred authority, to support their own systems, when we consider the force of enthusiafm and ambition, is more to be lamented than wondered at. But such a strange perverfion of common sense, to justify a dramatic prejudice, is at once an object of furprize and ridicule. If the practice of the Greek tragedy had been always in strict conformity with this rule of the French critics, there would have been some shadow of reason for their trying to accommodate. this precept of Aristotle to the custom of the ancient stage; but on the contrary, the [P] Greek tragedians often afsume a greater latitude than [ο] Μίαν περίοδον ἠλίς.. See note II, chap. vii. for some further observations on Ariftotle's definition of the unity of time.. [P] For examples of the violation of the unities of time and place, (Ariftotle says nothing of the laft) by the Greek dramatic poets, the curious reader is referred to METASTASIO'S ES- TRATTO DELLA POETICA D'ARISTOTLE. See also ELEMENTS OF CRITICISM, Chap. xxiii.. paffim. the

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ! the rule laid down by Aristotle, or even the nature of the thing itself will justify.

The words of Dacier, on the supposed invariable adherence of the ancients to this strict unity of time, are these. They have made it fo • indispensible a law, that to avoid violating it they have fometimes done violence to the incidents.' Which Mr. Twining observes is in fact saying, that they have so scrupulously adhered to the rule, that ' sometimes, for the fake of observing it, they have been obliged to • break it.' But they have done much more, there is a unity of time marked by nature, the breach of which destroys the probability of every fictitious tale whatever, either narrative or dramatic. I may conceive days, and months, and years, to have passed during an interval in a representation, which I know to be a representation, and not a reality; but every shadow of probability vanishes, and we are instantly disgusted, either, when without any interruption of the action during a dialogue of fix minutes, fix hours are supposed to have elapsed, or, (which is nearly the fame thing,) when the space of time occupied by the drama is exactly defined, and then incidents are crouded into it which could not poflibly have happened in that space [Q]. [Q] This absurdity is well described by M. Lessing. < Do not you admire the conduct of • the piece? it is in general fo complicated that it would be a miracle if so many things had • happened in so short a time. The ruin or preservation of an empire, the marriage of a prin- * cess, the deftruction of a prince, all this is executed in the twinkling of an eye. The affair ⚫ is opened in the first act, it is connected and strengthened in the second, every measure is ▲ taken, every obstacle removed, and the conspirators arranged in the third, then follows a re- ⚫ volt, a fight, perhaps a pitched battle, and this you call conduct, intereft, fire, and probability.' DRAMATURGIE, Vol. i. p. 139. S2 In

In the ancient drama, where the action was never interrupted, and the stage continually occupied by the chorus, I must think that probability is really in fome measure violated when the supposed time of action is at all extended beyond the actual time of representation. Of this the suppliants of Euripides afford us a striking instance. Theseus marches from Athens to Thebes, gains a complete victory, and a messenger returns to give an account of the battle, during a short lyric dialogue between his mother Æthra and the Chorus. I appeal to any unprejudiced judge if the conduct of Shakespear, who most likely would have transported us to Thebes, and made us spectators of the battle, has any thing so really contrary to probability as this, or if any thing can be more unreasonable than the rules of those critics, who, because Aristotle allowed the period of twenty-four hours, or a little longer, to a drama without intervals, would, on that very authority, confine a drama with intervals to three hours [s]. [s] Le Pere Brumoy, though a staunch advocate for the doctrine of the French school as to the rigid observance of the unity of time, has this mitigating sentence, ' As the resemblance be-- • tween the drama and nature cannot be always so exact as not to admit fome difference in favor of the beauties of art, even art, to avail itself of these beauties, may deceive the spectator, ⚫ and reprefent an action whose duration comprehends eight or ten hours, although the drama • employs only two or three.' Now though the Pere Brumoy mentions particular periods of time in which the dramatic fable, on certain great occafions, may exceed the dramatic representation, as we cannot suppose he mentions eight or ten hours in contradistinction to nine and eleven, his meaning must be, that this rule may be broken when the observation of it ceases to be necessary, and that truth and general probability are the only proper judges of this law, fince, as Horace allows, • Utor permiffo, caudæque pilos ut equinæ • Paulatim vello, et demo unum, demo etiam unum. But

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. But though the modern drama, from the breaks in the representation, by the division of acts and change of scene, has not its duration marked out by the nature of its composition, yet if the period of time is defined by any circumstance whatever, and events are supposed to happen in that period, which it is either physically or morally impoffible could have happened, the error is against truth and nature, and not only against the arbitrary or the reasonable laws of the drama; and, it must be confefsed, we sometimes find our own inimitable dramatic Bard erring in this respect. The tragedy of King Lear will furnish an inftance of this kind of error. In the second act, Lear comes in, with all his train, to Regan at Glocester's castle, having been recently affronted by Goneril. From the circumstance of the storm continuing, it is obvious that the interval between the second and third act, does not comprehend a period of time, much exceeding that which really passes, and the eyes of Glocefter are put out on the fame night, just as he had relieved the old king on the heath; yet in this time we hear, there is part of a power already footed ، ، to revenge the injuries the king now bears;' and Cornwall says, 'the army of France is now landed.' This rule of natural unity is equally essential to the drama, the epopee, the fable, and the tale; it has nothing to do with the most striking flights of improbability. If a writer puts his hero on a magic courser that can Put a girdle round about the earth • In forty minutes,' it is no offence against this rule; but it would be a great one to make an army march from London to Edinburgh in one night. I have fomewhere met with an observation, that the time of the representation and the fable, in the tragedy of Cato, might have been made exactly

exactly equal, and the strictest rule of dramatic unity observed, had not Addison chofen, wantonly, to violate it by opening the play with a description of the morning; and making Juba say of Cæfar's army, in the last act, • The setting fun Plays on their shining arms and burnish'd helmets.' Addison certainly was not obliged to mark the time in this manner; but whether he had or not, it must have been impoffible to conceive the business of the play could have been transacted in a shorter time, than between sun-rife and fun-set, in the longest day, at Utica. Of the unity of place, it has already been observed, Aristotle says nothing. However, it is strongly connected with the unity of time, and depends on it: 'I mean the natural unities; not that artificial rule of never altering the supposed spot of representation [T), because the Greek theatre never changed its scenes, which is about as reasonable as it would be not to wear shirts because the ancients had no linen. During the continuance of the action, or when the exact time is otherwise defined, no greater change of place can be supposed, than what might probably happen in fuch a period [u]. But it may possibly be asked, though the Muse of Shakespear has ventured to pass the bounds of time and space,' and therefore a change of scene is neceffary for the reprefentation of his dramas; yet as no [T] See note r, chap. xvii. [U] For a further illustration of this, see the application of the unities to the epopee, note 11, chap. xxiv. See also Philological Enquiries, page 218. modern

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. modern poet ventures to extend his length of time beyond the period prescribed by Ariftotle, why may not the strict unity of place be observed on the English stage, as well as on the French stage? Perhaps it might be a fufficient anfwer to this, to say, the [v] taste of the English demands this change of scenes, but I will not rest my defence of the practice of our stage on this, or on the fuperiority of the theatrical decoration from a variety of well painted [w] scenes, but from the fuperior probability of the play, and the removal of one great and unfurmountable, or, at least, as yet unfurmounted difficulty attending the strict observance of the unity of place, the bringing in and sending out the characters with propriety. And I chuse to do this, in the words of a writer, who cannot be influenced by national prejudices, in favour of either the French or English theatre [x]. • To confefs the truth, the English, [v] Of the taste of the English in this refpect, the following anecdote is a ftriking proof. • In the play of Phædra and Hippolytus, the author has observed the unity of place so well, ⚫ that all the scenes are exhibited in one spot, in an outer court of the palace. Mr. Garrick • faw this; he had a good scene prepared, and it stood the whole time of the play. The ma- ، nager was right; critics will say, the author was right, but the audience were disgufted." HILL'S Actor, page 255. However much the manager might think himself in the right, he found it prudent, on a subsequent occafion, to change his conduct. Mr. Whitehead, in his SCHOOL FOR LOVERS, observed the strict unity of place, and the whole action passes in a garden; but Mr. Garrick introduced a change of fcene in the representation, and he concludes his prologue to the comedy, after some humorous obfervations on the taste of the audience and the perfeverance of the poet, with these lines: • Still he persists-and let him-ENTRE NOUS • I know your tastes, and will indulge them too. • Change you shall have; so set your hearts at ease; WRITE AS HE will, we'll ACT it as you please.. [w] See note v, chap. vi. [x] Schlegel, a German dramatic poet, cited by M. Lessing in his Dramaturgie, vol. i. p. 215. who

• who do not pride themselves in observing the unity of place, obferve • it for the most part better than the French, who boast so much of • their strict adherence to the rules of Aristotle. It little imports, that • the decoration of the scene does not change, but it is of confequence ⚫ that the reason should be obvious why the perfons who enter should • find themselves exactly in that given spot, instead of remaining where they were. When a character behaves as the inhabitant and master • of an apartment, where, just before, another has been affuming the • fame appearance of authority, and talking with the greatest confiden- • tial freedom to his friend, without its being brought about by any ، probable means; in short, when the characters come into the room, or the garden, merely to appear on the stage, the author of the tragedy would do better, instead of writing, "the scene is in the chamber " of Climene," to say, "the scene is in the theatre." Or, to ، speak serioufly, it certainly would be more reasonable, if the author, according to the English custom, had changed the scene from one • house to another, and conducted the spectator to the hero, instead of obliging the hero to appear in a place where he has nothing at all to • do, for the purpose of amufing the spectator.' The false reasoning of the French critics, and their followers in this country, has arifen from the mistaken notion that dramatic imitation ever was, or ever could be a real deception. We are affected by the general probability of the incidents arranged by the poet, in such a manner as to render the impression of those he intends should work on the paffions, most forcible, by foftening, or fuppreffing, every circumstance which might at all interfere with the passions he wishes to excite; and this, when accompanied by the recitation and action of a good player, must have the strongest effect on the spectator; but as to real deception,

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. deception, in the most empassioned scene of Lear, acted by Garrick, it never for an instant existed. The means of imitation were always apparent, or, to speak in the language of a late commentator, • It is false ' that any representation is mistaken for reality; that any dramatic fable, ⚫ in its materiality, was ever credible, or, for a fingle moment, was ever ' credited [B].' [B] Dr. Johnson's preface to Shakespear. T CHAP.

6.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-14 6.1

TRAGEDY IS AN IMITATION, IN ORNAMENTED LANGUAGE, OF AN ACTION IMPORTANT AND COMPLETE, AND POSSESSING A CERTAIN DEGREE OF MAGNITUDE, HAVING ITS FORMS DIS- TINCT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE PARTS, AND BY THE REPRE- SENTATION OF PERSONS ACTING, AND NOT BY NARRATION, EFFECTING THROUGH THE MEANS OF PITY AND TERROR, THE PURGATION OF SUCH PASSIONS.

VARIOUS and contradictory have been the explanations given by different commentators of this celebrated definition of tragedy; and yet the grand object it proposes to have in view, the purgation of the paffions by the means of pity and terror, and how those means operate to attain that end, or whether, in fact, they have any fuch operation at all, has received little elucidation from their combined enquiries. To entertain any hope of success where so many persons of the highest literary reputation have failed, would be a great degree of presumption. I shall therefore only state, with all the diffidence due where so little is certainty, and fo much conjecture, what appears to me, from all that can be collected on the fubject, the real notion of Aristotle as to the means and the effect of purging the paffions; and enquire how far that notion is founded in nature and confirmed by experience; allowing for the lapfe of time, and the consequent alteration of manners and opinions. Any

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. Any obscurity in an author, especially if it relates to his particular judgment on any general subject [A], will be most likely to receive light from comparifon with his other works, of which our critic has left us an ample store. Indeed, these have been so long, and so univerfally, the objects of scholaftic disquisition, that one should have imagined every correfpondent, and every discordant passage, would have long fince been collated and examined. But as M. Leffing (who strongly [в] recommends this method of illustration,) observes, their pursuits were very different from the investigation of elegant literature. Those writings of the Stagirite which, at the present time, are the principal subjects of enquiry, and especially the Poetic, had little to engage the attention of men devoted to the study of logic and metaphyfics: and, perhaps, there are few of those whose turn of mind induces them to make the treatise before us the particular object of their attention, who would have the patience and perfeverance, to go through the various and voluminous works of Aristotle, which treat of matters so foreign to their taste. There is one treatife, however, on a congenial fubject, (the Rhetoric) which throws light on the imperfect and mutilated state of the Poetic in a hundred instances. But the present subject of our enquiry receives most elucidation from a work where we should less expect to find it. The philofopher [c], in his treatise on government, speaking of the power of music to foften and alleviate the passions, says; • Whatever paffions have a strong effect [A] In regard to verbal obfcurity, this will often be fallacious. Ariftotle has frequently employed the same word in different senses, even in this short sketch. SEE NOTE III. ch. 1. [B] DRAMATURGIE, Vol II. p. 11. [C] POLITIC, 1. vii. chap. vii. T2 ، on

، on any minds, will have some effect on all, and they will only differ in degree. Such passions, for example, as pity and terror, to which we may add enthusiasm, an affection of the mind with which fome men are violently possessed. Now we fee this last, when those sacred • melodies which accompany the celebration of the mystic rights are ،

، performed, is foothed and quieted, as if it were by medicine or purgation; and the fame thing will happen to those who are liable to the impreffions of pity or terror, or whose passions in general are eafily excited, and others indeed as far as they may be under the influence of • fuch paffions. They will all feel a kind of purgation, or unburthening of the mind, accompanied by fome degree of pleasure.' Ariftotle is treating here only of the purgation of the passions, as effected by mufic, and [D] which he professes to explain in a flight and superficial manner, with a promise to be more explicit in his writings on poetry: if this promise has ever been fulfilled, it is generally supposed it must have been in some of those parts of his criticism on poetry which are loft. But [E] M. Leffing is of opinion, that it is compleatly fulfilled in the Poetic, as we now have it. If this is the cafe, I have [D] Τὶ δὲ λέγομεν τὴν κάθαρσιν, νῦν μὲν ΑΠΛΩΣ, πάλιν δ᾽ ἐν τοις περὶ ΠΟΙΗΤΙΚΗΣ ἐροῦμεν ΣΑΦΕΣΤΕΡΟΝ. [E] 'Aristotle, at the conclufion of his Treatise on Government, where he speaks of the < purgation of the passions by mufic, promises to treat of this purgation with more perfpicuity in his Poetic. "But (Corneille says,) fince we fee nothing at all of this matter there, most of the " interpreters think that we have it not complete." Nothing at all? For my part I think that I find, even in what remains of the Poetic, every thing that he could confider, as ne- ⚫ ceffary to say on the fubject to any one who was not ignorant of the principles of his philo- ' fophy.' DRAMATURGIE, Vol. II. p. 28. only

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. only to lament my own ill fortune in not finding it; or my stupidity in not comprehending it. The above quotation, from the Treatise on Government, however, if it does not itself receive much illustration from this, or any other part of the Poetic now extant, seems to throw fome light on the paffage under confideration, and affords some clue for the discovery of what Aristotle means by purging the passions. His example of the enthusiast having his mind relieved by sounds congenial, though in a milder degree, with his own more violent feelings, leads us to fuppofe, that he conceives the exceffive, habitual effects of pity and terror, and other paffions of the fame kind [F], may also be alleviated by exciting them in a more moderate degree, through the apparently fictitious means of dramatic imitation. Mr. Harris [G], perhaps, carries the efficacy of tragic imitation a little too far, when he supposes it capable of blunting the feelings, by frequent representation of scenes of terror and distress, in the way the realities act on military men, physicians, and furgeons. Yet, however, much allowance must be made for the difference of manners, and habits. The drama might have had an effect on the people of Athens, who made an attendance on the theatre almost the business of their lives, [F] Ariftotle confines this effect to pity and terror, and affections of the fame kind (among which he includes enthusiasm,) in express words, using τῶν τοιέτων, in both places. Such paffions as love and anger, are enflamed instead of foftened by the fame means. [G] Difcourse on Music, Poetry, and Painting, chap. v. note c. which

which we can have no idea of. We know (says M. Leffing [H]) to • what a degree the Greeks and Romans carried their passion for public ، spectacles, and the first more especially for tragedy; and, on the contrary, how indifferent and cold our people are in regard to the theatre. • Whence arifes this difference, if not from the Greeks finding them- ، selves affected with such strong and extraordinary [1] feelings, during • the representation, that they waited with transport the moment of their return? On the contrary, the impressions we receive at the • theatre are so trivial, and so weak, that we scarcely esteem them worth ⚫ the time and expence it costs to procure them. We almost all, and • almost always go, either from curiosity, or because it is the fashion, or • for want of fomething else to do, or for the fake of company, or to • fee and be seen; very few go with other views, and those but feldom.' [H] Though M. Lessing speaks of the Germans, it is full as applicable to the people of this country. Indeed, he himself adds, 'I say WE, OUR PEOPLE, OUR THEATRE, but I do not ' mean to be understood as speaking only of the Germans. For we freely acknowledge that as yet we have no theatre.. [1] This must have arisen from the sensibility of the people, rather than the superior effect of the drama. The fatire of M. Leffing is directed against the infipidity of the French tragedy; for he puts the Greek and English stage together, and classes Shakespear with Euripides and Sophocles: and yet it is impossible for any people to be less interested in the amufements of the theatre than we are. The truth feems to be, that the conftant attendance of the Athenian people on the theatre, arose from the splendor of the exhibition, and its being at the public charge; and that the fuperior effect of the representation on their minds, was the confequence, not the cause, of their strong attachment to tragic imitation. The Romans were, as M. Leffing allows, equally attached to spectacles, though of another kind; and yet they have never been particularly characterized for strong and extraordinary feelings; nor were their favourite exhibitions calculated to excite them.

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ! i It remains now to enquire how far our paffions are really blunted or softened, by being excited in a fainter degree, through the fictions of tragedy. Or whether, on the contrary, they are not, at least sometimes, rather heightened and enflamed by them. Indeed, this was a point at issue in the time of Aristotle, and had, before him, been decided contrary to his opinion, by Plato, who banished poets from his republic on this account. His expreffion on this head I shall give in the words of M. Twining's tranflation, together with his observation on it [k]. "The habit of indulging our paffions, in the concerns of others, will, " of neceffity, bring on the same habitual indulgence in those which " relate to ourselves: for he who has nourished and strengthened to "excess, the passion of pity for example, by habitual sympathy with "the misfortunes of others, will not find it easy to restrain the same "kind of feelings in his own." • To this objection there cannot be a more direct and pointed answer than Aristotle's affertion, as usually • understood, that the habit of indulging the emotions of pity or terror, in the fictitious representations of tragedy, tends, on the contrary, to moderate and refine those passions when they occur in real life.' TWINING'S NOTES ON ARISTOTLE, note 45, p. 240. That this doctrine of Aristotle is intended as an anfwer to the objection of Plato, is confirmed, if any confirmation were necessary, by its being first started in his own treatise on a republic. It may feem great arrogance even to attempt to decide, when such doctors as Plato and Ariftotle disagree. But as they are both defending [κ] ᾿Απολαύειν ἀνάγκη ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἐις τὰ ὀικῖια· Θρέψαντα γὰρ ἐν ἐκείνοις ἰσχυρὸν τὸ ἐλεεινὸν, ὀυ ρἅδιον ἐν τοις άντε πάθεσι κατέχειν. Plato de Rep. 1. x. Ed. Seran. 1602. p. 756. В. a favorite

a favorite hypothefis, they may possibly each be partly right, and partly wrong. Much must depend on the different feelings of individuals, as well as of nations, these depending on habits of mind and body, profeffion, or education, and those on the form of government, and degree of civilization, and refinement. The foldier will be affected differently from the mechanic, the polished from the rude, the indolent from the active. And the inhabitant of London, or Paris, will certainly have different sensations of pity and terror, from the inhabitant of the desarts of Arabia, or the woods of America. When the objects of pity or terror, whether real or imaginary, press so strongly on our fenfations as to exclude any fentiment of pleasure, they will, in my opinion, have rather a tendency to increase than diminish the natural force of those paffions, and this will often depend on the firmness of the mind, or the ductility of the imagination. But when the excitement of these passions is accompanied by any degree [L] of pleasure, however flight, the mind will acquire gradual strength to bear stronger representations by habitual exercise, till at length, as pofsibly was the cafe with the people of Athens, the sensations might attain such a state as to require encreasing force of terror and distress, to awaken the sensibility so as to cause that agitation, which is the fource [L] Hume, in one of his effays, observes, that the pleasure of being out of danger, and near it, (which he exemplifies by standing on the edge of a precipice, so as to be perfectly safe) is a species of terror so modified as to be perfectly pleasing. Now to a seaman, or a mountaineer, this would convey no idea at all of terror; and I know a person who would feel a greater dread from it, than if exposed to the most imminent danger in any other form whatever, and which, confequently, could not be attended with the flightest semblance. of pleasure. of

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. of the delight we receive from tragic imitation. And in this situation the mind may be something deadened to the fame impreffions, though occafioned by circumstances in real life. As we can only judge of the opinion of Aristotle, and how far it is really founded on nature, by our own sensations, or our observation of the sensations of others, we are much at a loss where to look for these means of decifion. Dramatic representation, we have already observed, neither occupies the time or attention enough to have any great, or permanent energy, on our paffions; and the perusal of tragedies, or other compofitions of a congenial cast, is confidered in general as the amusement of an idle hour, ready to be thrown aside in a moment on the arrival of the newspaper, or the summons to the card table. The only persons of the present day, who at all devote their attention with ardor and perfeverance to the reading compositions of fictitious distress, (and I believe their number, especially among the higher ranks, decreases every day,) are those usually called romantic young women, who dedicate much of their time to the study of the numerous tales, with which the press continually furnishes our circulating libraries. It is not my business here to enquire how this kind of application may influence their opinions, and conduct in life; but it certainly seems likely to throw some light on the influence a ferious attention to scenes of imitated paffion, may have on the force of real paffion. And here we must confefs, the first appearance is against the doctrine of the critic; the general effect of novel-reading on the gentler sex is too obvious to be doubted; it excites and enflames the paffion which is the principal subject of the tale, and the fufceptibility of the female votary of the circulating library, is proverbial. But we must, in the first place, recollect, that the passion of U love

love is very different in itself from terror and pity, though it may be the cause of circumftances replete with both [(M); and it is the tendency to this paffion, and not to those of pity and terror, which is encreased by this kind of reading. Befides, it is not perhaps so much the paffion itself that is enflamed, as the wish to feel it is created by this study. A defire of resembling the fictitious heroine of a novel, has often induced a young mind to enquire for those sensations, which, without fuch a search, might have continued for some time dormant in the bosom. So far, therefore, is love from being blunted by imitative fiction, that such fiction is often an efficient cause of its being first excited. But, in the next place, is it so clear that the paffion, of pity at least, (the terrible is seldom admitted in a novel,) is not purged and blunted in these very fufceptible minds? The reasoning of Aristotle seems to be this: the mind that has been awakened and agitated by the calamities of Edipus, Orestes, or Merope; that fees high rank and exalted character so far from exempting their possessors from pain and distress, only add accumulated weight to their sufferings, will be apt, from conftant attention to fuch scenes, to feel less from the contemplation of fimilar incidents in real life, which are seldom attended with those complicated and unallayed distresses which attend the fiction of the poet, whose business it is to select every circumstance proper to excite the paffions of pity and terror in the highest degree, and omit every event that might at all tend to alleviate or divert them. That such are the characters Ariftotle points out as proper for tragedy, appears from the thirteenth chapter.. [M] The advantage modern tragedy draws from love, confidered in this light, will be examined in another place. See Note IV. chap. хил. And

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. And Beni, in consequence of this, renders τῶν τοιέτων παθημάτων, ' the paffions of fuch perfons, i. e. σπουδαίων, as implied in σπουδαίας,' paraphrafing it thus. As it was the object of comedy to expose and cor- • rect the foibles of private perfons, so it was that of tragedy to inftance ⚫ those in persons of higher rank, and who were invested with authority.'

My opinion of the idea of Aristotle receives the strongest corroboration from the fragment of Timocles, an Athenian comic poet, quoted by Mr. Cumberland, in the Obferver, No. 106. Yet hear me fpeak. Man is, of living beings, By nature most unhappy. Life to him Then for your woes Brings many a bitter pang. • This confolation feek. He finds oblivion • Of his own griefs, whose fufceptible heart • Is gently drawn to feel another's suff'rings, • And finds instruction mingled with delight. ، ، Turn to the tragic muse, and meet relief In every scene. If " steep'd in poverty Up to the lips; there Telephus shall shew A monarch poorer, and confole your want. Say, Are you mad? Behold Alcmæon's frenzy. • Are your eyes dim? Lo the Phineidæ blind! Is your fon dead? The loss of Niobe • Shall lighten yours. Or, are you old and wretched ? • Learn from Oëneus. If unnumber'd ills • Worse than all these should press you, he who turns U2 His

• His thoughts on other's miseries, will know • With patience more refign'd, to bear his own [N].' On the fame principle with this mode of reasoning, (and I fee no cause to question the justness of it) may not the young woman, who is for ever weeping over the distresses of a Clarissa, or a Sydney Biddulph, and tracing the affecting scenes, and wonderful revolutions, to be found in the adventures of a Cecilia, or an Emmeline, have her feelings something deadened to the less interesting distresses of ordinary life; or, to use the words of Ariftotle, with some paraphrafe, may not the paffion of pity be purged of fome of its more violent effects in reality, from being frequently excited for amusement by fictitious tales [o] of woe. Much [N] I ought, perhaps, to apologize to the reader for substituting a version of my own, for the elegant tranflation of Mr. Cumberland. But my purpose required a closer copy of the original; especially in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th lines, which correspond so exactly with the opinion of Ariftotle. Παραψυχὰς ἐν φρόντιδων ἀνεῦρατον Τάυτας, ὁ γὰρ νοῦς τῶν ἰδίων λήθην λαβών Πρὸς ἄλλοτριῳ τε ψυχαγωγηθείς πάθει ΜΕΘ' ΗΔΟΝΗΣ ἀπῆλθε, παιδευθεὶς ἅμα. [o] May I be allowed to quote a former attempt of my own, to support this opinion? • Awake to each fictitious feeling grown, And moved by ills to real life unknown; The mind, with scenes of fabled woe possess'd, • Will shut to homely grief the senseless breaft, • And turn from want and pain the offended ear, • To pour for feign'd distress the barren tear." PROGRESS OF REFINEMENT. Perhaps the effect of comic imitation may, in some measure, illustrate this subject. Does not the representation of ridiculous characters and incidents, heightened beyond what we ever find in reality, blunt in some degree the force of ridicule on characters in life, which are never so truly laughable as the fictitious ones: for as Longinus observes, laughter is a paffion, though a pleasing one. Κὰι γὰρ ὁ γελὼς πάθος ἐν ἡδονῆ. Long. sect. xxxviii. See also Note XIV. on chap. xxv. has

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. has been faid of the tear of sensibility, and I own I should have little opinion of the head or heart of any person, and especially of a woman, that could laugh over Clariffa, or fit with dry eyes, while Mrs. Siddons was acting Isabella or Belvidera. But these tears are the means, and not the end; or, to pursue the medical metaphor of Aristotle, they are the operation of the medicine, and not its final effect; neither are these feelings always a test of real humanity. Rousseau observes somewhere, that the tears which we shed for fictitious forrow, are admirably ' adapted to make us proud of all the virtues we do not possess.' Some very humane and benevolent men are fond of being present at executions; and others will feel for distress on the stage, without having, in reality, any humanity at all. Plutarch, in his Life of Pelopidas, and in his treatise on the Fortune of Alexander, relates an anecdote of Alexander, king of Phærea, one of the most cruel tyrants of antiquity, who, on being moved to tears by the representation of a tragedy of Euripides, left the theatre with confufion, ashamed to discover, that he who was insensible to the fufferings of his people, should be so strongly affected by the distresses of [P] Hecuba and Andromache. [P] These are the characters Plutarch mentions in the Life of Pelopidas, where he names the Troades as the tragedy: but in the treatise on the Fortune of Alexander, he names Hecuba and Polyxena, which last character is not in the Troades, but in the tragedy of Hecuba. Mr. Upton, in his note on this line in Hamlet, ' What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,' observes, that it is plain Shakespear alludes to this anecdote, which, confidering how much Shakespear appears to be converfant with Plutarch, (all of whose works were translated in his time) seems highly probable. Though there is a confiderable difference in the application, as the emotion of a performer is mentioned by Shakespear, and Alexander was a spectator. If Hamlet himself had been moved by the recital, it would have been more germane to the allufion. Before

Before I conclude this part of my fubject, I will hazard a quotation from a very intelligent financier and statefman, (M. Pinto) on the effect of the universal prevalence of cards on modern manners, as I conceive it is by no means foreign to our present enquiry. It is part of a letter, printed at the end of his treatise on Circulation and Credit. • The magic of cards forms a common focus of almost all the passions in miniature. They all find there, if I may use the expreffion, their proper food. It is true that every thing there is microscopic, and more illufive than common illufions are; a confused idea of happiness ' and mifery is found there. The sphere of the paffions is reduced, concentred, and drawn into a narrower circle; all the paffions in a manner entangle themselves, evaporate and spend themselves at a diftance from their fource and their proper object; restlessness, leifure, idleness, avarice and ambition, devour in common an unsubstantial food, which enervates their force and their activity.' The ESSAY ON THE END OF TRAGEDY, ACCORDING TO ARIS- TOTLE, by profeffor Moore, of Glasgow, which is mentioned by Mr. Twining, is an ingenious, but unfuccefsful attempt to reconcile this passage with his own hypothefis, that the end of tragedy is the awakening the mind, to a sense of the evils attending errors of conduct in human life, and to cause, by the pity and terror they occafion, an exemption or removal of fuch calamities from themselves. I once had the book, but as it was at a time when I had no particular interest in its contents, it made but a flight impreffion on my mind, and having lost it, I have never been able to procure a fecond copy. His chief argument, I remember, rests on παθημάτα, being generally used not for passions, but actual misfortunes; and he cites various inftances from Ariftotle and other writers. But

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. But though there can be no reasonable doubt, I think, of the meaning of Aristotle, yet it by no means follows, but that the hypothesis of Dr. Moore, though not that of Aristotle, may be still more congenial with modern tragedy, whose end I cannot conceive to be the purging of the paffions of pity and fear. But this will be much more fully treated of, when we come to speak of Aristotle's opinion of the proper tragic catastrophe.

6.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-15 6.3

SOME PARTS ATTAIN THEIR END BY VERSE ALONE, AND OTHERS HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF MUSIC.

IT seems impoffible for any thing to be more clearly expressed than this; for Ariftotle, contrary to his general custom, has been particularly careful in defining the precise meaning of the two words he uses, μέτρον and μέλος ; and he also expressly says, they are employed separately. Yet notwithstanding this, many critics are decidedly of opinion, that the Greek tragedies were fung throughout, and the distinction between the dialogue and the choral odes, was exactly the fame with that between the recitative and the airs in the Italian opera; and, in support of this opinion, they draw many arguments from the accounts given by ancient writers on the manner of performing the Greek tragedy. Being not very well acquainted with the technical language of the music of my own country, I cannot be supposed to be a critic in that of Greece. Under this disadvantage, it is with diffidence I attempt to reconcile this positive declaration of Ariftotle, with those passages in other writers, which appear to contradict it, and which the reader will find in Metaftafio's ESTRATTO DELLA POETICA. The

The ancient theatres (2) were of such a vast extent, besides being open at the top, that it was impoffible for the human voice to fill them in its natural pitch; in consequence of which, it was absolutely necessary to employ artificial means to encrease its force, and the dramatic [R] mask was invented, which, in some measure, acted as a speaking trumpet: but as this must destroy all natural modulation of the voice, it was found necessary to supply this defect by an [s] artificial notation of found, and to render this more distinct and loud, it was very probably attended by fome flight inftrumental accompaniment, but folely for the purpose of encreasing and regulating the found of the voice, and not to produce any musical effect; and this was equally applicable to the [T] quick repartee of the dialogue, as to the longer monologue. It must be observed, that Ariftotle does not fimply say, that tragedy EM- PLOYS music and verse separately, but that it ATTAINS ITS END by [Q] See Note VII. chap. XIII. [R] The mask had fomething very fingular. The immenfe aperture of the mouth was ' so contrived as to augment the found of the voice; it was in effect a real speaking trumpet, (porte voix) necessary to fill the wide extent of the place, as well as the brazen vases which ▲ were placed in the intervals of the theatre.' BRUMOY. [s] For a curious obfervation of Dr. Francklin on this practice of the ancients, fee note I. [T] ' If, as Ariftotle seems plainly to say, fome part of the Greek tragedy was spoken like ⚫ our tragic declamation, without any musical accompaniment, it was, most probably, that part of the dialogue which is in every tragedy easily diftinguished from the rest, by its being ' carried on in a fort of quick repartee of verse to verse.' TWINING, note 46, page 245- Whether the monologues, or long speeches, the μακραὶ ῥήσεις, as Plato calls them, were ' performed in the fame way as the rest of the dialogue, or, as has been imagined, were ' diftinguished by being more measured, or musical, is a point not easily cleared up.' IBID. page 247. them

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. them separately, in their respective parts; using the word περαίνεσθαι, which he has just before applied to the accomplishment of its final purpose, the refinement of the paffions. Therefore, in those parts, where verse only is used, though tragedy might be compelled, from fome incidental cause, to employ accompaniment, he does not confider it as effential to the performance and effect, as he does in those parts where the end of tragedy is attained by music [u]. What Metaftafio says on this subject, is well worth our attention. He is very fanguine in the notion, that the whole composition of the ancient tragedy was musical, following the opinion of his countryman Castelvetro, which he quotes. His reasoning on this subject is founded on the idea, that all recitation must adopt some kind of tune different from the common cadence of speech. A voice,' he says, to be • heard by a number of people to whom it is addressed, must be fo exceffively altered from its natural system, that it must necessarily be regulated differently, according to the different orders of its new proportions, (that is, I suppose, according to the extent it is necessary, from the fize of the place, or the number of the auditors, to give it,) * otherwise it will form a wild, dissonant, and ridiculous scream; this new regulation must be music, and this music is so necessary to whoever speaks in public, that if it is not supplied by art, nature herself suggests it. There is no orator that does not fing; no cryer, no public vender of any merchandize, that is not conftrained, for the purpose ' of making himself heard, either to adopt, or form, according to his own caprice, some kind of tune. Even those actors who pretend to [υ] Διὰ μέλος. X recite C

recite verfe without music, are obliged to invent one which they call • declamation: music, indeed, but very imperfect, since it is only regu- • lated by the uncertain judgement of the reciter's ear. This natural ، proof, which is as clear as it is true, joined to an infinite number of others which confirm it, discovers the error of those critics who have pofitively decided, that no part of the ancient drama was sung except the chorus.' ESTRATTO DELLA POETICA, page 52. Now after all, this only proves, or rather corroborates the truth of my conjecture, that, as when the voice is carried to an extent beyond its natural pitch, it will necessarily adopt some unnatural tone; so it is highly probable that recitation in the ancient theatres, whose size required an extraordinary extent of voice, and its consequence, an unnatural tone, might have that tone regulated by some instrumental accompaniment, which though so perfectly distinct from those parts, such as the choral odes, where mufic was employed, in the fullest sense of the word, as completely to justify the opposition in which they are placed to each other by Aristotle, might yet occafion those passages in the ancient writers, that are quoted. by Metaftafio in support of his hypothefis [x]. [x] The strongest argument of Metastasio is drawn from a passage of Ariftotle himself, Problem, Sect. xix. 49. where he describes the different kinds of music adapted to the actors, and the chorus. All the others are drawn from Roman writers, except one from Lucian de Saltatione, which is evidently intended to shew the absurdity of the musical accompaniment, in his time, which was, most probably, different from that of the Athenian stage in the time of Ariftotle; for while the blames this unnatural accompaniment, he expressly says, that the AN- CIENT POETS regulated the other decorations of the theatre as well as the mere words, a proof that the practice was changed; and Metastasio himself allows he is complaining of the effeminate music of the actors of his own time; therefore it not only invalidates the evidence of the Roman writers, but tends to overturn the general system of Metastafio, as to the merit of the musical drama.. The

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. The real motive of Metastasio's attachment to this hypothesis, it is sufficiently obvious, arose from his partiality to the opera, in which he was a most excellent writer, and which he wishes to shew was a lineal, and legitimate offspring, of the Greek tragedy, as most probably it was. The Roman theatre having turned the neceffary means of modulating the voice, in so large and open a room, into a real musical accompaniment, which the Italian theatre retained as an ornament after it ceased to be abfolutely requifite. But the fize of the modern theatre (v) is by no means such as to require any unnatural elevation of the voice. And as to the necessity of every person speaking in a tone, who addresses a public assembly, it certainly is not founded on fact. A member of parliament, who was to address the house of commons, or even his constituents, in any thing like a tone, or tune, would not be heard a moment. Indeed the substitution of modulated, for empassioned accent, or, in other words, the laying any emphafis of any kind, but what the sense, or rather the expreffion of the sense requires, is a certain unerring proof that the speaker is delivering what he has before committed to memory. I have heard many good preachers; but I never heard one who did not, in the course of a fermon, lay the [z] emphasis often on places contrary to the sense. I have heard (Y) I mean the theatres of this country, used for the representation of the regular drama. The theatres of Italy, especially those at Naples, Turin, and Milan, may require modulated recitation to fill them with propriety. [z] By emphasis here, I mean the distinction of words in a fentence, and not of fyllables in a word, which, I think, both Dr. Beattie and Mr. Nares have erroneoufly confounded with accent. For a further attempt to illustrate this subject, the reader is referred to note II. chap. xx. as

as many bad speakers in parliament; but I never heard one who was speaking on the subject in debate without premeditation, that ever placed the emphafis contrary to the sense he meant to convey; and in common conversation the emphasis was never yet laid improperly. As to the tone used by the venders of merchandize, we allow a kind of fong to the cryers of oysters and mackrel; but an auctioneer, who attempted to adopt one, would certainly be laughed at. And fince the days of Garrick [A], all unnatural declamation has been entirely banished from our theatres. The probability and excellence of the musical drama is also defended by Metastasio on another principle, with which, as a general rule, I perfectly agree, viz. That an imitator, who does not undertake to pro- • duce the exact truth, but only to give as great a likeness as possible to the • material that he employs, has perfectly fulfilled his promise, and attain- ' ed his end, when he has given it every thing of which his materials are 'capable-and that it is from ignorance of this nature of imitation, that' arises the contemptuous judgement of those, who treat the musical • drama as improbable, and absurd, because the actors die with a fong in ' their mouth; as if from its first origin, language measured and modu- •lated, was not the appropriated and indispensible material of every kind • of poetical imitation.' ESTRATTO DELLA POETICA, page 87, 88. [A] However much the public may be obliged to Mr. Garrick for this and other improvements of dramatic representation, we must lament his alteration of Drury-lane Theatre, which, from being the best calculated of any I was ever in to convey found, since the deepening of the front boxes, and first gallery, is so faulty in that respect, as almost to want the afsistance of the ancient mask. This defect is now radically removed by the pulling down the old theatre and I hope it will not exist in the magnificent one which is erecting on its fite. Now

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. Now though, as I have already faid, I perfectly allow the truth of this as a general principle; yet the last part of the quotation, taken in its strictest sense, is not true; neither does it follow, because in imitations made by the fine arts the material should appear, that every material is proper for every kind of imitation, or that some materials may not be fo inadequate, or so oppofite to the imitation of the object intended, as to be entirely incapable of producing any interest. For though difficulty overcome may, in some cafes, inhance the merit of imitation, as 'fculp- • ture in marble is more valuable than in wax, on account of the greater • difficulty of the execution (B);' yet no difficulty furmounted can ever compenfate for any radical inadequacy in the material to effect its proposed end. A statue of Glycon will excite the admiration of cultivated taste, even when well copied by the easiest process; but Atlas hewn into a statue, would only awake the wonder of the multitude. Even Metastafio could fee the force of this distinction when it favored an hypothefis of his own. For arguing against the ancient chorus, he blames the absurdity of a number of persons agreeing together in the same sentiments at once, and bursting forth in a general declaration of them. (Estratto, page 236.) Forgetting that this may also be solved, by saying these combined voices are only the means of imitation, and that there is no more real abfurdity in a [c] speech being accompanied by vocal than by instrumental performers. And again, in his note on this line of the epistle to the Pifos, Quæ canerent agerentque peruncti fæcibus ora.' [B] Estratto, page 344. [c] Many of the choral odes in the Greek tragedies are in the fingular number, as spoken by one person. As in the Edipus Tyrannus, v. 1105, beginning Είπερ ἐγὼ μάντις ἐιμί where

where he is defending against Sanadon the continued music of the Greek drama, he observes, that if the contrary were allowed, there would be found in the Greek tragedy, that disgustful medly [D] of speaking and ، ، finging, which is now hardly tolerated in the [E] comic opera, as being an extravagant deformity, invented by the mirth of scurrilous licentiousness, to excite the laugh of the vulgar.' In regard to the first instance, Metastafio, aware that what he urges against the fudden coincidence of sentiment and expreffion, in the perfons of the Greek chorus, might be urged with equal force against the chorus of the Italian opera, tries to qualify it by saying, it is natural for the stage to avail itself of the pleasure of a chorus, in a facrifice, or a triumph, where the people may be supposed to fing premeditated words, or, in a popular commotion, where they may naturally agree, on a fudden, in their thoughts and expression, as in calling for justice, vengeance, pity, war, or peace. Unluckily in this cafe the theory and the practice of Metastafio are at variance; for there is hardly a concluding chorus among his operas, that is not, to the full, as unlike the sudden coincidence of popular opinion, as the most moral ode of Sophocles. And as to the people's finging a premeditated chorus, what becomes then of the material of imitation? (F) From that instant, musical language ceases to be [D] See Mr. Twining's note 46, page 245, for a complete answer to the notion of this mixture being incompatible with the dignity of the Grecian tragic muse. [E] Metastasio does not mean the Italian comic opera which is accompanied throughout and is their regular comedy, but the French opera comique (which words he uses,) and which mode of compofition, copied from the French, has driven the scenes of Shakespear from our disgraced theatre, to found their fame on the inferior, though generous efforts of a fifter art. [F] There is a curious instance of this fort in LOVE IN A VILLAGE, when Justice Woodcock fings a fong, as a fong to his daughter's lover. There is an absurdity the reverse of this, though of

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. be the language of the characters, the deception is expressly disavowed, and the performer may as well, as Bottom advises the lion, 'come forward and fay, "I am no such thing, I am a man as other men are." And ' there indeed let him name his name, and tell them plainly, he is Snug ' the joiner.' What was the effect of the musical accompaniment on the ancient theatre, whether continued throughout the whole piece, or only used in parts of it, we can now hardly judge, as we scarcely know what it was. On the modern stage it feems to weaken the force of the interest, as I think no artificial modulation can ever equal the empaffioned notes of nature uttered by a good actor. In general, the pleasure we derive from the mufic, is rather our object in the Italian opera than the intereft of the scene. It appears, I confefs, to me, that blending music with empaffioned language [G], tends strongly to weaken the energy of both, and the only way to give each their full effect is to follow the precept of Ariftotle, and keep them ' diftinct in their respective parts [H].' of exactly the fame tendency, in Tancred and Sigismunda, where the letter from Tancred, which Sigifmunda reads, is in profe. In both these cafes the material of imitation is avowed. It is exactly as if the dialogue only of the Iliad, or the Paradife Loft, were in verse, and the connective parts, like the marginal directions of the drama, were in prose. If all the other characters of Love in a Village occafionally express their sentiments in musical airs, Justice Woodcock should not be an exception. If Tancred speaks in verse, he should not write in profe. [G] It must be remembered I am not speaking of lyric poetry, but confine my observations entirely to dramatic effect. [H] Aristotle, in his first chapter, make the diftinguishing character between the regular drama and the nomi and dithyrambic poetry, to confist in this circumstance, of the one species ufing music and poetry together throughout the piece, and the other in separate places. Thofe

Those writers who have particularly confidered the powers of mufic, its merit as an imitative art, and its influence over the passions [1], have been of opinion, that its principal force does not confist so much in exciting our feelings by imitation, as in the power it possesses of caufing fuch a temper of mind, as is fit to receive the impreffions intended to be made by the poet. If this is the cafe, the chorus [K] being an essential part of the ancient tragedy, could not poffibly have been disposed better than it was by the custom of the Grecian theatre, where the leading character of the group, or the Coryphæus, was confidered as one of the characters of the drama, and took a part in the action; while the whole body together were employed as a kind of musical ornament between the intervals of the action, keeping up, and heightening the force of the impreffion arifing from the incidents, by moral and pathetic reflections on their consequences, delivered in beautiful verse, and accompanied by mufic calculated to awaken congenial sensations in the mind. M. Leffing observes, [L] (Dramaturgie, vol. i. page 44,) that ' as the ' orchestre in our theatres, in fome degree, holds the fame place with ' the chorus of the ancients, the lovers of the drama have long wished, ' that the music which precedes the performance, and that which is ، played between the acts, should agree with the nature of the piece.' And he tells us, an attempt of this fort was made by a M. Scheibe, on the tragedies of Polyeucte, and Mithridate, and executed on several dif- [1] Particularly Mr. Harris, Dr. Beattie, and Mr. Twining. [K] See note IV. chap. XII. [L] Mr. Twining makes the fame observation. The performers,' he says, 'in the orchestra • of a modern theatre, are little, I believe, aware that they occupy the place, and may confider ' themselves as the lineal defcendants of the ancient chorus.' NOTE ON THE TRANSLATION, Part ii. Sect. xxi. page 103. ferent

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ferent theatres in the year 1736. The fame attempt, he says, was also made by M. Agricola, at Berlin, on the tragedy of Semiramis, and with complete success. I fear this experiment would hardly succeed on our theatre. It is, sometimes, very difficult for the lover of the drama to prevail on his neighbours, to suppress their conversation in the most interesting scenes of a tragedy; and I believe no musical power, lefs than that of Orpheus, could charm an English audience from the pleasure of talking between the acts. We fee, every day, the same persons, who, in the country, would pay half a guinea, and travel twenty miles in the dark, to fit in raptures, real or affected, at a concert, performed by a band, in every respect inferior to those which fill our theatrical orchestres, appear perfectly inattentive to the music at the play-houses, and who would think a person out of his senses, who should request their attention to any piece of mufie that should be performed between the acts of a play. Only one attempt, that I know of, (I cannot say of this kind, fince its tendency was directly oppofite,) has been made here, to introduce any thing, during the intervals of the representation, at all allusive to the incidents of the piece. This was in the tragedy of Zara, where, in the intervals, a humourous dialogue was to be sung by Mr. Beard and Mrs. Clive, commenting on, and ridiculing the incidents and sentiments of the preceding act. Of the success of this curious attempt, or whether the dialogue was ever performed, I am ignorant; but it is generally printed with the tragedy. Y NOTE

6.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-16 6.17

THE FABLE THEN IS THE CHIEF PART, AND, AS IT WERE, THE SOUL OF TRAGEDY.

THIS observation of Aristotle is undoubtedly founded on nature, and is not only applicable to tragedy, but to every other kind of imitative composition, whether dramatic or narrative. Perhaps there is no circumstance in which the tragedies of the present day are so deficient, as in the want of interesting action. This is, in a great measure, owing to the strict adherence to the French rule, of not fuffering the supposed time of action to exceed the real time of reprefentation. Dramatic poetry is, by this regulation, almost confined to the boundary of painting, and can only represent a fsingle scene of any great event. And this is attended by another inconvenience; for the allotted space of five acts becomes as much too great for that single scene, as the confined period of three hours would be too small for the whole action; and hence the poet is obliged to spin out his tragedy by means of the dialogue, and falls under the same [M] inconvenience as would attend a proper and complete dramatic fable, without episodic parts, if swelled to the fize of the epopee. The great defect in that [N] truly fublime poem, the Paradife Loft, is a want of interest in the fable; every character, except two, being fuper- [M] Poetic, Chap. xxvI. [N] See Beattie on Poetry and Music, Part i. Chap. iv. natural;

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. natural; and we can never be greatly interested in the distress, or profperity, of a person, into whose situation it is impossible for us to [o] put ourselves. Addison, who was determined to find every possible excellence in the Paradife Loft, though he could not help [P] seeing this defect in the fable, nevertheless makes the following remark. After observing that the Iliad and Æneid, from [Q] their national subjects, must have been respectively very interesting to the Greeks and Romans, he proceeds, • Milton's poem is admirable in this respect, since it is impossible for any of its readers, whatever nation, country, or people he may belong to, not to be related to the persons who are the principal actors in it.' Spectator, No. 273. Now, befides the mistake Addison appears to have made as to the effect of national fable, which seems to be rather the foothing the vanity of the reader, than the encrease of his interest in the action, one should hardly have supposed, that Addison could have been ignorant of the obvious truth, that every affection is exactly weakened in proportion to its becoming general. There is no distinction so great in civil life as that between a man and any other animal, and yet I never knew a perfon proud of this last distinction, though there is no elevation of rank so inconfiderable, as not to have awakened pride in some bofoms. [ο] Θόβος δὲ περὶ τὸν ὅμοιον. Poet. Ch. xiii. [P] Spectator, No. 357. [Q] It seems a national hero, in Addison's opinion, was a fine qua non, in the epopee; for he says, in his critique on Chevy Chace, Virgil's hero was the founder of Rome,' (was he?) › Homer's a prince of Greece, and for this reason Valerius Flaccus, and Statius, who were * both Romans, might be justly derided for having chosen the expedition of the golden fleece, ← and the wars of Thebes, for the subjects of their epic writings. SPECT. No. 70. Y 2 The

The fame thing happens to the other paffions. We are strongly affected by a tale of private distress, even if not extending to danger or death; but we read, [R] without any emotion, of In one great day, on Hockstet's fatal plain, • French and Bavarians, twenty thousand flain, Push'd through the Danube to the shores of Styx; Squadrons eighteen, battalions twenty-fix. PRIOR. An error of the opposite side, but arifing from the fame cause, appears in the last book of the English Garden. By making an affecting tale the principal object, the subject of the poem is thrown entirely into the back ground. The mind is so much more influenced by the imitation of human actions and manners, than by any the most beautiful description of inanimate nature, that when they coincide, if the former is not very much kept down, it will entirely destroy all our interest in the latter. The story of Eurydice, in the fourth Georgic, is like the sketch of a mythological incident, such as Niobe, for inftance, introduced into a landscape. But the pathetic tale of Nerina, and especially in the peculiar form in which Mr. Mason has introduced it, takes up our whole attention, and the embellishment of the English Garden becomes the mere scenery of the action. Who will regard the ornament of a temple who is looking at the flaughter of the innocents, or examine the perspective of an apartment, which contains a Beaufort expiring in the agonies of guilt and despair ? [R] This is admirably well illustrated by a story told in one of the numbers of the Adventurer. See also the Encyclopedie, Art. Illusion. NOTE

6.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-17 6.19

THE PROFESSED END OF TRAGEDY IS TO IMITATE AN ACTION; AND, CHIEFLY BY MEANS OF THAT ACTION, TO SHEW THE QUALITIES OF THE PERSONS ACTING.

PERHAPS there is not a stronger instance of the difference between manners introduced as secondary to the action, though arifing immediately, and necessarily, from it; and their holding the first place, than the novel of Tom Jones compared with Triftram Shandy. The masterly contrivance of the fable in the former, at once aftonishes and delights us; but though we may be struck with the high coloring of the other, we foon perceive it is laid on promiscuously; we are amused, but we are not interested, except in those parts where our paffions are engaged by incident, as well as awakened by quality; such as the admirable story of Le Fevre. I have often thought the [s] censure passed by Longinus on the Odyssey, when compared with the Iliad, arose from his misapprehenfion of this and another passage of Ariftotle; for one of the reasons he gives for introducing his unfavourable criticism on the Odyssey, he himself tells us, is to shew, how the greatest writers and poets, when their genius wants strength for the pathetic, naturally fall into description of man- [s] See note 1. chap. xxiv. • ners.'

ners [T]. Now it is true, Aristotle does characterise the Iliad as being simple and pathetic, the Odyssey as complicated and defcriptive of manners. (Poetic, Chap. XXIV.) But he obviously uses pathetic, as applied to the Iliad in the same sense with his definition of tragic pathos in the eleventh chapter; 'the exhibition of deaths, tortures, and wounds;' and not of that pathos which Longinus confiders as a species of the füblime. And to confider the two poems with regard to the passage before us, furely the Odyssey strictly fulfils the idea of Aristotle, in painting the manners through the fable. And though the Iliad, to use the language of the drama, may be fuller of bustle, [u] I cannot think the fable either so well constructed, or so interesting, as that of the Odyssey; and surely if there is only equal excellence in the first requifite, it can, at least, be no fault, to have superior excellence in that which is allowed to hold the second place.

6.5. mvp-aristotle-comment-18 6.28

THE DECORATIONS OF THE STAGE, THOUGH VERY INTERESTING, HAVE THE LEAST CONNECTION WITH THE POETIC ART.

NOTWITHSTANDING the vast size, and superb decorations of the ancient theatres, which were looked upon as a national concern, and kept up at the national expence, they were neither so natural, or so interesting, as those of the moderns. They had no change of scene; for what some critics have urged from a passage in the third Georgic, and [Τ] Δευτέρα δὲ ἕνεκα προσισορείσθω τὰ καλὰ τὴν Οδύσσειαν, ὅπως ἢ σοι γνώριμον, ὡς ἡ ἀπακμὴ τὸ πάθους ἐν τῷις μεγάλοις συἱγραφεῦσι κὶ ποιητᾶις ἐις ἦθος ἐκλύεθαι. Sect. ix. [U] See note Iv. chap. xxvi. the

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. the observation of Servius on it, in support of the contrary opinion, is certainly ill founded. [x] ' Or as the turning scene its aspect shifts.'- The note of Servius explains how this was done, either by the turning of a machine, for a representation of which the reader is referred to Dr. Warton's Virgil; or by drawing up and letting down curtains. But it appears from Vitruvius, L. v. that this change of scene was according to the different kind of drama, to each of which a particular scene was appropriated, that continued through the whole performance, and was always the fame in every performance of the same kind. The scenery of tragedy represented palaces, whose fronts were ornamented with columns and statues; comedy had the common houses and streets of a city; and the satyric scene was adorned by trees, cottages, rocks, and caves. As tragedy, therefore, was always confined to an area before a palace, and comedy to a street, those actions only could be represented with propriety, which might happen in the open air: this, however, was little additional restraint to tragedy, confined, as it was, by the continual prefence of the chorus; and comedy often broke through it, as may be shewn from many scenes of Ariftophanes. Indeed, I am inclined to think the decoration of the theatre was rather meant to imitate the scene of representation, than of action; and that the area before a palace, or public building, was confidered as a proper place for the exhibition of tragedy, authorised by the magiftrate, while a common ftreet was a likely place for the assembly of the voluntary [Y] performers of comedy; and [x] ' Vel scena ut versis difcedat frontibus.'- [Y] See what Ariftotle says, of the origin and progress of these two species of the drama, in chapters Iv and v. the

the fatyric pieces being less improved, and of inferior estimation, were confidered like comedy in its origin, as performed by village strollers, (See Poetic, Chap. 111.) On any other principle than this, (the stability of the scene, during the performance, being proved by the concurring testimony of all writers on the subject ;) a manifest absurdity must have attended many of the Greek tragedies, where the scene of action is apparently not laid in a town. Sophocles, who is called by Ariftotle the inventor of painted scenery, affords two striking instances of this kind. One in the Ajax, where Minerva says to Ulyffes, [z]' Now on the camp's remotest verge I find you, • Where Ajax' tents the Grecian navy guard.' The other in the Philoctetes, which begins, [A] ' And now we tread the unfrequented sands • Of defart Lemnos' fea-encircled shore.' It has already been observed in a [B] note on the fourth chapter, that the modern drama represented, is the most exact of any of the imitations effected by the arts; if, therefore, according to the hypothefis we have adopted, the illufion, as to objects disagreeable in themselves, was kept up too strongly, they would cease to please, and the practice of our theatre juftifies the remark. The actor does not avail himself of circumstances which are made use of by the dramatic painter with success. Our stage [B] Note 1. [Ζ] Κὰι νῦν ἐπὶ σκηναῖς σε ναυτικᾶις ὁρῶ Αἴαντος, ἔνθα τάξιν ἐσχάτην ἔχει. [Α] Ακλὴ μὲν ἤ δε τῆς περιῤῥύτον χθονός Λήμνε βροζοις ἄσειπζους ἐδ᾽ ὀικαμένη. is

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. is never stained with blood flowing from the wounds of the dying characters; for, as a very elegant critic observes, 'We ought to exclude those means of imitation which render it too frightfully and horribly true, as when blood is concealed in a bladder under the dress of an actor who ' is to appear to kill himself, and it overflows the theatre.' ENCYCLO- PEDIE, ART. ILLUSION, by M. Marmontel. That our theatre formerly adopted this practice, appears from a stage direction in Dryden's King Arthur, relating to the single combat between Arthur and Ofwald. It begins, 'They fight with sponges in ' their hands, dipt in blood; after some equal passes and clofing, they • both appear wounded.' I cannot quit this subject without paying the tribute of gratitude to the memory of Mr. Garrick, for the improvement he made in the general probability of representation, and particularly in the characteristic dresses of the British theatre. Before his time, or, rather, before his reformation of the stage, which was long subsequent to his being the chief ornament of it, all tragedies were performed in the modern dress, and even Cato used to strut over the stage in a tye wig; and, in fome instances, when this infringement of the coftumi was only partial, the abfurdity was only rendered more glaring. While Brutus and Caffius were in full trimmed coats, and tyes, Cæfar had a robe, a bob wig, and a laurel crown; and Falstaff was as much distinguished by his dress as by his humour, from the other persons of the drama. The reformation of this impropriety is become universal, and extends even to the provincial theatre. Z CHAP.

7.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-19 7.2

WHAT I MEAN BY ENTIRE IS, COMPREHENDING IN ITSELF A BEGINNING, A MIDDLE, AND AN END.

INNUMERABLE are the instances of errors as to all these points, in our dramatic writers. We have beginnings that require something to precede them, endings that do not conclude the story, and middles neither connected with one or the other. As to the beginning of a dramatic fable, it is almost impoffible that it can be included within the drama itself: as an event fufficiently great and interesting [A] to form a proper dramatic fable, can hardly be supposed to begin, and be completely finished, in the largest space of time allowed for the length of a tragic action. The greatest difficulty, therefore, that the poet labors under in this cafe, is to [B] open the fable to the audience by probable means; indeed [A] See note II, chap. VI. [B] I hear a sudden noife in the street, and run to fee what is the matter. An infurrec- ⚫tion has happened; a great multitude is brought together, and something very important is < going forward. The scene before me is the first thing that engages my attention, and is, in • itself, so interesting, that, for a moment or two, I look at it in filence and wonder. By and • by, when I get time for reflection, I begin to enquire into the cause of all this tumult, and ، what

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. deed I hardly know of any circumstance in which dramatic writers are so generally blameable. The (c) mode usually adopted by the ancients was very little better than the scheme of Bayes, to infinuate his plot into the boxes. The modern fashion is, either for the hero or heroine, to tell a long story to a confidential friend, which we can only be furprized was never done before, or else a company of statesmen, or officers, are difcovered as astonished at some particular event, or unusual order, which they are utterly unable to account for, till one of them, better informed and more communicative than the rest, discloses the whole fecret for the common edification of his friends and the audience. The advantage tragedy is supposed to have, and, indeed, certainly had among the ancients, over comedy, in this respect, is humorously defcribed in a fragment, either of Ariftophanes or Ariphanes, preserved by Athenæus, and quoted both by Mr. Twining and Mr. Winstanley, of which the following paraphraftic translation is attempted : [D] Happy the tragic bard, whose graver muse, Cautious, some tale of ancient fame pursues; Whofe < what it is the people would be at; and one, who is better informed than I, explains the af- < fair from the beginning, or, perhaps, I make this out for myself from the words and actions ' of the perfons concerned. This is a fort of picture of poetical arrangement both in epic and • dramatic compofition.' BEATTIE ON POETRY AND MUSIC, Part 1. Chap. v. [C] See note L. chapter XII. [D] -Μακάριον ἐσιν ἡ τραγωδιά Πόιημα καλὰ πανί. ἔιγε πρῶτον δι λόγοι Ὑπὸ τῶν θεαζῶν ἐίσιν ἐγνωρισμένοι Πρὶν καὶ τιν᾿ ἐιπῖιν, ὡς ὑπομνῆσαι μόνον Z2

。 Whose conduct to the listening audience known, Demands the aid of memory alone. Name Edipus, no farther we enquire; We know his crime, his offspring, and his fire. Pronounce Alcmæon, boys can tell the rest, How the fad maniac pierc'd a mother's breast. Not so, the vot'ries of the comic stage, New names, new facts, the wond'ring ear engage. All that precedes the opening of the scene, The various incidents that intervene The bard's creative fancy must supply, And clearly picture to the public eye.- His own the action, persons, manners, all, From the first opening, to the curtain's fall. In this, if Chremes, or if Pheido fail, A hiss of scorn rewards th' imperfect tale. Δει τὸν ποιηλὴν. Οιδίπεν γὰρ ἂν γε φῶ Τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα παν᾽ ἴσασιν. ὁ παλὴρ Λάϊος, Μήτηρ Ἰοκάση, θυγατέρες, πᾶιδες, τίνες, Τὶ πείσεθ᾽ δυλος, τὶ πεποίηκεν· ἂν πάλικ Ἔιπη τις Αλκμαίωνα, καὶ τὰ παιδία Παλ᾽ ἐυθὺς ἕυρηκεν, ὅτι μανῖις ἀπέκζονε Τὴν μητέρα. Ἡμῖν δὲ ταῦτ᾽ ἐκ ἕσιν, ἀλλὰ πάντα δεῖ Ευρεῖν ὀνόμαζα καινα, τὰ διωκημένα, Πρότερον, τὰ νῦν παρόνια, τὴν καζασροφῆν Τῆν ἐσβολήν. ἂν ἕν τι τέτων παραλίπη, Χρέμης τις, ἤ Φείδων τις ἐκσυρίτζεται, Πηλει δὲ ταῦτ᾽ ἔξεςι κς Τεύκρῳ ποιεῖν. While

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. While unreftrain'd by fuch coercive laws, Peleus and Teucer, win at once applaufe. The English reader, if he pleases, may substitute Richard and Henry, for Peleus and Teucer; and Belcour and Surface, for Chremes and Pheido. It must be acknowledged, there is not the same difference between tragedy and comedy on the modern stage, as few of our tragedies are now founded on known stories; and where the action and characters are the invention of the poet, they are exactly in the fame predicament with comedy. Even in those that are drawn, either from our own annals, or from popular tales, it is a very inartificial conduct in the poet to truft to the previous information of the spectators for their understanding the piece, fince every fable that is not perfect in itself must be faulty. Befides, it is very possible, as Ariftotle observes elfewhere, (ch. 1x.) that the most popular tale may not be familiar to all the audience. A defective middle, which requires nothing else either to precede or follow it, can only be applicable to fuch pieces, if any fuch there are, where the body of the incidents are episodic, and are not either the consequences of the opening, or the causes of the catastrophe of the fable. Perhaps, however, in those plays that are spun out after the solution of the plot is complete, such solution may properly be called a middle, that requires nothing to follow it. I must own, Edipus, notwithstanding the ingenious defence of [E] M. D'Aubignac, feems, to me, faulty in this respect. For if Aristotle's definition of an end, that, it requires nothing to follow it, be understood strictly, and not with relation to [E] See Mr. Twining's note. the

the particular fable only, there can be no such thing as a complete catastrophe, fince the completion [F] of one action may be a very proper and necessary beginning of another: and which is, indeed, the cafe of the Edipus Tyrannus, and Edipus Coloneus of Sophocles. But of this more presently. I think we find this premature catastrophe in the Merchant of Venice. The delivery of Antonio, and the punishment of Shylock, in the fourth act, completely end the interest of the play; and the last act can be confidered only as a kind of after-piece. Of abrupt conclusions, or catastrophes that require other subsequent circumstances to render them complete, Shakespear, like most of his contemporaries, can furnish several instances. For, as Dr. Johnfon remarks, in many of his plays, ' the latter part is evidently neglected. He remits his efforts where he should most vigorously exert them; ' and his catastrophe is improbably introduced, or imperfectly repre- ' fented.' I cannot, however, agree with the doctor, in imputing the fuppreffion of the dialogue between the ufurping duke and the hermit, in As You Like It, to any defire of the poet, to bring his piece to a hasty conclufion. Shakespear was too good a judge of human nature, to exert < his highest powers in exhibiting a moral lesson,' when his audience were in anxious expectation of an interesting catastrophe; and if he chose to bring this about by a circumstance so little probable as the conversion of a tyrant, we furely cannot blame him for throwing it as much as possible into the shade. I must, however, with Mr. Twining and Mr. Stevens, regret his forgetfulness of poor old Adam. I think [P] See Note IV. Chap. xxvi. the

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. i the fame thing has happened with regard to Poins, in the conclusion of the second part of Henry the Fourth. I shall not defend his moral character against the ingenious author of the Essay on the Dramatic Character of Falstaff; but he is certainly drawn as more of a gentleman than any of the other companions of the prince, with whom he is apparently a particular favorite, as well as I think he is with the poet. In [G] The Merry Wives of Windfor, the chief objection stated by Page to Fenton, (the fine gentleman of the play, and a man of honor,) is his having kept company with the wild prince and Poins, who does not appear in the play, though the other loofe companions of the prince are introduced, with ridicule and difgrace. The Iliad may be faid to fall under the error abovementioned, of being spun out after the catastrophe is compleated (H). Perhaps the Æneid, on the other hand, should have included the marriage of Æneas and Lavinia; for as it is now, it has all the appearance of being unfinished. No ending can be complete that does not entirely fatisfy us as to the final fituation of the principal characters, as far as it arifes from, or is connected with the incidents of the action. The Odyssey would be perfect in this respect if it ended with the twenty-third book. The last book seems superfluous; [G] I am furprized, that in the essay abovementioned, no notice is taken of this comedy. I allow the character of Falstaff is there greatly inferior to the original draught, in the two parts of Henry IV. but though it is a copy, it is still a copy done by the hand of the master himself, and from which his own opinion, as to the character he himself defigned, might be best afcertained; and I think that opinion would be in favor of the hypothefis there supported. In the important business of intriguing, many a brave man has taken a drubbing in disguife. See Note 1. Chap. xv. [H] See Note 1V. Chap. xxvI.

and has been, by many critics, supposed not genuine, but an addition by fome other hand, to make the number of books equal to those of the Iliad. An historical fable has, in this respect, a disadvantage, which is not incident to one entirely invented by the poet. For we are acquainted with fucceeding incidents which may counteract the pleasure we receive from the winding up of the action. This is not found in the unhappy catastrophe, which is generally fatal to the principal characters; but in an action which ends happily, our pleasure must be greatly abated when we know fome terrible disaster is to fucceed the temporary good fortune of the perfons, in whose actions we have been strongly interested. The catastrophe of the battle of Hexham has this defect; and I much doubt if an Athenian, that had just come from the representation of the Ulyffes wounded [1], would receive the fame pleasure that another perfon would, from the conclufion of the Odyffey. M. Leffing, in his Dramaturgie, makes a distinction between the apologue and the epic or dramatic fable, as to the conclufion. In the first, he says, the end is attained as foon as fome moral is enforced, and we trouble ourselves little about the characters afterwards. He applies this to the conclufion of one of Marmontel's tales, and a comedy taken from it, where he mentions the absurdity of calling those compofitions moral tales, and adds, ' unhappily I have never been able to discover their morality. But Les Contes Moreaux have no such pretenfion. They are not meant for tales, illustrating some moral truth, but tales, defcrip- [1] A tragedy, mentioned by Ariftotle, in Chap. XIV. founded, I imagine, on the story of his death from an accidental wound given him by his fon Telegonus. tive

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. tive of manners; and (K) are very improperly translated moral tales. Unluckily we have no adjective equivalent with the French word moral, unless we use [L] ethic; and I suppose the German has the fame deficiency; but, surely, the mistake might have been noticed in the French tranflation of M. Leffing, through the medium of which alone I am acquainted with that original and penetrating critic. What should we say of the absurdity of a poet, who, after finishing a fable completely, were to add a supplement, destroying the effect of the whole; and yet this M. Rousseau has done, in the sequel to Emilius, published among his posthumous works. As the Emilius is a kind of apologue, to inculcate a peculiar mode of education, such a conduct is like a child's taking great pains to build a house with cards, and then throwing it down again.

7.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-20 7.7

BEAUTY DEPENDS ON SIZE AS WELL AS SYMMETRY.

ARISTOTLE having, in his definition of tragedy, mentioned [M] the possessing a certain degree of magnitude as one of its essential requifites, now proceeds to explain what he means by magnitude. He first [K] See Andrews's anecdotes. I must acknowledge an error in this point, in my first edition of the Poetic, and my obligation to the Critical Review for remarking it. [L] Those works of Mr. Pope, which, in the earlier editions, were styled ethic epistles, have had their titles fince changed to moral epistles, though they certainly have more relation to manners than morals. [Μ] Μεγέθος ἐχούσης. Aa informs

informs us, that not only a just proportion of parts, but fize also, sufficient to give the eye a power of readily observing that proportion, is essential to beauty: and, as an illustration of this, he mentions a very small animal, (such, I suppose, as an infect,) where the parts are too minute to be observed. After this, left the hypothefis should be carried too far, and beauty should be fuppofsed to encrease always according to fize, he shews, that the fame defect will also arife from extreme magnitude, and the proportion of the parts will equally escape our observation. He then proceeds to apply this to dramatic action, which, he says, will encrease in beauty, according to its magnitude, provided it is not so large, but that the whole may easily be comprehended by the memory; that is, I conceive, that the connexion of the beginning, the middle, and the end, with each other, may be readily perceived and retained. And, left he should be misunderstood, and supposed to be speaking of the actual bulk of the tragedy, he says, in direct terms, that it is nothing to the purpose; for if from the practice of the theatre, the time of reprefentation, and, consequently, the bulk of the piece, should be exactly limited, it has nothing to do with the length of the dramatic fable, whose excellence encreases in proportion to its magnitude, provided it is not too large to be perfpicuous. After this explicit distinction between the time of representation, and the extent of the fable, and which seems to have been made, from a notion that they might be confounded, shall we still be told that Ariftotle directs they ought to be exactly regulated by each other? The general fondness of the Greeks for magnitude in their objects of beauty, is very striking in the examples here brought by Aristotle to illustrate his position. He can find in nature objects too small, but none too large; and he is obliged to have recourse

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. to an imaginary animal, several miles in length. As for the Greeks esteeming size, and even strength, as requisites to female beauty, the cause is not of very difficult investigation. In the ancient commonwealths, where there was no distinction between the foldier and the citizen; where civil authority could not be enjoyed without military service, nor military service performed without strength of body, the having a strong and vigorous offspring was the first, and, indeed, almost the only object in marriage; for wealth and rank were feldom attainable by matrimonial connections. Among modern nations, in general, these last are the only objects confidered in marriage [N]; and even in this country, where matches of inclination are more frequent, from our great intercourse with women, and their fuperior information and accomplishments, we are attached by a thousand means, which were perfectly unknown to the secluded beauties of Greece. A very elegant critic, it is true [o], says, that beautiful objects are • small.' But though under the word beauty here, (τὸ καλὸν) Ariftotle, undoubtedly, comprehends fublimity as well as beauty, I can by no means entirely agree with the hypothefis of Mr. Burke. Surely a woman of the largest size, justly and elegantly proportioned, with softness and delicacy of countenance, mildness of manner, and eyes ' expressive,' (to use Mr. Burke's own words) ‘of fuch gentle and amiable qualities, as correspond with the softness, smoothness, and delicacy of the outward [N] Anxious to match the generous steed, ، Where strength and swiftness mark the breed, • Regardless of his heir.' Marriage an Ode, anon. [o] Mr. Burke's Enquiry into the Origin of the Sublime and Beautiful, Part 111. fect. 111. Aa 2 ' form,'

' form,' may be more strictly called beautiful, even in the sense of Mr. Burke, than a little piquante brunette, whose lively eyes partake fomething of the δεινὸν, which he confiders as a cause of the fublime [P]. I do not mean that the fize should be extraordinary, any thing unnatural, whether large or small; any tendency to the dwarf, or the giant, can have no pretenfions to the merit (Q) of female beauty. Mr. Burke, indeed, makes the exception as to the dwarf. He says, ' should a per- • fon be found not above two or three feet high, supposing such a person to have all the parts of his (her) body of a delicacy suitable to fuch a size, and otherwife endued with the common qualities of other beau- • tiful bodies, I am pretty well convinced that a person of such a stature might be confidered as beautiful, MIGHT BE THE OBJECT OF LOVE.' It is to be remarked, that the example is a male; if it had been a female, or, being a male, if Mr. Burke had confulted the ladies, perhaps his conviction might not have been quite so strong, especially as to the last position. He adds, however; 'the only thing which could inter- ، pose to check our pleasure is, that such creatures, however formed, are unusual, and are often confidered as fomething monstrous.' ESSAY ON THE SUBLIME AND BEAUTIFUL, Part IV. SECT. XXIV. [P] In this cafe, however, it would not partake of the fublime; for though beauty may be compatible with large objects, fublimity is perfectly incompatible with small ones. [Q] See Note v. Chap. xxvI. CHAP.

8.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-21 8.1

THE UNITY OF A FABLE DOES NOT DEPEND UPON ITS RELATING TO ONE PERSON ONLY.

THIS by no means implies, that there is [A] no kind of unity in a tale which relates the actions of one perfon only; or, that there is not more uniformity in the works of a biographer than a general historian : though a certain degree of unity of action is necessary even in hiftory to render it perfect [B]. But that a greater degree of unity is necessary in a dramatic action, of which he is now treating, and even in the similar though more extended composition of the epopee. It therefore follows, that all works of fiction that assume an historic, rather than an epic form, are deficient in poetical arrangement. The instances he produces are loft. However, there is no deficiency of examples, both ancient and [A] See Hume's Essay on the Association of Ideas. [B] See Note 11. Chap. xxIIн. The following judicious observation of Mr. Gilpin, will elucidate the difference between the unity of poetry and history. It is, perhaps, ' one of the great errors in painting, (as, indeed, it is in all literary as well as picturesque ' compofition,) to be more attentive to the finishing of parts, than the production of a whole. • Whereas the master's great care should be, first to contrive a whole, and then to adapt the ، parts as artificially as he can. I speak of imaginary landscape: when he paints a real ' view, his management must be just the reverse. He has the parts given him; and he muft • form them into a whole as he can.' REMARKS ON FOREST SCENERY. modern,

modern, fuch as the (c) Cyropædia of Xenophon, the Achilleid of Statius, and Gil Blas [D]. Metastasio is of opinion, that Aristotle has carried the unity of poetic fable too far, when he says nothing can be esteemed a part of it, which cannot be taken away without deranging the whole. But he is obvioufly speaking here of the fimple tragic, and epic action, divested of all their epifodic and ornamental parts; just like the specimen he gives of the Iphigenia in Tauris, and the Odyssey, in the seventeenth chapter. One of the incidents of the Life of Ulyffes, which he mentions as omitted by Homer, ([E] except the reading proposed by Harles is adopted,) is introduced in detail, in the ninth book of the Odyssey; but it is only introduced, to use the words of Mr. Twining, digressively and incidentally, it makes ، no essential part of his general plan.' Aristotle, in another instance, has not [F] been accurate in marking the distinction between the plain fable, and the fable adorned with episodes. If this rule is applied to the inimitable comic epopees of Fielding, and especially to Tom Jones, how many of the essential parts will be found fo wonderfully connected, that even circumftances, apparently the most trifling, have consequences so interwoven with the plot, and fo conducive to the solution of it, that they cannot be taken away, or [c] The principal part, even of this work, is confined to the transactions of one campaign; and it is a doubt if it is fictitious. The facts are certainly altered and embellished; but this is too often the cafe with the ancient hiftorians. [D] See Beattie on Fable and Romance. [E] See Note [B] Chap. VIII. on the tranflation. [F] See Note [1] Chap. xxvI. on the tranflation. altered,

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. altered, without changing and injuring the whole composition. And yet there are many episodic parts, which, though highly ornamental, may be removed without at all interfering with the general effect of the action. (I [G] do not call the History of the Man of the Hill an episode; it is a separate tale.) That in all fictitious narrative, whose aim is to affect the paffions, the poetical arrangement is naturally and obviously preferable to the historical, may be fairly inferred, from the universal adoption of it by all the novel-writers, good and bad : a description of authors not very likely to be influenced in their choice by the rules of Aristotle. Indeed, the historic form, though it may succeed in humorous compofitions, is almost incompatible with a pathetic tale; fince to be interesting, the circumstances must be particularly related, which would either swell the work to an enormous size, or [H] break it so into parts, as must be difagreeable to every reader. For this reason the extent of the dramatic action is naturally more confined than the epic, both from the interest being stronger [1], and, consequently, its going more into detail, and the division of the fable into parts being more obvious, and on that account more disgusting to the spectator, and hence the unity of time, though not carried to the excess prescribed by the French critics, is a necessary confideration in the drama. Shakespear, it is true, reconciles us to the breach of it; but what modern poet would prefume to follow his example? [G] See Note 1. Chap. xxIII. [H] See Note 11. Chap. xxiv. [1] Note III. Chap. xxvi. CHAP.

9.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-22 9.2

IF THE WORK OF HERODOTUS WERE PUT INTO VERSE, IT WOULD BE NO LESS A SPECIES OF HISTORY IN VERSE THAN IT IS IN PROSE.

I ACKNOWLEDGE myself to have been one of the many translators, justly blamed by Mr. Twining, for neglecting the force of the expression Ἱςορία τις, a fort, or species of history, and which, in this edition, I have corrected from his observation, which I shall take the liberty of inserting. May we not infer from this expreffion [A], ' that if Ariftotle had been asked whether an epic compofition in profe, ' would be a poem or not, he would have allowed it to be wποίημα τι, a • kind of poem, as having the essence of poetry, invention and imitation ?' To this, however, he would probably have added, that it would only be an imperfect kind of poem, from wanting the ornament of verfification, as the work of Herodotus in verse would be only a spurious kind of history from possessing it. Metastasio has rendered this passage properly; (B) ' it would still ' continue, though in verse, a species of history, as it was in profe.' Yet in his observations, anxious to support the hypothefis he had [A] See Note III. Chap. 1. [B] ' Rimarreble come era in prosa, sempre una specie d'istoria, ancora in verfi.' advanced,

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. advanced, that poetry was, in any sense, incompatible with prose, and yet finding it impossible to avoid feeing the contrary doctrine was in some measure supported by Aristotle's assertion that it is the conftruction of the fable, and not of the verse, that diftinguishes the poet from the hiftorian, he runs into an unjustifiable refinement on the words and sense of the critic, and says he only means, that a person who writes on unpoetical subjects in verse, is not a good poet: just as we call a man that is awkward, dirty, and cowardly, no foldier, though enlisted, and receiving pay, and really a foldier in the legal and political sense of the word. The fallacy of this argument must strike every one in a variety of instances; and it is, befides, in direct oppofition to the doctrine of Ariftotle, since, on this supposition, verse is the essential requifite of poetry, and imitation only a quality. The sum of Ariftotle's reasoning on the subject, which is directly contrary to the idea of Metaftafio, seems to be this; • Whoever forms a fable, imitative of human ، actions, is a poet, a maker, an inventor. If his fable is ill conducted, ⚫ he is a bad poet. If he writes it in prose, he errs as to the proper material, or means of imitation. But if he forms no imitative fable, ' he is no poet.'

9.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-23 9.3

POETRY IS THEREFORE MORE PHILOSOPHICAL AND INSTRUC- TIVE THAN HISTORY.

LORD BACON, in his Treatise of the Advancement of Learning, has so good a comment on this passage, that I trust the reader will not be displeased with me for saving him the trouble of referring to it. вь The

[c] • The use of this feigned history hath been to give some shadow ' of fatisfaction to the mind of man in those points, wherein the nature ' of things doth deny it; the world being, in proportion, inferior to ' the foul; by reason whereof there is, agreeable to the spirit of man, " a more ample greatness, a more exact goodness, and a more absolute variety, than can be found in the nature of things. Therefore, because the acts or events of true history have not that magnitude which • satisfieth the mind of man, poesy feigneth acts and events greater, and ، more heroical: because true history propoundeth the successes and • issues of actions not so agreeable to the merits of virtue and vice, there- • fore poefy feigns them more just in retribution, and more according to • revealed providence: because true history representeth actions and events more ordinary, and less interchanged; therefore poesy endueth • them with more rareness, and more unexpected and alternative varia- ' tions: so as it appeareth that poesy serveth and conferreth to magnanimity, morality, and to delectation. And, therefore, it was ever ، thought to have some participation of divineness, because it doth raise ' and erect the mind, by fubmitting the shews of things to the defires ' of the mind; whereas reason doth buckle and bow the mind unto the nature of things.' [c] It must be owned, that an eminent writer of the present day, professes to be of the contrary opinion. The Cyropædia is vague and languid, the Anabasis circumstantial and animated; such is the eternal difference between fiction and truth.' DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, Chap. xxiv. Note 115. Some persons will, possibly, be inclined to doubt the infallibility as well as the eternity of this doctrine, and even the comparison that occafioned it; and may doubt whether this eternal distinction between truth and fiction would be easily difcoverable in a comparifon between Homer and Thucydides. We may, however, readily excuse Mr. Gibbon, for his partiality to a species of literature, in which he has shewn fo much excellence. NOTE

9.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-24 9.4

IN COMEDY, POETS FIRST FORM THE FABLE, AND THEN ADD ANY CASUAL NAMES.

WE have already been shewn, as the first distinction between history and poetry, that one describes the real actions of a particular person, the other fictitious, though probable events that are supposed to happen to an imaginary one. And fuch qualities are to be given to this imaginary person, as will best suit these events, and the part he takes in them; and these qualities are not only to be marked by the action and sentiments, but even the names given to the characters should be expressive of them. It seems, however, that having faid this, the critic recollected, that in tragedy the practice was different: for though the incidents, the manners, and the sentiments, were to be formed on general nature, the names were to be those of real historical persons. In comedy, however, he says, names expressive of the quality of the character are used. And, indeed, by this contrivance, the inconvenience attending comedy, mentioned in the fragment, quoted in Note 1. Chap. VII. is, in great measure, obviated. For if the quality of the tragic person is known as foon as his name is announced from recollection, the fame thing will happen in comedy, if such characteristic appellations are given as Pamphilus, or Parmeno, Dapperwit, or Wellbred. Steele, however, in the first number of his paper, called The Lover, intended as a kind of sequel to the Spectator, makes the following observation on this practice. • I shall shun also names significant of the person's • character of whom I talk; a trick used by playwrights, which I have Bb 2 long

، long thought no better a device than of underwriting the name of an • animal on a poft, which the painter conceived too delicately drawn to • be known by common eyes, or by his delineation of the limbs.' It is remarkable, than in this identical paper, an old bachelor is called Wildgoose; and, in the next, the supposed author of the work, the Lover, is named Marmaduke Myrtle. Indeed, the mixture of characteristic names with common ones, though very abfurd, is not unusual. In the Jealous Wife we meet with Mr. and Mrs. Oakly, Sir Harry Beagle, and Terence Ocutter: and, in its archetype Tom Jones, Allworthy stands alone among an hoft of common names. Another impropriety often attends characteriftic names in modern comedy, from the husband and wife having the fame name; in confequence of this a very quiet nobleman, in one of Congreve's comedies, is called Lord Touchwood; and this impropriety is still greater when the characters of the husband and wife are particularly contrafted as to their conduct to each other. Where is the propriety of Mrs. Bruin, and Mrs. Sneak, in the Mayor of Garrat? In Mr. Cumberland's Observer, there is a very well conducted and interesting fable, where the principal person, from his indolence of disposition, is called Ned Drowsy. This gentleman, like Cymon, is entirely altered by falling in love, and he becomes a very spirited and active young man. His name, therefore, ceafing to be expressive of his character, the poet is obliged to change it by an application to parliament. The introducing a kind of pun on the characteristic name given by the author, one should conceive the lowest effort of dulness to excite a laugh, and yet it is practised by respectable writers; as for example: in the Provoked Husband, Manly says to Sir Francis, O thou head of the wrong- ' heads.' Of all writers, Mr. Anstey has made the most happy use of characteristic names in the Bath Guide. They really contribute greatly to

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. to the humour of a poem, which draws it, besides, from a thousand different fources. On the Greek theatre, the comic scene, like the tragic, was always laid at home. Indeed, it could be laid no where else. They knew the manners of no other people. Terence adopted Athenian manners from Menander; and Moliere, in many of his pieces, from Terence. The whole interest of L'Etourdi turns on the purchase of a flave. Our older comedies are generally founded on foreign stories. The only comedy of Shakespear, where the scene is laid in England, (except the comic parts of his historical plays), is The Merry Wives of Windfor. The fame remark is, in general, applicable to Beaumont and Fletcher. A [D] Spanish story, with some English characters introduced, was, for a confiderable time, much the fashion here, and is still a favorite fubject for the musical drama. The regular comedy, at present, I believe, confines itself to domeftic fable and character, if not to domeftic scene; for, I believe, the comic muse has ventured to cross both the Indian and Atlantic Oceans, to visit our colonies. [D] I would recommend to those critics who think they can explain every passage in the ancient dramatic writers, to turn their thoughts to the following speech, in one of Dryden's comedies, which, to me, has always been perfectly unintelligible. It is in the Mock Astrologer, where a Spanish character, refusing to enter into a scheme as inconfiftent with his honor, an Englishman says to him, Nay, and you talk of honor; by your leave, Sir, I hate your Spanish honor ever since it spoiled our English plays WITH FACES ABOUT, AND < T'OTHER SIDE.' ، NOTE

9.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-25 9.5

IN TRAGEDY, THE NAMES OF PERSONS WHO HAVE REALLY EXISTED ARE RETAINED.

BESIDES the reason given by Aristotle for this, there was another very essential one on the Grecian stage. History, in the time of Sophocles and Euripides, was much confined. The Greeks confidered all nations but themselves as barbarians. A king of Scythia would have been confidered as an improper character for a tragic hero on their theatre; and to kings, and great public characters, the tragic muse of Greece was confined.

Reges atque tetrarchas HOR. • Omnia magna loquens.'- We, befides the private life tragedy, and the obfcure ages of antiquity, with which we may take what liberty we please, have an ample fource of domestic fiction in the Saxon heptarchy, where we may form imaginary Ofwalds and Edgars ufurpers, or kings of Mercia and Northumberland at our pleasure; but the history of the fabulous ages of Greece was the most popular of any. It was, indeed, confecrated as the origin of the national religion; and the introduction of a new hero, or demigod, would have been esteemed a fort of profanation. Admitting the rule, that public events, are the only proper objects of tragic imitation, the reasoning of Le Pere Brumoy is perfectly just. • It is not probable that events of such magnitude as those of tragedy, * events which can only happen in the palaces of kings, or the bosom • of

• of empires, should be absolutely unknown. If then, the poet invents • all his subject, even as far as the names, the mind of the spectators ' will revolt, all will appear incredible, and the piece will fail in its • effect for want of probability.

9.5. mvp-aristotle-comment-26 9.9

EVEN IF THE POEM IS FOUNDED ON REAL FACTS, THE AUTHOR MAY YET BE A POET; SINCE THERE IS NO REASON WHY MANY EVENTS THAT HAVE REALLY HAPPENED, MAY NOT BE CAPABLE OF THAT GENERAL PROBABILITY AND POSSIBILITY, FROM THE PROPER ARRANGEMENT OF WHICH HE MAY JUSTLY BE ESTEEMED A POET.

. TO explain this clearly, it will be necessary to go a little back. We have seen Aristotle has declared general and probable fiction, and not particular fact, to be the proper subject of poetry. But he is asked, is the falfhood of the action absolutely necessary? Can no real event have interest enough to form a tragedy, when most of the subjects of the Greek tragedies are taken from history? To this the critic answers, no doubt there are many real and particular events, that have all the general probability necessary for a poetic fable. Another objection immediately occurs. If the tragic writer only clothes facts, prepared to his hands, in ornamented language, how can he be esteemed a poet, wanting the efssential requisite of the poetical character, invention? To this he replies, there is no real event that has not fome circumftances connected with it, discordant with the [E] general emotions it is on the [E] See Note 1. Chap. VI. See also Note 11. Chap. xiv. and Note 1v. Chap. xvii. whole

whole calculated to excite. And real situations, the most congenial with tragic effect, are often capable of being heightened by additional touches of art; and the different parts may frequently be made more closely and naturally dependent on each other than they in fact are. To fupply these deficiencies, and to arrange all the incidents, so as to produce their fullest effect, is the office of the poet, and which, if well performed, fully entitles the author to that appellation [F]. The tragedy of Oroonoko is faid to be formed on a real fact. Nevertheless, as Southern has encreased the interest strongly, by heightening the circumstances, inventing pathetic situations, elevating the characters, and making Imoinda an European, he certainly is justly entitled to the character of poet. Many dramas are founded on fictitious narration, where one should imagine invention would have still less to add: but who will refuse the name of poet to the author of King Lear? [F] The connexion of events often escapes our observation in nature, for want of ◄ knowing the whole combination of the circumstances; in real facts we only fee an acci- ، ' dental concurrence of things; but the poet wishes to shew, in the texture of his work, an apparent and sensible connexion; so that if though he is really less true, he has more the • appearance of truth than the historian.' DIDEROT. NOTE

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. i

9.6. mvp-aristotle-comment-27 9.10

OF SIMPLE FABLES AND ACTIONS, THE EPISODIC ARE THE WORST.

I OWN I do not fee the impropriety of this obfervation, or of Dacier's explanation of it, in the light Mr. Twining does. It is obvious, that the fault of lengthening the fable, or rather the bulk of the piece, by episodes, was much more likely to be incident to a simple than a complicated action, and from the fimplicity of the action, more blameable as more obvious to the observation, and more likely to throw the principal action into the shade. Every difficulty would be obviated, if this paragraph were removed from the place where it now stands to the end of the next chapter. It would naturally follow the definition of the simple action, and its distinction from that which is complicated; whereas it is, in this place, little connected either with the preceding or the following paragraph: and besides, there seems an impropriety in pointing out a defect of the simple fable, before we are told what a simple fable is. But with the arrangement of the parts of this irregular work, I profess not to meddle. Cc NOTE

9.7. mvp-aristotle-comment-28 9.11

THOSE OBJECTS WILL BE PRINCIPALLY ATTAINED, IF THE EVENTS HAPPEN CONTRARY TO EXPECTATION, AND YET ARE CONSEQUENCES OF EACH OTHER.

WERE transposition my object, I should certainly detach also the paragraph, of which this is a part, to the end of the next chapter, of the concluding sentence of which it is a compleat illustration; shewing what ought to be attempted in the complicated action, as the fentence, noticed in the last obfervation, shews what ought to be avoided in the fimple action. But wherever it should be placed, the rule itself is strictly founded on truth and nature; and of which, more will be faid when we come to analyze the catastrophe of tragedy [G]. [G] See Note VII Chap. XIII. CHAP.

10.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-29 10.2

I CALL THAT A SIMPLE ACTION WHICH HAS THE TRANSITION OF FORTUNE, WITHOUT PERIPETIA OR DISCOVERY.

ARISTOTLE here plainly diftinguishes between the peripetía, (περιπέτεια), the fudden and unexpected revolution of fortune, which is peculiar to the complicated action, and the μετάβασις, or change from misery to happiness, or vice-versa, which is not only common to every species of tragedy, but to every affecting tale, whether dramatic or narrative, serious or comic. The first of these, the peripetía, as Mr. Twining justly observes, is not to be found in Othello; nor, I think, in Lear, as written by Shakespear, whose misfortunes go on in regular fucceffion from their first cause, his obstinacy and self-opinion. The change of fortune arifes from the alteration of the conduct of his daughters; but this cannot be called fudden or unexpected, since it is foreseen by all the perfons of the drama, except the old king. I believe modern dramas have oftener the fimple than the complicated action, as our tragic distresses arise more from manners and paffion, than incident. See Note III. CC 2 CHAP.

11.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-30 11.1

PERIPETI΄Α.

THE peripetía, according to the definition of Ariftotle, does not only mean a fudden and violent revolution of fortune, but a revolution brought about by means, apparently likely to produce a contrary effect. Of this revolution, from happiness to mifery, the Edipus, produced here as an example by Ariftotle, is the most perfect instance of any I know, ancient or modern; the expected means of his vindication affording the cleareft proof of his guilt. As for the contrary example, though we have the out-line of the story, the tragedy being loft, we are ignorant with what art the incidents were arranged, to produce the peripetía as described by the critic. On the modern theatre, the tragedy which ends unhappily, has seldom, if ever, a peripetía; for the tragedies of the present day begin with tears : the change of fortune which interests us in the course of the action, arifes from tranfient gleams of hope scattered through the piece, which deepen the succeeding distress that attends their disappointment, as in Venice Preferved, Douglas, and Tancred and Sigifmunda. In this last tragedy, Thomson, in compliance with custom introduces Sigifmunda deeply afflicted with prophetic, or if you will, imaginary horror, though she has the certain profpect of the possession of a throne with the man she loves, at the conclufion

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. i i conclufion of the first act. Indeed, if inftead of deriving the catastrophe from manners and paffion, and cutting the gordian knot at last by the fword of the dying Ofmond; the distress had turned entirely on the forgery of Tancred's confent to fulfil the king's will, and that circumftance had been the hinge on which the catastrophe had turned, instead of a fubordinate circumftance in the second act: the tragedy of Tancred and Sigifmunda would have furnished a complete instance of this species of peripetía. Another reason for the want of peripetía in our tragedies that end with distress, is affigned in the last note. Probability is not violated by the most extraordinary revolution of events, but a fudden change of paffions and manners is utterly improbable. Of the unexpected reverse of fortune, from evil to good, we have innumerable instances: the most striking I recollect, is in the fourth act of the Merchant of Venice. The deliverance of Antonio arifes from Portia, just in the moment he is expected to fuffer from her confirmation of the claim of Shylock.

11.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-31 11.4

THE DISCOVERY, AS THE NAME IMPLIES, IS A TRANSITION FROM IGNORANCE TO KNOWLEDGE.

THIS species of dramatic incident, [A] which, like the foregoing, and for the fame reason, is, among us, confined to tragedy with a happy [A] For further observations on the discovery, see note IV, chap. XIV, and notes on chap. XVI. paffim. catastrophe =

catastrophe and comedy, was a great favorite with our earlier writers, but is seldom used by modern poets; probably from the difficulty of continuing the disguise with probability as to the other persons of the drama; or in regard to the audience, without keeping a principal character, (for of such only can an interesting discovery confift,) too long in obscurity, and facrificing too much to a single surprising situation, which will lofe much of its effect after the first representation. Can any thing be more absolutely improbable than that a daughter should be disguised from her father, and a woman from her lover, by being in men's cloaths? [B] and yet this is the case of Rofalind in As You Like It, where, from Orlando's fictitious courtship of Rofalind, though in difguise, and from the likeness being observed, both by him [c] and the duke, the improbability is still rendered more striking. As to the disguising the principal character from the audience, it appears a useless refinement, and was seldom practised by the ancients. In Shakespear also, Rosalind, Imogen, Viola, Julia, the Duke in [B] There must have been a peculiar improbability attending this kind of disguise, on which fo many of the plays of Shakespear, and Beaumont and Fletcher turn, from all the female characters being performed by men, an offence against probability when in a female habit; but for a man, in his own cloaths, to act a beautiful princess (Imogen, for instance) is perfectly inconsistent with the least shadow of it. See note Iv.. chap. XIII. [C] DUKE SEN. ' I do remember in this shepherd boy • Some lively touches of my daughter's favour. ORLA. • My lord, the first time that I ever saw him, ، Methought he was a brother to your daughter.. • But, my good lord, this boy is foreft born.' Meafure

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. Measure for Measure, are all known to the spectators. Massei and Voltaire have chosen to conceal Eghistus from the theatre, as well as from his mother, in Merope; but in this they have not only deviated from the tragedy of Euripides [D] but destroyed the striking effect described by Plutarch, which was plainly derived from their relation to each other being known to the spectators. One of the best instances I know, of a principal character being concealed to the audience through the whole of the action, and yet taking his proper share in it, is in the Bondman of Maffinger. There is a very good instance of it also in the comedy of Seduction, by Mr. Holcroft.

11.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-32 11.5

THE DISCOVERY IS MOST BEAUTIFUL WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY THE PERIPETÍA.

DACIER has laid it down as a rule, that a discovery cannot be made the principal fubject of a drama; which is strongly combated by Metaftafio. Of this fanciful opinion of Dacier, which he derives from a passage in the preceding chapter, that very passage compared with this, is, in my idea, the clearest confutation; at least, as far as the fentence of Aristotle is decisive. He there says, the tranfition of fortune;' (ἡ μεθάβασις) that is, the change from happiness to misery, or the contrary, which must be the principal object, or the catastrophe of the fable, ⚫ in complicated actions, is effected by the means of peripetía, or disco- [D] See note IV. chap. XIV. very,

، very, or both; and he here says, that is preferable which is effected by the union of both; where the catastrophe arifes from the peripetía, caused by a discovery. In the Merope of Massei and Voltaire, the discovery is not accompanied by the peripetía. On the contrary, the distress is confiderably encreased by it: I doubt much if such was the arrangement of the Crefphontes of Euripides.

11.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-33 11.9

THE PATHOS, IS THAT PART OF THE ACTION WHICH IS EITHER FATAL OR PAINFUL; SUCH AS DEATHS EXHIBITED ON THE STAGE, OR TORTURES, OR WOUNDS, OR OTHER THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

FROM this definition of the pathos, it is manifest that the rule, fo much infifted on by the French critics, never to stain the theatre with blood, (de ne pas enfanglanter le theatre,) is neither derived from the school of Ariftotle, nor the practice of the Greek tragedians. It seems to have arifen from a precept of Horace, as I think, ill understood, [E] • Nec pueros coram populo Medea trucidet.' It is to the improbability, not the cruelty, that Horace objects. [F] 'INCREDULUS odi.' [E] 'Nor let Medea, in the people's fight, < Her infants murder.'- [F] Almost every tranflator gives this as the sense, 'It is both incredible and disgusting, but the literal meaning is, 'It disgusts because it is incredible.' Not, I hate to fee, and never can believe.' But, 'Not believing, I deteft to fee.' RoscoM. I do

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. I do not conceive 'coram populo' to allude to the spectators, but the chorus. This will be illustrated by comparing the management of Euripides with that of Seneca in this identical instance. In Euripides, Medea kills her children behind the scenes, and the chief person of the chorus naturally exclaims, [G] The house I'll enter, and attempt to save • The children from destruction.' In [H] Seneca, Medea kills one of her children in the prefence of the chorus, without their making any observations on it; and on the entry of Jason she snatches the other up into her chariot, and deliberately [1] [G] Παρέλθω δόμους, αρῆξαι φόνον Δοκει μὸι τέχνοις. murders [H] As Seneca was subsequent to Horace, it could not be his play that Horace means to censure: but, probably, Seneca borrowed his arrangement of the catastrophe from fome other Greek tragedy, or from the Medea of Ennius. [1] Perhaps from the perpetration of this shocking crime, the strongest possible proof may be drawn of the force of custom over the most powerful feelings of nature. The deftruction of children, by their parents was so common at Athens, that, if we may judge of Menander, by Terence, even on the comic stage, the question, whether a child shall be reared or expofed, was treated as a common domestic confideration. An author, well acquainted with human life, though not inclinable to fee it on the faireft fide, has fome just observations on the commiffion of this crime in modern times, which he imputes to the fear of shame and disgrace, and their inevitable attendant, ruin and want, overcoming natural affection. (Fable of the Bees, Remark C.) How far, in a state of civil fociety, it is justifiable to place a person in the cruel alternative, of chusing either a shameful death or a life of infamy, I shall not attempt to determine. But of this cruel alternative, the makers of law can have no idea. The father and mother, whose happiness depends on a favourite child, and who watch over its fafety with an anxiety hardly to be conceived, cannot enter into the fenfations of a wretch, who knows her new-born infant is her greatest enemy, the destroyer Dd of

murders it in the face of the chorus and all the surviving persons of the drama. Of such an arrangement, the critic may well fay, ، Quodcunque oftendis mihi SIC incredulus odi.' The Bishop of Worcester, in his note on this verse, is of the same opinion as to the impropriety with which Seneca has conducted his play, and quotes a passage from Quintilian, to shew that the Medea of Ovid • had fome of the vices here charged on Seneca.' • The Medea of Ovid," he says, ' feems to me, to shew how much that writer could have excel- • led, if he had chosen rather to moderate his genius than indulge it [к]." It must be observed, that though Quintilian MAY mean to speak of the inequality of this tragedy, it appears more likely, that he compares this tragedy with his other works. For if he only speaks of the fertility of his genius, and his intemperance in the general indulgence of it, while particular parts shew his power of regulating it, it is equally applicable to all his works. Apply the passage to Dryden, and let the exception be his ode on Cecilia's day, and observe if there would be any impropriety in using the exact words of Quintilian. of all her hopes, the author of her utter ruin. The same woman who, in this situation, may have acted the part of Medea, might be capable, in a happier situation, to have facrificed her life to save her infant. Justice, perhaps, however, must punish deliberate acts of this kind when, like other crimes, clearly proved; but to make a defire to escape shame, a proof of murder, is a law that would have disgraced the code of Draco. See 21 Jac. I. ch. 27. which makes the concealment of the child's death almost conclusive evidence of its being murdered by the mother. [K] Ovidii Medea, videtur mihi oftendere, quantum vir ille præftare potuit, si ingenio • suo temperare quam indulgere, maluiffet.' It

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. It is curious to observe, as a proof of candid criticism, how an ingenious man will contrive to bend an ancient writer to support his own hypothesis. Bossu, in his Essay on the Epopee, L. II. page 258. says, • Horace orders, even in tragedy, that incidents, too marvellous, such • as the change of Progne into a bird, or Cadmus into a ferpent, should • be kept from the view of the spectators.' Not mentioning a word of Medea, and even omitting the line in question, in a quotation of the passage at the bottom of the page. But in the fame book of his work, page 282, he says, ' certain actions are unfit for representation, either • from being too horrible, as a mother who kills her own children, or • the change of a human creature into a bird or a ferpent.' And here he quotes the passage of Horace entire. How little the Grecian stage was accustomed to this delicacy of the French, a perusal of its tragedies will fufficiently shew [L]. The exhibition of a dead body appears to have been a favorite spectacle with the Athenians. The death of Ajax has always been confidered as an instance of a character killing himself on the stage. But this has been lately combated by the Abbé Barthelemi in his Travels of the younger Anacharfis [M]. Several modern critics,' he says, 'have imagined, that in the tragedy • of Sophocles, Ajax kills himself with his sword, in the prefence of the spectators. They bring the authority of the scholiaft, who observes, [L] And these are now open to the English reader, through the elegant and liberal, yet accurate translations, of Mr. Potter and Mr. Francklin. [M] See his note, chap. LXXI, ' fur le lieu de la scene ou Ajax se tuoit,' Dd 2 ' that

書 A COMMENTARY ON THE ⚫ that the characters seldom kill themselves on the stage (N). I think ' that the rule has not been violated in the present instance. To fatisfy ، ، ، ، ، us of this, it is only neceffary to follow the thread of the action. ، The chorus being informed that Ajax was not in his tent [o] go out on both fides of the theatre to feek him, and bring him back [P]. The • hero appears again on the stage, and, after an affecting soliloquy, he throws himself on the point of a sword, whose hilt he had previously fixed in the ground [2]. The chorus return [R], and while they are complaining of the ill success of their search, they hear the cries of Tecmessa, who had found the body of her husband [s], and they advance to see the dreadful spectacle (T). It is not therefore on the stage that Ajax kills himself.' I do not know if I am influenced by a partiality to my own opinion, but I think the circumftances mentioned by M. Barthelemi, as the support of his hypothefis, are a confirmation of mine. And that Sophocles, meaning to exhibit the death of Ajax on the fstage, was obliged to violate a fundamental rule of the Grecian drama, and send off the chorus merely to avoid the improbability of such an act being performed, coram populo;' before the people of Salamis, who formed the chorus. To obviate, however, the charge of prejudice, either in favor of my own opinion or the custom of the British theatre, whose blood and blank [N] Schol. Sophoc. in Ajac. v. 826.' [o] Ajac. Soph. v. 805.' [P] Ibid. v. 824.' [Q] 'Ibid. v. 826.' [R] Ibid. v. 877. [s] Ibid. v. 900.' [T] 'Ibid. v. 924, 1022. verse

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. verse has been proverbially censured by some delicate critics, I shall appeal to the judgement of a writer who must be impartial, Metaftafio; a poet in a species of the drama, whose delicacy is even more faftidious in this than the French, and which does not allow the unhappy catastrophe. Though he does not himself approve the introduction of fuch spectacles, he cannot shut his eyes to their appearance on the Greek theatre. Among many other examples of their not adhering to the imaginary rule, 'di non infanguinar la scena,' he cites the incident before us. • Is not the stage stained with blood, when Ajax throws him- • self on a drawn sword, with the hilt fixed in the ground for that pur- ، pose? Let the critics torment themselves as much as they please, to prove that Ajax does not kill himself in the fight of the audience, they can never absolutely deny that long scenes pass, after the blow, round • his body, transfixed and visible, fince his wife Tecmessa, his brother Teucer, and all the chorus, lament over it, cover it, uncover it, and ' lift it from the ground, to which it had, in a manner, been nailed, and ' from which place it could not have before been moved, and the visible ، place of representation always continues the fame.' If Ajax does not kill himself on the stage, he must be supposed to speak his dying foliloquy behind the scene. But a confideration of the form of the ancient theatre will, I think, reconcile every apparent contradiction. We are told by Julius Pollux, that the entrance of the principal character was always from the front of the stage, which, in tragedy, [u] was the portico of a palace, while the inferior characters entered or went [u] See note v, chap. vi. out

out on the fides, not, I prefume, at right angles with the front scene as on the modern theatre, but diagonally. For in comedy, where the scene represented streets, characters frequently are produced as seen by the spectators, though not by each other (x). A thing often attempted on the modern stage, but always, from the shape of our theatre, attended with some degree of improbability. Now Ajax had fixed his sword, we will suppose, under the portico, nearly at the bottom of the stage; and, after his last speech, threw himself on it in full view of the audience; the chorus returning from each fide could not fee either the body, or Tecmessa, who, entering from the front, must necessarily find the body, round which, all the circumstances mentioned by Metastasio take place in view of the audience; or, otherwife, all must pass behind the scene, that is faid by Teucer, Tecmessa, and the chorus, from the falling on the sword, ver. 876, till the entrance of Menelaus, v. 1066, who forbids their moving the body, just, it seems, as they are going to take it up; and, particularly, orders them to let it remain as it is [v]. Whether this practice of killing on the stage, which was carried to such excess by our old writers, but which is now used with greater moderation, is really a beauty or a fault, is another question. The fud- [x] Mr. Saunders, in his Treatise on Theatres, page 70, speaking of the theatre at Imola, proposes a plan for obviating this disadvantage on the modern stage. It would be injustice to mention this work without acknowledging the information, as well as amusement, I have received from the perusal of it. [1] Οῦτος σὲ φωνῶ τόνδε τὸν νεκρὸν χεροῖν Μὴ συνκομιζεῖν, αλλ' ΕΑΝ ΟΠΩΣ ΕΧΕΙ. den,

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. den, and sometimes, unexpected blow, as when Othello kills himself, or as when Euphrasia stabs Dionyfius in the Grecian Daughter, has, certainly, a very fine theatrical effect; and the dying agonies of a Siddons, or a Garrick, were truly affecting. But a stage, heaped with dead bodies, panting from the exertion of the preceding scene, is likely to excite other emotions than those of pity and terror. I should imagine the general stabbing scene, in [z] Titus Andronicus, if represented, would hardly be less risible than the catastrophe of Tom Thumb. [z] It has often been a subject of wonder, how this monftrous farce has held its place in all the editions of Shakespear. I cannot think he wrote a line in it, though if, as Theobald fuggefts, it appeared before Shakespear wrote for the stage, two verses in it pleased him so well, that he has twice closely imitated them. • She is a woman, therefore may be woo'd; • She is a woman, therefore may be won.' T. ANDRON. • She's beautiful, and therefore to be woo'd; She is a woman, therefore to be won.' Ift Part HEN. VI. ، Was ever woman in this humour woo'd? Was ever woman in this humour won?" RICHARD III. CHAP.

12.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-34 12.4

THE PROLOGUE.

THE prologue of the ancient tragedy was a very different thing from that which goes under its name on the modern stage. It was, in fact, the opening of the piece. We have already mentioned how awkwardly this is often managed with us, and how inartificially by the Greeks [A]. Generally one of the characters, sometimes a god, and sometimes a ghost, as that of Polydore in Hecuba [B] relates to the audience (not to the fictitious dramatic audience, for the first entry of the chorus was usually with the parode, [c] but directly to the spectators) all the preceding circumstances necessary to let them into the story of the drama. [A] Note I, chapter VII. [B] This practice of the Greek tragedies is ridiculed with some humour, in a parody by Lloyd, on the opening of the Electra. I a gentleman did wed, › The lady I would never bed, • Great Agamemnon's royal daughter, • Who coming hither to draw water.' [c] Mr. Warton forgot this circumstance, when he blamed Milton for opening Comus by a foliloquy spoken in a forest. See Mr. Twining's note on the word parode. Difficult

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. Difficult as the task is to open a drama well, like other difficulties the greater glory attends its being overcome, as it has often been by our good dramatic writers. Milton has opened both his dramatic poems in the ancient manner, and among the subjects suited to the drama of which he has left short sketches, he proposes that the tragedy of Macbeth should be opened by Duncan's ghost. Milton did not prefer this mode from any deficiency, or, at least, any distrust in his powers, but from his ftrong partiality to the ancients. How he would have fucceeded, had he chosen the more natural, though difficult mode of the moderns it is impoffible to say; we can only observe, that the fame person has never yet excelled in the drama and the epopee, congenial as they appear to be [D]. It is certainly lucky for his poetical character that he did not enter the lifts with Shakespear in Macbeth, according to the method he has proposed. That Milton, great as his poetical merit is, could have ever fucceeded in competition with that prodigy of human genius in any thing except learning and correctness I can hardly believe; but I am fure the claffic ghost of Duncan would have started, like a guilty thing,' amid the gothic machinery of Shakespear. It is something curious to trace the progreffion of the fame attending this father of our drama. In his own time he appears to have been a univerfal favorite. Indeed he could not have been otherwise. His faults were all committed to comply with the taste of the age when he wrote, and his beauties are such as must delight every age, and every taste for whom the beauties of truth and nature, unadorned by meretricious ornament, have charms. Both his merits and his defects therefore were popular, though probably the last most. He did not however escape [D] See the concluding note of this work. Ee the

the envy of his rivals. Beaumont and Fletcher, whose excellencies are so far inferior, and whose farcical irregularities are so much more glaring, (for there is no incident in Shakespear so absurd as the arming [E] Demetrius. Poliorcetes with a pistol,) and whose indecencies are so disgusting, have more than once levelled a fatiric blow at his fame. And Jonson, the pedantic Jonson, has sometimes censured him obliquely, and sometimes praised him fuperciliously, not as a writer by any means equal to himself, or likely to become his rival in dramatic fame; but in the way a Cramer, or a Haydn, might be supposed to speak of a wonderful musical ruftic, who, without musical education, was able to bring some wild founds out of a violin. Something in the same manner he is spoken of by Milton. But there is a heavier charge against Him in regard to Shakespear. In his Eiconoclastes there is a passage • That fullies even his brightest lays, • And blasts the vernal bloom of half his bays.' Like all other cenfure of the fame kind it misses the intended mark, and recoils on the author; and we are not inclined to think the worse of the unfortunate and misguided Charles because, we are told that Mr. William Shakespear was the closet companion of his folitudes. As the age improved in false refinement, and the opinion of the French critics prevailed, Shakespear became more out of fashion with those who affected polite literature, and to be admirers of the ancients, till Rhymer, and the superficial and pedantic Shaftsbury, at last boldly stept forth and [B] In the humourous Lieutenant.. See note 1, chap. xxiv. condemned

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. condemned him and his works to oblivion. Still, however, this doctrine was too refined for the people, it was caviar to the million, and Shakespear was yet popular. The theatre, to please both the learned and the unlearned, got the plays of Shakespear cut down as much as poffible to the Grecian, or rather the modern fashion, and the stage was glutted with alterations of the plays of Shakespear. At length English criticism grew too strong for French support, and ventured to walk alone. From that moment Shakespear has boasted an encreasing fame; and at this time, when the classics are more universally studied and really understood here, than in any other age or nation, when they are criticised without prejudice, and admired without pedantry, his works are as much idolized by his countrymen, as the poems of Homer were in the time of Aristotle. At present, however, the dramas of Shakespear are more known in the closet than on the theatre. (F) Our dramatic taste seems to have [F] Perhaps this may be accounted for, in great measure, from our want of capital actors, I mean in tragedy; we have many excellent comedians. The power of representing the characters of Shakespear fell with Garrick. From the same source we may derive the prevalence of the musical drama; we have fingers though we have not actors. But that we are not insensible to the excellence of acting when we meet with it, is obvious from the reception of Mrs. Siddons. Strong as the tafte for the musical drama is at present, no finger that ever yet came from Italy could support herself on the stage, through successive seasons, as that unrivalled tragic actress has done, even with better afsistance than those who have acted with her. She alone acted, for several winters, against the opera, and what is still more, against the fashionable hours of the metropolis, and always to crouded houses. 'The degree in which she singly interested the public in the tragic scene, is a circumstance creditable to the English taste. But the dramas of Shakespear cannot be supported by an actress however excellent. Women's characters written for boys to act, can never afford fufficient exercise for the foul-subduing powers of Mrs. Siddons. Ee 2 funk

funk with Garrick. The musical drama has ufurped the province both of Thalia and Melpomene; and we have lately seen one of his most entertaining plays exhibited on the stage as an opera. What would the haughty Jonson have thought of the prophet who had told him that in an age of learning, the works of Shakespear would be in universal estimation, while his own were hardly talked of, and never read. I cannot think even that Milton could eafily have imagined that among a people well versed in polite and classic literature, the [G] stuff of Mr. William Shakespear would be preferred to Comus and the Sampfon Agonistes. The genius of Garrick seems to have been particularly calculated to introduce Shakespear on the stage. He knew how to alter him so as to fit him for the audience of the present day without divesting him of any of his excellencies, and the few additions he has ventured are in the spirit of the original. These plays so altered are likely to keep poffeffion of the theatre, while every other attempt at change and improvement are forgotten, except Cibber's Richard III. and Tate's Lear, which, with fome correction of Mr. Garrick, are still acted, though the alteration of the last is directly in oppofition to the precepts of the Stagirite and Mr. Addison [H]. Cibber, though versed in the province of the drama, (which is, perhaps essential to make a good dramatic writer, fince the knowledge of stage effect is of great confequence,) poffefssed a genius not above [G] 'Other stuff of this fort may be read throughout the tragedy.' (Richard the Third.) [H] See note VII, chap. XIII. EICONOCLASTES. medi-

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. mediocrity; and Tate was a very indifferent poet. Yet there is a line in Cibber's Richard, written by himself so characteristic of the manner of his archetype that I have often heard it cited as one of Shakespear's beauties. I mean the exclamation of Richard on Buckingham' sbeing taken, • Off with his head! So much for Buckingham.' And I heard Lord Chatham (then Mr. Pitt) quote the following verse of Tate in the House of Commons; undoubtedly taking it for Shakespear's, • Where the gor'd battle bleeds in every vein.' To return from this long digression to the immediate object of the note. The modern prologue seems to derive its origin immediately from the Roman Comedy. The prologues of Terence are very much like those of the present day, alluding to such temporary subjects as relate to the drama, and containing a kind of apology for the new piece. We are not certain whether this practice of the Romans was copied from the comic theatre of Athens, as we have only fragments of their middle and new comedy, but from the known resemblance of Terence to Menander we have reason to suppose it was.

12.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-35 12.5

THE EPISODE, OR ACT.

THIS part of the drama comprehends every thing contained between the odes of the chorus. That is in fact all the piece except the prologue, which precedes the first ode; and the exode, which succeeds、 the last. The intervals of the representation, and confequently the number

number of acts, depend on the number of these odes, which is different in different tragedies, and varies from three to seven. It is impoffible to read a Greek tragedy, without seeing the abfurdity of those critics who have tried to reduce all those dramas to five acts in obedience to the EX POST FACTO law of Horace. • Neve minor, neu fit quinto productior actu 'Fabula.'

• Let not your play have fewer acts than five, Nor more.' COLMAN. Metastafio observes on this subject that ' in Horace's time the • Romans were accustomed to five acts, and to four rests or intervals. • And Horace very reasonably supposed that a poet would hazard the • success of his drama, however perfect, if he tried to bring the audience ، ، to a custom different from that which prevailed in the public theatres at the time when he wrote. If Horace had written his Art of Poetry forty years before, he would probably have recommended the divi- • fion of the drama into three acts, for the fame reason that forty years • after he advised it to be made in five. For in an epistle of Cicero to his brother Quintus it appears evident that the public dramas were ⚫ then commonly divided into three, and not five acts. [1] " Before I con- [1] Illud te ad extremum et oro et hortor ut tanquam poetæ boni et actores industrii < folent, fic tu in extremâ parte et conclusione muneris ac negotii tui, diligentiffimus fis; ut ' hic tertius annus imperii tui, tanquam tertius actus, perfectissimus & ornatiffimus videatur.' CIC. EP. AD QUINT. FRUT. L. I. EP. I. IN FINE. Perhaps, however it may not be difficult to reconcile this passage of Tully with the rule of Horace if we look to the Latin tragedies. Those of Seneca have each four choral odes, dividing the piece into five acts. And yet, according to the pofition of Aristotle, as those only

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. " I conclude, I beg and exhort you, that after the example of good " poets, and industrious actors, you would be particularly diligent in the " latter part and conclufion of your office and employment, that this " third year of your command, like the third act of a drama, may ap- " pear most perfect and splendid." ESTRATTO DELLA POETICA, page 245. The fame would be the reason why an English, and an Italian critic would give different advice on this head. And the propriety of fuch a distinction has been justified by experience in both instances. Metastasio tells us, an attempt was made to introduce the five act drama on the Italian stage, which was obliged to be dropped from the cold reception it met with on account of its novelty; and some years ago a trial was made of the drama of three acts on our stage with no better success. Hecuba and the Desart Island barely stood their nine nights. The Way to Keep Him still remains, (and very deservedly,) a popular comedy, but with the addition of two acts. That this proceeds from a dislike to innovation, and not from any intrinfic merit in the rule of Horace, appears from our having no objection to it in the comic opera, where it is authorised by custom. I must confefs the space of three acts seems quite sufficient for the single circumstance of an action which is the proper object of dramatic only are efteemed acts, or episodes, that are included between the fongs of the chorus, the second, third, and fourth, could only have properly that appellation, the first being the prologue, and the last the exode. Horace, therefore, speaks according to the mode of the Roman theatre, while Tully adopts the division of the Greeks. imitation.

imitation. The obligation laid on the poet to protract his piece to five acts occafioned our earlier poets to have recourse to the double plot; and the modern tragedy which confines itself to one action, from its length partakes something of the (K) watery quality which Aristotle tells us would attend a fimple dramatic fable, if drawn to the length of the epopee. Besides, the division of the fable into three parts, a middle, a beginning, and an end, which Aristotle [L] has defined to be necessary to constitute an entire action, naturally suggests such a division of the drama which is to imitate an entire action. To use the words of an ingenious writer, • The first act, or beginning will fix the spectator's ' attention by opening the plot, and raifing his attention. The fecond, or middle will further continue his perplexity till he is utterly at a • loss to conceive how the piece will terminate. And the third, or end • will relieve him from his embarrafssment and agreeable anxiety after it is carried to the utmost, by an unexpected, yet natural cataftrophe [M].' We are not only indebted to the Latin crítics for the division of the drama into acts, but for the fubdivision of those acts into scenes. As the act was determined by the ode of the chorus in tragedy, and the vacancy of the stage in comedy [N], so the end of the scene was marked by [κ] ὑδαρῆ. Poetic, Chap. xxvI. [L] Poetic, Chap. VII. [M] Letters of Literature, Letter xxI. [N] The division of scenes in Shakespear is marked by their actual change. When the pedantry of the self-named scholars of Ariftotle first took poffeffion of our stage, one of the rules

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. by the entrance, or exit of a character; and this they expressed by naming all the characters at the beginning of the first scene of the first act who were then on the stage; and when a person either entered or went out repeating the names with the addition or omiffion of that person [o]. All this the modern theatre obviates, by fimply marking the entrance and departure of the characters. Till very lately, new plays were always on their first publication printed in the Latin mode. At length however good sense prevailed over pedantry, and we have restored that form of stage direction which is most convenient, reviving the custom of our older writers, except as to the language, most of their directions being in Latin, as Exit cum fuis, Exeunt omnes, Manet. We only retain Exit, and Exeunt. rules was, never to change the scene, or leave the stage vacant, in the middle of an act. This Metastasio breaks through, (see his Operas paffim.) It never prevailed on our theatre. I own I am utterly unable to see what possible advantage can be derived from the observance, or disadvantage from the breach of it. [o] For instance: they would have written the first scene of the fifth act of Henry Iv. Part 1. thus: Аст v. SCENE I. King Henry, Prince of Wales, Lord John of Lancaster, Earl of Westmorland, Sir Walter Blunt, Sir John Falstaff. SCENE II. King Henry, Prince of Wales, Lord John of Lancaster, Earl of Westmorland, Sir Walter Blunt, Sir John Falstaff, Worcester, Vernon. SCENE III. King Henry, &c. reciting all the names again, except Worcester and Vernon. Ff The

" 218- The Abbé D'Aubignac was for following the example of the ancients, and laying afide all fstage directions whatever, merely because they never used them. From the same principle, why not propose the disuse of capital letters, stops, and division of words, in writing and printing? It is not very foreign to this subject to remark what was called 'the • dumb show,' in our old plays. This appears to have been a kind of pantomimical exhibition of the principal circumftances of the piece previous to its commencement. There is a remarkable one in Hamlet. Before the opening of the supposed play to be exhibited to the king and queen, the following stage direction appears. • Trumpets found, dumb shew ، follows, which is accurately described, and appears to contain every circumstance of the murder of Hamlet's father. Now there is no apparent reason why the ufurper should not be as much affected by this mute representation of his crime, as he is afterwards when the fame. action is accompanied by words.. I once conceived this might have been a kind of direction to the players which was from mistake inferted in the editions; but the fubsequent conversation between Hamlet and Ophelia, entirely destroys fuch a notion. This observation leads me to another. The use of soliloquies; either. when the character is quite alone, or when he speaks to himself in company, which last is generally diftinguished by the word ' aside,' in the margin. Though in real life this custom of thinking aloud hardly ever happens, yet we are so accustomed to it on the stage, and it is often so useful in developing a character that I think it may fairly be permitted. But no incident, even the most trifling, should ever arise from

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. { from overhearing a foliloquy. The conversation of Mungo to his hamper in the Padlock, which is overheard by Don Diego, does not fall under this fault, as such a real conversation is perfectly confiftent with the character of the grumbling negro. To return to the word episode. It seems inconsistent, to a reader unacquainted with the origin of the Greek tragedy, that the principal part of it comprehending the body of the fable should be distinguished by a name which usually implies a digreffion, or some tale that is not immediately connected with the leading epic, or dramatic action, and in which sense it is frequently employed in the treatise before us. To explain this, it will be necessary to take a short view of the rife and progress of the ancient drama. Tragedy owed its birth to a kind of ode in honor of Bacchus which was performed at the festival of that deity by rival poets, and the prize given to the successful candidate was a goat, from whence it received its name [P]. It occurred first to Thespis, one of these contending bards, to enliven the dulness of his periodic song by some tale or fable to be recited between the intervals by one of the perfons employed to fing in the ode. To this person Æschylus added a second actor, as Sophocles afterwards did a third, forming a dramatic dialogue in which the ori- [P] Τραγωδία, literally means the fong of the goat. So Horace, * Carmine qui tragico vilem certavit ob hircum.' ART. POET. 220. He who the prize, a filthy goat, to gain, • At first contended in the tragic strain.' Ff2 COLMAN. :: ginal

ginal reciter of the fable, taken from the musical performers of the ode, had only a fubordinate part. For a confiderable time however, the musical part continued to be confidered as the chief; and the dramatic part as a kind of deviation from the regular form of tragedy [Q], which was sanctioned by religion, and supported and regulated by the magiftrates, and from that circumftance received the appellation of episode, which it ever afterwards retained. From this it is obvious, that the chorus was not the choice of the poet, but a necessary appendage to the theatre which neither law nor custom would permit him to dispense with. This particular circumftance of the Greek tragedy, which occafioned them to smuggle as it were the dramatic fable on the public between the pauses of a musical composition, cannot fail of reminding us of the mode adopted by the provincial theatres to avoid the rigor of the law before the late act in their favor, by receiving money for a concert of mufic, and announcing a play to be acted gratis during the intervals [R]. NOTE [Q] From this custom of deviating from the original design of praising Bacchus in these odes, arofe the Greek proverb Ουδὲν πρὸς Διονυσιὰν. 'It has nothing to do with Bacchus," which was applied generally to any thing introduced foreign to the subject in question. ، Good- [R] By such a fubterfuge was the illustrious Garrick first ushered to the public notice. The curious reader will not be difpleased to fee a copy of the bill that announced him. • man's Fields, October 19, 1741. At the late theatre in Goodman's Fields, this day will • be performed, a concert of vocal and instrumental music, divided into two parts. Tickets at three, two, and one shilling. Places for the boxes to be taken at the Fleece Tavern, ' near the theatre. N. B. Between the two parts of the concert will be prefented an hifto- ( rical play, called The Life and Death of King Richard the Third: containing the distresses • of King Henry VI. the artful acquisition of the crown by King Richard, the murder of • young King Edward the Fifth and his brother in the Tower; the landing of the Earl of ‹ Richmond, and the death of King Richard, in the memorable battle of Bofworth Field, ' being

12.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-36 12.6

THE EXODE.

THE exode does not mean the catastrophe of the fable, but the conclusion of the piece, though the catastrophe was often comprehended in it; it was in effect the last act. The Greek tragedies, like ours, generally end with some moral fentence drawn from the events of the fable. All those of Sophocles do. Euripides makes the same sentence serve for several plays. These are usually spoken by the chorus, not fung, for the distinction of the exode is its following the last ode of the chorus. ' being the last that was fought between the houses of York and Lancaster; with many ' other true historical passages. The part of King Richard, BY A GENTLEMAN, (WHO ، NEVER APPEARED ON ANY STAGE.) King Henry, by Mr. Giffard; Richmond, by Mr. Marshall; Prince Edward, by Miss Hippisley; Duke of York, Miss Naylor; Duke • of Buckingham, Mr. Peterson; Duke of Norfolk, Mr. Blakes; Lord Stanley, Mr. Pagett; Oxford, Mr. Vaughan; Tressel, Mr. William Giffard; Catesby, Mr. Marr; Ratcliff, Mr. Crofts; Blunt, Mr. Naylor; Tyrrel, Mr. Puttenham; Lord Mayor, Mr. Dunstall; ' the Queen, Mrs. Steele; Dutchess of York, Mrs. Gates; and the part of Lady Anne, by Mrs. Giffard. With entertainments of dancing, by Monf. Fromet, Madam Duval, and ' the two Masters and Miss Granier. To which will be added, a Ballad Opera of one • act, called the Virgin Unmasked. The part of Lucy, by Miss Hippisley. Both of which • will be performed gratis by persons for their diversion. The concert will begin exactly at ' fix o'clock.' This curiosity was communicated to me by Mr. William Giffard, one of the performers, now (1791) living at Southampton, a gentleman in character and manners truly respectable. It

DITE. It was the custom of the Roman comic theatre for one of the characters to address the audience, and folicit their favor by saying PLAU- This was partly followed by our elder comic writers who would frequently bring one of the characters forward to address the audience, in what was then called an epilogue. As for example in the epilogues to All's Well that Ends Well, and As You Like It. From this arose the modern epilogue which is now considered as an essential appendage to every new drama. This is sometimes spoken in the character that has been performed, as in the celebrated epilogue to the Distressed Mother which is still always called for whenever the play is acted. Sometimes in the person of the particular actor that speaks it, as in the epilogue to Dryden's Tyrannic Love spoken by Nell Gwin which begins, ، Hold, are you mad, you damn'd confounded dog! • I am to rife and speak the epilogue [s].' And fometimes, indeed most commonly, as an indifferent perfon. Many of our epilogues abound with wit and humour. That to the Clandestine Marriage is a kind of after-piece [r]. Much has been faid both for and against these kind of ludicrous epilogues to tragedy. Thomson passes a severe sentence on them in the [s] It is now universally the practice for the curtain to drop and the player to go out, and return again, even if the epilogue is spoken in character. Such a conduct as this of Dryden's is a direct avowal of the theatrical deception. [T] For an instance of an epilogue supplemental to the tragedy, see Note II. Chap. XIII. epilogue

2.23 POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. epilogue to his Tancred and Sigismunda. The Spectator, No. 338, criticises the epilogue to the Distressed Mother, to which there is a very pert and superficial answer by the author of the epilogue himself, (Budgel), as appears by the fignature in the Spectator, No. 341. Our philosophical critic would certainly have condemned this custom, as every one must who confiders it as the object of tragedy to make any serious impreffion on the mind, and not be confidered merely as the amusement of the moment. A humorous after-piece has something of the same effect, but not in the fame degree, as the epilogue in question is a ludicrous censure on the [u] incidents of the piece. Budgel justifies his prologue from the French custom of clofing their tragic entertainments with a ridiculous PETITE PIECE, a custom but lately introduced here during the first nine nights of a new play; and if we credit a French writer in preference to Mr. Budgel, the practice was the fame On the French stage at the time his defence was written, (1712). “The - custom of giving a small piece after the larger has only been efta- ← blished fince the year 1722. The larger pieces at first acting were. conftantly performed by themselves, and a smaller piece was never • added till after the eighth or tenth representation, and which was always confidered then as a symptom that the play was likely not to • be well received. To obviate this opinion, sometimes ill founded, • but always prejudicial, M. de la Mothe caused a petite piece to be • played the first night of the representation of his tragedy of Romulus, • and the practice has been continued ever since.' DICTIONNAIRE D'ANECDOTES, ART. COMEDIE FRANÇOISE. Under the same article is a ridiculous anecdote relative to the tragedy, from which the Distressed Mother is nearly a tranflation. A grave magistrate who had never. ، [v.] See conclusion of Note 11. Chap. VI. • been

• been at a play, was perfuaded to go by some of his friends from the ' afsurance they gave him that he would receive much entertainment ' from the tragedy of Andromache. He was very attentive to the play ' which was followed by a farce called the Pleaders. On coming out • he met the author, and meaning to pay him a compliment, said to ' him, " I am vastly pleased with your Andromache. It is really a capital piece; but yet I own I am a little surprised you make it end "so merrily. I was once very near crying, but when those comical "little dogs appeared I could not help laughing." It is with regret I observe, that the modern drama is again adopting the custom of the actors addressing the audience at the conclufion of the piece. Besides the absurdity of this practice (w), which tends to destroy the effect of the scene, it is attended with the grossest and most [w] Every allufsion to the drama, in a drama, is out of place, and absurd. Lessing, Vol. 1. p. 204, censures this passage in the Merope of Massei, both from this reason, and on account of the anachronism in mentioning the scene before the existence of the drama. • Con cosi strani auvenimenti forsè ' Non vide mai favoleggiar le scene.' • Ne'er has the scene such strange events display'd.' Dryden has been guilty of both these errors in the speech he puts into the mouth of Edipus, which begins, O that as oft at Athens I have seen 'The stage arise, and the big clouds descend.'.

and of one of them in Love Triumphant, where Veramond compares the catastrophe to the "winding up of fome defign, • Well form'd upon the crouded theatre.' Our great poet of nature is but too much addicted to this practice. servile

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. fervile flattery. The infolent tranquillity with which an audience will receive the highest strains of adulation under the specious appellation of THE PUBLIC is no bad specimen of the respect a [x] democratic affembly has for the rights and equality of mankind. I have blushed for my countrymen when I have seen them in a body receive almost adoration from a lovely and accomplished actress which any individual of them would have been proud to offer. I am forry to add, that this disgraceful practice is not confined to the musical drama. To the best of my recollection, it was first revived in a regular and excellent comedy, The Clandestine Marriage. The tragic. muse has, I believe, hitherto kept herself clear of this degradation. [x] Lest I should be thought, in this sentence to be libelling the House of Commons, I beg leave to observe, that neither that assembly, nor any representative body whatever, can be called democratical. All representatives are, to use the words of Colonel Mitford, persons • elected by the people to legislative authority, for merit real or supposed.' SEE HISTORY OF GREECE, Chap. v. Sect. 1. Our House of Commons has besides distinction of rank, which evidently must arise from the qualification of property required. To quote the words of our Critic where he is defining the different forms of government, ὅπου ἡ πολιτεία βλέπει ἐις τε πλοῦτον, καὶ ἀρετὴν, καὶ δῆμον, ὁῖον ἐν Καρχηδόνι, αύτη ἀριςοκρατική ἔςι. ARIST. POLIT. L. IV. C. VIII. • When the form of the commonwealth looks up to riches, ' to virtue, and to the opinion of the people, as in Carthage it is aristocratical.' I wish to know how the qualifications of a member of parliament could be more exactly expressed, a certain quantity of property, merit real or supposed, and popularity. Gg NOTE

12.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-37 12.10

THE CHORUS.

[Y] WE have already traced the origin of this appendage to the ancient tragedy; and shewn that it was not at least invented for the purpose of heightening either the probability of dramatic representation, or affifting its moral tendency. That it has these effects, as well as fome other collateral advantages has been the opinion of fome of the most judicious critics both of the French and English school. I shall therefore examine how far this opinion appears to be founded on truth; dividing my enquiry into three heads. The effect of the chorus, on dramatic probability. On the moral influence of the drama. And on the conduct of the fable, by preventing unmeaning conversation between confidents, officers, &c. for the fake of unfolding events to the audience which they could not otherwise learn. For on these three points all the arguments in favor of the chorus seem to reft. A And first as to the probability. The bishop of Worcester in his notes on the Epistle to the Pifos makes the following observation. ' chorus interpofing, and bearing a part in the progress of the action gives the representation that probability, and striking resemblance of • real life which (z] EVERY MAN OF SENSE perceives, or feels the [Y] See Note II. this chapter. [z] With all my respect for this elegant critic, I think he has gone a little too far in branding all who differ in opinion with him on, at least a disputed hypothefis, with folly. It favors a little of the concluding decree in Bramston's' Man of Taste.' This is true taste, and whoso likes it not, Is blockhead, coxcomb, puppy, fool, and fot.' want

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ' want of, upon our stage; a want which nothing but such an expedi- ⚫ent as the chorus can possibly supply.' In this passage probability of action is evidently confounded with probability of representation. If the fable is well formed, the situations affecting, the language adapted to the paffion, and these assisted by the natural expression and powers of the actor [A], without doubt the allufion is compleat. We are hurried away by our feelings, and we yield to the impression of the scene. But in this case we never enquire where we are, or how it is poffible fuch a scene should pass before fuch a number of spectators as furround us; at such a question the whole delusion vanishes, and instead of being in. the castle of Macbeth, or the tent of King John, we instantly find ourselves in the Theatre Royal. It is impossible for any notion to be more unfounded on truth than that which supposes that no dramatic action can have the requifite probability for public representation that may not be supposed to pass before spectators, and that consequently a dramatic audience before whom the real action is supposed to pass is necessary both to encrease the probability of the scene, and confine the poet to such events as may naturally happen in public. It is proved beyond a doubt that when we reflect for an instant, a momentary suspension of the delirium in which we [A] It may tend to some elucidation of this subject to enquire how the force of dramatic illusion is effected by the being acquainted with the voice and person of the actors, or by being in habits of intimacy with them. I think there is no doubt that the different effects of the itinerant preacher, and the regular clergyman on the lower part of the congregation, arifes in great measure, though not entirely, from this. But then in this case the difference arises from the opinion entertained as to their being really in earnest, and the little opportunity there is of feeing in one how his doctrine may be contradicted by his life; while an actor, however strange to us, is always known to be an actor. Gg 2 are

are involved by the combined arts of poet and the player, convinces us where we really are. The ornaments of the theatre, however well adapted to the play, (and, when well adapted, they certainly encrease the delusion while it lasts, and flatter our love of propriety when it ceafes,) no more deceive us than if the performance were in an indifferent room. The moment therefore we come to confider that there are other spectators befides ourselves, this disenchantment is effected. [B] In fact, the border of the stage may be confidered as the frame of a picture, dividing the real from the imaginary scene; and there is no more impropriety in imagining an action, or converfation of the most private nature, to pass before a crouded theatre, than for a picture of Diana bathing to be shewn in a full exhibition room at the Royal Academy. That real delufion may have taken place in weak or in deranged minds I will not deny. A countryman who had never seen a play might mistake the reprefentation for the reality; and if they are not founded on truth, at the least there is no improbability in the stories of the [c] clown, who got up to go out on the entrance of the players [B] Since the above was written I have had the pleasure to fee the fame remark made and illustrated in Mr. Saunders's Treatise on Theatres. • A division is necessary between the ⚫ theatre and the stage, and should be so characterised as to assist the idea of their being two • diftinct places.' - Were a painted frame to be proposed for a picture, how would the • connoiffeurs exclaim! The scene is the picture, the frontispiece is the frame, or in other ◄ words, the frame should contrast the picture, and thereby add to the delusion.' P. 36, 84. [c] I once was present at the representation of The Recruiting Officer by a strolling company, when a country fellow rather weak in his intellects went upon the stage to enlist as Serjeant Kite was distributing the king's picture. It appeared he was ferious in his intent, from his enlisting with the first recruiting party that came into the town afterwards. as

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. as imagining them difcoursing on private business; and the failor who, provoked to fee the death of Effex likely to happen from the countess of Nottingham concealing the ring when Elizabeth asked her, • What, said he nothing of a private import? • No circumstance-no pledge-no ring?' on Nottingham's answering 'none!' roared out from the gallery, 'It is ، a d-'d lie, for I saw him give it her myself.' The behaviour therefore of Partridge, at the representation of Hamlet in Tom Jones is not unnatural, any more than that of Don Quixote among the puppets, since the fame man who mistook a windmill for a giant, might easily suppose a puppet-shew to be a reality. All the consequences then of this boasted additional probability which tragedy would derive from the use of a chorus seem to be these. First, it must oblige the poet to confine the time of action within the precife time of the representation. For when this time is exceeded on the Grecian stage, of which there are many instances, the natural and probable unity of time is violated from the continual prefence of the chorus, notwithstanding the latitude allowed by Aristotle [D]. And secondly, without any reason founded on the truth of representation, it deprives him of situations in every respect the most interesting, and most fitted to the purpose of tragedy that his imagination can conceive. Indeed the stilts, the monstrous masks, and the unnatural recitation of the ancient theatre, made the chorus not so great an encumbrance there as it would be on ours. The effect of the Grecian drama was almost universally derived from great and striking events, and seldom from the [D] See Note III. Chap. v. dialogue,

dialogue which is so great a source both of terror and distress on our stage. The most affecting scenes on the modern theatre, and which give the most ample scope to the genius of the poet, and the exertions of the player, are those where one character is working on the feelings of another; scenes, of which if there are any, there are only faint traces to be discovered in the Grecian tragedy, and which indeed are utterly incompatible with the constant prefence of a chorus. Surely the most sanguine admirer of antiquity cannot hesitate a moment in condemning an hypothesis which, if received, must immediately banish from the stage the scenes between Lady Macbeth and her husband, Iago and Othello, and King John and Hubert. Before I quit the probability of the chorus, I must beg to cite a passage from M. Brumoy in favor of it. • I know,' he says, it has < some inconveniencies, and it has sometimes thrown the ancients • into errors against probability, but its advantages infinitely more than ⚫ balance its inconveniencies. (E) Sophocles knew how to get rid of • the chorus for a few moments when he had occafion to do it; as in • his Ajax. It is the poet therefore, and not the chorus that ought to ⚫ be blamed when he is put to inconvenience by it.' I perfectly agree with M. Brumoy in this position, that the poet is solely to blame who admits the chorus where he can get rid of it (as every modern poet can) in every place where it cannot be admitted with propriety, and this I think comprehends every part of the action. Between the acts it might be admitted with strict propriety, but it is perhaps impracticable from a reason already mentioned (F). M. Brumoy then proceeds to state the conveniencies of the chorus, which are those [E] See Note III. Chap. XI. [F] See Note II. Chap. VI.. already

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. already mentioned, and concludes with a description of the [G] dance which accompanied the choral ode, I suppose, as a decisive proof of the PROBABILITY it gave to dramatic representation. We next come to the moral effect of the chorus, or the advantage the drama derives in this respect from the remarks made on the conduct and sentiments of the characters during the course of the action. This has afforded the critics an ample field for panegyric, and the opinion has been supported by some names highly eminent both for genius and learning. Mr. Mason in his Letters on Elfrida, (Letter 1v. near the end), after having mentioned Pierre as a character much 'calculated to leave false • and immoral impreffions on the spectator,' adds, that he knows of none more capable of doing service in a moral view, when justly ani- • madverted on by a chorus;' and says further, that bad characters become on this plan as harmless in the hands of the poet as the historian.' The case of the historian and the poet here, however, are widely different. The historian must recite facts as they are, or at least as he is informed they are, and therefore if they are so arranged as to be liable to make wrong impressions, as he cannot alter the arrangement, he must step forward in his own person, and make the necessary comment on [G] The chorus was arranged in three ranks, of five each when consisting of fifteen performers, and four when of twelve, who imitated in their evolutions the supposed motion of the heavenly bodies. Turning from right to left in imitation of the daily movement of the firmament from east to west while the first stanza was performing, which received from thence the name of STROPHE; and from left to right in imitation of the occafional movement of the planets from west to east during the second stanza or ANTISTROPHE; and remaining fixed during the third stanza or EPODE to mark the stability of the earth. Ben Jonson, in the first regular imitation we have of the Grecian ode, calls these stanzas by the names of turn, counterturn, and stand. the

the action. But it is the poet's fault if his action requires any fuch comment at all, as it is in his option to arrange his incidents as he chuses. If the poet really draws his fable, or forms his characters in fuch a manner as to have an immoral tendency, it is in vain for a chorus to come forward and try to explain it away or efface by words an impreffion that has been made by incident. And if the fable and characters have on the whole a moral tendency, whatever partial and temporary passages may have a contrary appearance in the course of the representation, any tranfient impression of that fort must be removed in the end without having recourse to so inartificial an expedient as the introduction of a chorus. If the manners either of a vicious or a ridiculous character are well marked either in tragedy or comedy, his words can have no dangerous effect on the audience even at the moment; because the spectator will never regulate his own conduct, and sentiments, by those • of a person, who from the opening of the piece is proposed to him as * an example of error and misfortune.'-TERRASSON.. This interference of the chorus is like the moral usually added to fables written for children, and the inutility of these is fairly demonstrated by Rousseau, in his Emilius [H], when he is speaking of the impropriety of putting the fables of La Fontaine into their hands. In short, if the poet has drawn vice amiable, and virtue contemptible or repelling, it is in vain for him to endeavour to alter the impression by a chorus. Indeed, we never want a chorus to define right from wrong. Do we want a chorus to tell us that Lovelace is an accomplished villain, and Grandifon a pattern of confummate virtue? and yet there is something fo repelling in the virtue of the one, and so amiable [H] Vol.I. Part 1. in

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. in the manners of the other, that we can neither hate Lovelace nor like Grandison; therefore to use, with some alteration, the decision of M. Brumoy above quoted, ' It is the poet therefore and not the ab- • fence of the chorus that is to be blamed, when he is put to inconve- ⚫ nience by the want of it.' How cold, how unaffecting, how fuperfluous, would the animadversion of a chorus be on the fufferings of a Lear, or the crimes of a Macbeth, compared with the utterance of their own feelings and the effect of them on the other persons of the drama. It is THEIR expreffion of pity and terror! It is the horror shewn by the physician and attendant during Lady Macbeth's walking dream, and the indignation of Falconbridge at Hubert, as the supposed murderer of Arthur, that resemble the two horses in Le Brun's picture, 'who start back, with their hair standing an end left they should trample on the bleeding infants;' [1] and not the dull unimpaffioned reflections of a chorus. (K) A most elegant and judicious dramatic critic observes, 'that though it is the office • of the chorus, on the Grecian stage, to moralize, and to point out on every occafion the advantages of virtue over vice, yet how much less affecting are their animadverfions than the teftimony of the perfon • concerned! Whatever belongs to the chorus has hardly the effect of • dramatic imitation. The chorus is, in a manner, without personal character or interest, and no way an agent in the drama. We cannot fympathize with the cool reflections of these idle spectators as we do • with the sentiments of the perfons in whose circumstances and fituation we are interested.' [1] See quotation from the Abbe Vatry, cited by Mr. Mason in Letter Iv, on Elfrida. [K] See Mrs. Montague's Essay on the Writings and Genius of Shakespeare. Hh Should

Should the dramatic writer however find himself at a loss for want of a chorus, and not be contented or able to deduce the proper effect from the incidents and active characters of the piece, he must create one for the purpose of making moral reflections, which is always in his power, fince, as Brumoy observes, 'the chorus, properly speaking was the • honest man of the piece.' Therefore the poet may as well give this office to a Menenius, or an Ænobarbus, as to twelve or fifteen citizens or captives. It seems even the chorus did not always execute their office to the fatisfaction of the people of Athens. We are told by Ælian, that Efchylus was condemned by the senate for the impiety of one of his plays,. and faved only by the interceffion of his brother, who moved the compaffion of the assembly by shewing his arm without the hand, which he had loft at the battle of Salamis. And Seneca relates a fimilar story of Euripides, from which the Bishop of Worcester infers the neceffity of a chorus, though some people perhaps may think it rather shews its inefficacy: and that if the tendency of the action appears immoral to the spectators, a by-ftander will never be able to perfuade them it is moral. It now remains to notice the fuppofed advantage of the chorus, in obviating the neceffity of introducing useless confidents merely to say yes or no, while the principal characters are difclofing their secrets through them to the audience. But in fact, the difference of the ancient and modern theatre amounts only to this; an injudicious modern poet, who has no better mode of unfolding his fable to the spectator, invents a useless character; whereas an ancient poet, in the fame predicament avails. himself of one that the custom of the theatre supplies. But the impropriety

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. propriety is exactly the fame, except that in one case the confident is alone, and in the other accompanied by attendants. Mr. Mafon, in his third letter on the tragedy of Elfrida, which he was advised to adapt to the modern stage, allows that, ' undoubtedly, • most part of the dialogue of the chorus might be put into the mouth ' of an Emma, or Matilda, who with fome little shew of sisterly concernment, might easily be made to claim kindred with Earl Athelwood.' I would not wish that the beautiful poems of Elfrida and Caractacus were in any respect different from what they are. They are above all criticism and all commendation; and we may furely allow Mr. Mason to be partial to a species of drama in which he has, in every eye not blinded by partiality to the ancients, at least equalled the noblest models of antiquity. But in regard to the subject we are confidering, dramatic propriety, the confidante he mentions would be at least as proper as the Coryphaea of his chorus, who appears to be only Elfrida's principal female servant; fince Orgar, speaking to the chorus, says, • Your garbs bespeak you for the fair attendants • Of fome illustrious dame, the wife or fifter • Of this dread Earl.' - and the answer allows the suggestion. ، ' well we know Fidelity's a virtue that ennobles • Even servitude itself.'- They should not therefore in the dramatis perfonæ, be styled chorus • of British virgins,' but ' of Elfrida's attendants.' Hh 2 It

It is besides much more improbable for a character to impart a fecret to twelve or fifteen persons than one. Of this the ancient tragic poets were aware, and often make their characters answer boldly for the fidelity of their numerous confidential friends. In the Electra of Sophocles, Orestes is cautious of speaking out before the chorus, confifting of Argive young women: but Electra encourages him. [L] OREST. 'I would tell you, if these women are friends." ELECT. But they are friends, therefore you will speak before those • who may be trusted.' In the Cœphori of Æschylus, Orestes is obliged to exhort the chorus, who are also women, in rather harsher terms than was confiftent with their independance [M]. • I would advise you to govern your ، tongues properly; to be filent when it is necessary, and speak only • what is convenient.' And in the Electra of Euripides, Orestes shews the fame caution as in the tragedy of Sophocles, and receives the fame affurance from his fister. [N] OREST. Are these, who hear our conversation friends? ELECTRA. So much so, as carefully to keep all we say secret. [1] Εγὼ φράσαιμ᾽ ἂν, ἐι τὸ τῶνδ᾽ ἐύνεν παρα. Αλλ᾽ ἔσιν ἔυναν ὥσε πρὸς πισὰς ἐρεις. [Μ] Ὑμῖν δ᾽ ἐπαινῶ γλῶσσαν ἐύφημον φερεῖν. Σιγᾶν θ᾽ ὅπε δεῖ, καὶ λέγειν τὰ καίρια. [Ν] ῾Αιδ᾽ ἐν φίλαι σοι τῆς δ᾽ ἀκούσιν λόγους; Ωσε σέγειν γε τὰ μὰ, καὶ σ᾽ ἐπη κάλως. The

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. The inconvenience of a chorus to the poet, when he chuses a subject unfit for their continued presence, though in every other respect proper for the drama, is no where shewn more clearly than in the Hippolytus of Euripides. Indeed, it offends both against probability and morality. Nothing can be more improbable than for a woman to trust an incestuous paffion to her confidante before several other indifferent women: and nothing more immoral than for these women to promife to keep it secret, and to fulfil that promise though it occafioned the death of an innocent person. Those who have a mind to fee how a perfon can defend an hypothefis he favors, in defiance of his own reason and conviction, will be entertained with Brumoy's remarks on this tragedy; where, after all his arguments, he is obliged to allow their sophistry, and the real and radical defects of the chorus. • If these excuses, (he says) though • drawn from Euripides himself, appear too far-fetched, and are not fatisfactory to those who criticise the ancient theatre; these critics will agree, at least, that by these means the poet has diminished with a great deal of art the defect almost inseparable from the chorus, whose eternal prefence produces a spectacle always fine, often necessary, but sometimes embarraffing to the principal actors. We fee, plainly, that Euripides wished to avoid this defect, and yet retain the chorus: for if - this many-headed perfonage had been ignorant of Phædra's paffion, it - must have been mute and inactive. It would have become useless, • and would have deprived the scene of one of its most brilliant ornaments.' [o]. . ، ، [o] Le Pere Brumoy has made a false criticism on the Hippolytus of Seneca; he blames the poet for suffering Hippolytus to leave his sword in the hands of Phædra, a thing (he says) contrary to the manners of the Greeks, who were never armed but on a journey or in war." believe the critic forgot that Hippolytus was just returned from the chace. I. shall

I shall conclude this long note with Mr. Twining's summary, though comprehenfive view of the progress and decline of the chorus. At • first it was all; then relieved by the intermixture of dialogue, but still principal; then fubordinate; then digressive, and ill-connected with ' the piece; then borrowed from other pieces at pleasure; and so on to * the fiddles, and act tunes, at which Dacier is so angry.' CHAP.

13.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-38 13.1

THOSE WHO ARE REPRESENTED AS FALLING FROM HAPPINESS TO MISERY, SHOULD NOT BE PERSONS OF EXTRAORDINARY VIRTUE, AS THAT WOULD EXCITE DISGUST, RATHER THAN PITY, OR TERROR.

THIS rule is so just, and so confonant with our feelings, that I believe the modern drama will hardly furnish us with an instance of a person of exemplary virtue suffering distress unless it is brought about by some irregular passion of his own. Perhaps in the prose epopee Clarissa may fall under this error: fince, she is a character drawn as nearly perfect as possible; for furely the fingle imprudent step she took is not fufficient to obviate the objection. I do not, therefore, scruple to declare my opinion that this much-admired work is faulty in this respect. The fame objection also lies against the sufferings of Clementina in Grandifon. Whom, by the way, Richardfon has really, though undesignedly, made the heroine of his piece; a confirmation of the opinion advanced in the preceding note, that we judge of, and are affected by the characters from their actions and manners, and not from what the poet chuses to tell us, either in his own person or in that of a fictitious agent. NOTE

A COMMENTARY ON THE CHAP. XIII.

13.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-39 13.2

NEITHER SHOULD VICIOUS CHARACTERS BE SHEWN AS RISING FROM MISERY TO HAPPINESS.

THE justness of this remark is also confirmed by our own feelings, and the uniform practice of all the imitative poets. Dr. Young in his tragedy of the Brothers being obliged from the circumstances and length of his fable to end his drama at a juncture when the villainy and artifice of Perseus appear to be completely successful, has thought it necessary to anticipate his future misfortunes and disgrace in a fupplementary epilogue, which begins thus : • An epilogue, thro' custom, is your right; • But ne'er, perhaps, was needful till to-night. To-night the virtuous falls, the guilty flies, • Guilt's dreadful close our narrow scene denies.' [A] [A] See note III, chap. xII. NOTE

13.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-40 13.3

NEITHER SHOULD A VERY BAD MAN BE REPRESENTED AS FAL- LING FROM HAPPINESS TO MISERY; FOR THOUGH SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT MIGHT BE AGREEABLE TO OUR FEELINGS, IT WOULD EXCITE NEITHER PITY NOR TERROR. FOR ONE OF THESE PASSIONS IS EXCITED BY THE MISFORTUNES OF AN INNOCENT PERSON; THE OTHER BY THE MISFORTUNES OF A PERSON IN THE SAME SITUATION WITH OURSELVES; --SUCH AN EVENT, THEREFORE, WOULD BE NEITHER DISTRESSFUL NOR ALARMING.

IT is very obvious that Ariftotle [B], though he blames this mode of arranging the fable, at least prefers it to that which he has last mentioned, as not incurring the double defect of being disagreeable to our feelings, and at the same time not calculated to excite either pity or terror, and therefore totally repugnant to the nature and end of tragedy. What were the sentiments of the critic with regard to the comparative demerits of this, and the first mode, we can only conjecture, as he is himself filent on the subject; but from the general doctrine he advances, (at least in this chapter,) we must suppose his sentence would be most in favor of the first, as having tragic effect, though difagreeable to our feelings. The Fatal Curiosity of Lillo, which [c] Mr. Harris (I suppose by [B] See note VI. chap. XVIII. [c] See Philological Enquiries, p. 154. Mr. Harris seems to have mistaken the circumtance from which this play takes its name; he supposes the opening the casket to be the FATAL CURIOSITY, but I should rather conceive it to be the defire of the young man to fee the effect of his unexpected return on his parents. Ii way

way of a dramatic paradox) has chofen to compare with the Edipus, falls exactly under the censure of this passage. The misery arifes from no sudden start of paffion, or involuntary error, but from the cruel and deliberate murder of an innocent youth for the fake of his property. Would Mr. Harris (to anticipate a definition in the subsequent part of this chapter) allow this hoary ruffian, and his wife, who murder their fleeping guest with the same purpose and from the fame motive as the midnight housebreaker, to be persons of high reputation and profperity, whose misfortunes arise from some error of human frailty, and whose general characters and conduct in life are rather better and of higher dignity than the illustrious names produced from the annals of Greece; for so the critic says they ought to be if the circumstances allow it. This opinion of Mr. Harris seems to have in great measure arifen from the explanation he gives to the term [D] GOOD, (χρηςός) as applied by Ariftotle to manners. It is to be remarked, that there is another arrangement which Aristotle has omitted; that of a virtuous character raised from distress to profperity, which would at least on his own principles come under the fame class with that which is the object of the present note, being agreeable to our feelings but not productive, according to his hypothesis, of tragic effect, though in reality it is capable of producing it in the highest degree. Since while the principal character, in whose favor the spectators must be most strongly interested appears involved in deep distress, and his destruction appears inevitable, the passions of pity and terror will be violently excited; and, if the tragedy possesses the most perfect form, [D] Philological Enquiries, p. 170. For a different explanation of this term, see note 1, unit-

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. [E] uniting the discovery, and peripetía with the catastrophe, this will continue through the greatest part of the piece. Aristotle himself says in this passage, that pity is excited by the sufferings of innocence, and there is no reason why the character should not also possess that equality of fituation which he requires as calculated to raise terror. Perhaps on confidering this subject very attentively, weighing all the reasoning of Aristotle on the subject, recollecting how capable fuch an arrangement is of producing pity and terror, and with what thin shades such a character may be diftinguished from that which he afterwards points out as proper for tragedy, we may be the less surprised at his not being perfectly fatisfied with his own hypothesis as to the tragic catastrophe. For to some such wavering of opinion I think, we must impute part of what he says on this fubject in the next chapter [F]. When Aristotle speaks of similitude of character as essential to excite terror, it is obvious he does not mean as to rank in life, but as to difposition, virtue, and domeftic connections; for high rank in life was necessary, both from the practice of the Greek theatre, and the doctrine of Ariftotle, to the principal persons of tragedy. A private citizen of Athens, or of London, might be exactly in the same situation with Edipus, though a monarch, as to every circumstance on which the diftress of the tragedy turns. But though the tale of domestic forrow in private life was not admitted, either into the drama or epopee in the time of Ariftotle, he nevertheless could fee, that the effects of pity and terror must increase in proportion to the resemblance of character in every [E] See chap. xΙ. [F] See note IV, chap. xiv. where there is an attempt to account for this seeming inconsistency on other principles. Ii 2 respect.

respect. For he says in another place [G], 'We pity those who are our equals in age, in manners, in habits, in rank, and in family, fince in • all these circumstances of likeness, the fame things are most likely to ، ، happen to ourselves; and we may conclude in general, that those events which we fear should happen to ourselves, excite our pity when they happen to others.' As a farther illustration of this, and of what I have [H] before advanced, concerning the private life tragedy, especially in prose, I shall produce a quotation from the much admired work of the Abbé Barthelemi. • ZOPIRUS. And why do you not sometimes select these great mif- • fortunes, from the events of private life? They would affect me • much more strongly if I saw them continually happen on every fide ‹ of me. • THEODECTUS. I do not know, if they were drawn by a skilful hand, whether they would not excite our feelings too strongly. When • I take my examples from a rank much fuperior to your own, I leave you the liberty of applying them to yourself, and at the fame time the hope of escaping their consequences.' VOYAGE DU JEUNE ANA- CHARSIS, Chap. LXXI. Tom. IV. p. 32. French Ed. 4to. [C] Καὶ τοὺς ὅμοιους ἐλεῖυσι καθ᾽ ἡλικίαν, κατ᾽ ἤθη, κάθ᾿ ἕξεις, κατ᾿ ἀξιώματα, κατὰ γένει· ἐν πᾶσι γὰρ τούτοις, μᾶλλον φαίνεθαι καὶ ἀυτῷ ἂν ὑπάρξαι· ὅλως γὰρ καὶ ἐνλᾶυθα δεῖ λαβεῖν, ὅτι ὅσα ἐφ᾽ ἀνθῶν φιβᾶνται, ταῦτα ἐπ᾿ ἄλλων γιγνόμενα ἐλεῦσιν. ARIST. RHET. L. II. CH. VII. [H] See note 1, chap. IV. The

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. The observations as to the equality of character, extend to unnatural perfection as well as to unnatural deformity, though in a less degree. If a character is drawn compleatly vicious, it is impossible we can place ourselves so in the situation, as to bring it at all home to our own bosoms. We cannot interest ourselves in the fortune of a person, who we are conscious neither resembles ourselves nor any thing else in nature, or pity misfortunes which at once are the consequence and punishment of crimes we abhor. This excess of guilt is I believe seldom, if ever, afsigned to a principal character, but it is sometimes to be met with in fubordinate ones: Glenalvon is a confummate villain, without one quality to foften our indignation and disgust; [1] fince his brutal courage, folely employed in treachery and affaffination, only ferves to encrease our deteftation of him. The defect of the too perfect character is not so obvious. We can indeed at once fee that as to the first cafe, the want of interest on account of fimilarity of manners and situation, the consequence is nearly, if not exactly the fame. I believe Sir Charles Grandifon is much less a favorite with every reader than Tom Jones. But why we are less affected with pity by the sufferings of a perfect than an imperfect character, is not so clear. For if, as Aristotle says, pity is excited by misfortunes that are unmerited; this must apply most strongly to a character completely virtuous [K]. The cause however why we do not sympathife fo [1] See note 1, chap. xv. [K] In the passage quoted in note (G) from the Rhetoric, it appears that the paffions of pity and terror, as laid down there by Aristotle, are only modifications of the fame passion, diftinguished by the force with which they act on our own feelings, and which both depend on the resemblance of the condition and character of the fufferer to those of our own. much

A COMMENTARY ON THE CHAP. XIII. much with the sufferings of a perfect as an imperfect character, may perhaps arife from this circumftance. The resolution in misfortune, the intrepidity in danger, the contempt of pain and death, which are always shewn in a great and heroic character, take off much of our sense of his distress. We may revere, we may wish to emulate such a character, but we cannot feel strongly for a person who disdains to feel for himself. [L] When Iphigenia throws herself at her father's feet, and by the most tender supplications requests him to spare her life, we feel the strongest impreffions of pity; but when assuming a higher resolution, she resolves to devote herself for the glory of her country, we venerate the heroine indeed, but our tears for the trembling virgin are instantly dried. The observation of Horace, [M] To make ME grieve be first your anguish shewn, • And I shall feel your forrows like my own,' COLMAN. is as applicable to the poet's imitation of the character as the actor's performance of it. There is a just observation in the Tatler (No. 30) on this fingularity of feeling. Speaking of two rivals who were killed at the battle of Almanza, Steele makes this remark: 'The beloved lady is a woman of a sensible mind; but she has confefsed to me, that ⚫ after all her true and solid value for Conftant, she had much more concern for the loss of Careless. These noble and ferious spirits • have fomething equal to the adversities they meet with, and confequently lessen the objects of pity. Great accidents seem not cut out • so much for men of familiar characters, which makes them more eafily • pitied and soon after beloved.' [L] In the Iphigenia in Aulis of Euripides. See note VI. chap. xv. [м] ► Si vis me flere, dolendum eft • Primum ipfi tibi.' NOTE

13.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-41 13.4

THE CHARACTER THAT REMAINS IS A MEDIUM BETWEEN THESE: A MAN NEITHER EMINENTLY CONSPICUOUS FOR VIRTUE AND JUSTICE, NOR REDUCED TO MISERY BY WICKEDNESS AND VILLAINY; BUT RATHER ONE IN HIGH REPUTATION AND PROSPERITY SUFFERING THROUGH SOME HUMAN FRAILTY.

THIS choice of the proper character for tragedy is justified by reason and experience. The critic has already objected both to confummate virtue and confummate vice. The person he has now selected partakes enough of the first to interest us in his favor, and of the last to prevent our indignation and disgust at his sufferings. The crime, or the error, that occafions his distress, should not be brought upon him in confequence of a good action, (which sometimes happens in real life) or be even involuntary; neither should it arise from radical and deliberate villainy, but should result from fome violent paffion, or imprudent action, in a character not devoid of good qualities, though by no means perfect. In fuch colors has Shakespear drawn most of his principal tragic characters. Lear without radical vice is rash and choleric; Macbeth in the beginning of the play, exhibits a continued struggle between honor and ambition; Othello acts under the influence of an ungovernable paffion; Richard the Third appears an exception; and if we mean to reconcile the conduct of that play to this rule of Aristotle, we must I think adopt an excuse, mentioned indeed, but rejected by M. Leffing in

، [N] in his criticism on a German tragedy formed on the same story. • I may be told, perhaps we must give up Richard: the piece indeed • bears his name, but he is not for that reason the hero of it, nor the ، ⚫ character by which the proper effect of tragedy is attained: he can only be confidered as the cause of exciting our pity for others. Are not the queen and the princes objects of our pity?" The objection he starts to this, and it appears a just one, is that these characters are as improper from their innocence as Richard is from his guilt. The King Richard of Shakespear however has so many strokes of courage and dignity in his character, that his vices are sometimes hidden by them, and Cibber has even made his rival Richmond bear teftimony to his bravery when on the point of engaging him [o]. But no such circumstance attended the Richard of the German poet, who according to M. Lessing, ' is [P] so horrible a wretch, a devil incarnate so wicked, in whom it is so impoffible for us to find the smallest • trait of resemblance with ourselves, that I think we could fee him • fuffer all the torments of hell before our eyes without being affected by ، it, without having the least fear, that if such punishment is the consequence of fuch crimes only, it can ever fall upon ourselves.' DRA- MATURGIE, Part 11. p. 35. [N] Dramaturgie, Part 11. p. 36. [o] Nor should thy prowess Richard want my praise, But that thy cruel deeds have stampt thee tyrant.' [P] Un drôle fi horrible.' If the French tranflator has done justice to his original in this expreffion, the German Richard must have been totally deficient in poetical goodness, taken in the sense in which I conceive it used by Aristotle in chapter xv. See note 1, on that chapter. Modern

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. Modern manners have given to the theatre this defideratum of Ariftotle; the ἁμαρτία μεγάλη, the GREAT FRAILTY as it is excellently expressed by Mr. Twining, which is capable of involving a character in the deepest and most pathetic distress, and at the fame time so far from injuring its moral perfections, that it raises it in our esteem and occafions unmerited distress, without exciting either indignation or disgust. I mean the pafsion of love; that grand hinge on which modern fable, narrative as well as dramatic generally, I had almost said universally, turns. This paffion is to be found in ancient fable, but without the same diftinguishing character. It was confidered like every other passion as a fource of misfortune, and when ungovernable and carried to excess, as a vice. But in modern fable, however violent in its effects, it appears to stamp merit on the character in proportion to its force. I have no doubt that if Mark Antony had been prior to Aristotle he would have conceived him as a very bad person falling from happiness to misery in consequence of his crimes, and confequently no proper fubject for a tragic story. But the magic of this paffion, dressed in the garb of modern gallantry, has changed his nature; and the inglorious death of an abandoned profligate in the lap of floth and prostitution, becomes the glorious facrifice of a generous hero at the shrine of difinterested love. Thomson's tragedy of Tancred and Sigismunda furnishes another instance of this kind. Old Siffredi, who fills the office of the ancient chorus, though throughout the piece he is continually urging Tancred to facrifice his paffion to his duty, in his concluding speech inculcates the neceffity of indulging the passions. I much doubt if such sentiments would have been received with great applause by an Athenian audience. Kk Love

! Love is rather more confpicuous among the Roman poets; but the principal female character in the comedies of Terence is generally a prostitute, while the young woman of virtue is reduced to the situation of a mute. What are the Citheris, the Cynthia, the Delia and the Neæra of Gallus Propertius and Tibullus [Q], but mercenary harlots? The observation of Voltaire on the passion of love, as a subject for the drama, seems perfectly just. It is,' he says, ' of all the passions the ، moft theatrical, the most fertile in sentiments, the most varied. It ought to be the foul of a dramatic piece, or be entirely banished from ' from it.' EPISTLE TO M. MAFFEI ON MEROPE. What Voltaire discovered through art, our Shakespear produced from nature near two centuries before. The passion of love is no where more the entire subject, or if you will the foul of the drama, than in Cymbeline and [R] Romeo and Juliet; but he has introduced no infipid love tale as an under plot in his Macbeth, his Othello, or any of his historical plays, as Addison has in his Cato, and Dryden and Corneille have in the tragedy of Edipus. Shakespear however, the best master of general nature, [Q] Hammond in his Love Elegies, is a direct tranflator of Tibullus: his manners are all Roman. He abuses his mistresses for their venality, and talks of making a campaign, not as his nobler editor suggests to forget Neæra, but to accumulate money to fatisfy her avarice. And I through war must seek detefted gold, • Not for myself, but for my venal fair.' ELEGY II. I believe a campaign has seldom been the road to wealth except to the general and the commiffary. [R] Of this laft tragedy Lessing says, 'I know but of one tragedy to which love has put his * own hand, it is the Romeo and Juliet of Shakespear.' DRAMATURGIE, Part I. page 30. knew

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. knew that love, though a very dramatic passion, was not the only one, and many, indeed most of his tragedies are founded on others. And a French critic says, ' However much we may be prejudiced in favor of ' those tragedies whose interest turns upon love, it is nevertheless true, ، (and we have often remarked it,) that those tragedies which have fuc- ' ceeded best, do not owe their success to the love scenes.' LETTER FROM LE PERE TOURNEMINE TO LE PERE BRUMOY, PREFIXED TO VOLTAIRE'S MEROPE. Now it is obfervable, that from the restoration till within these last five and twenty years, when Garrick had reformed the stage by the school of Shakespear, almost the only tragedies which do not depend on a love story are the Isabella of Southern, and the Venice Preserved of Otway; and to the great interest of both, the stage at this hour bears the strongest teftimony. To Otway indeed may be applied, with the strictest justice, the character given by our critic to Euripides in this chapter, ' that if he does not conduct his • fable so well in other circumstances he is allowed to be the most tragic • of our poets.' Indeed what but the deep pathos of the catastrophe could induce a refined people to tolerate such a compilation of indecency, impiety, and immorality, as the Orphan [R]. From the fecluded life of modest women in [s] Greece, they neither took any part in the ferious concerns of life, out of their own family, nor could they be present at any public spectacle, therefore they were not in [R] • The famous Orphan of Otway, notwithstanding its real beauties, could hardly have ⚫ taken so prodigiously as it hath done if there were not somewhere a defect of good sense as < well as of good morals.' BISHOP OF WORCESTER'S NOTE ON HORACE'S ART OF POETRY, V. 19. See alfo Note 1. Chap. xv. [s] See Note II. ibid. Kk 2 reality

reality principal objects for the drama, which turned chiefly on public actions; nor was the theatre interested in obtaining their fuffrages, by selecting those stories in which they might take a confpicuous part. The revival of the arts found women in a very different situation; in real life they were in high confideration, and in the regions of narrative fable they were, as they continue to be, every thing. -Their bright eyes • Rain'd influence and judg'd the prize ' Of wit and arms, while both contend • To win her grace whom all commend.' We have therefore rather cause to wonder at their not assuming the same universal empire over the earlier modern drama, and that our first writers, and even Shakespear, have represented them actuated by ambition as often as by love, and as mothers, wives, and daughters, rather than as mistresses. But on confidering that all womens parts were played by men before the civil wars, our wonder will ceafe, and we are rather inclined to think that very paffionate love scenes, like some in Romeo and Juliet, must be more disgustful than pleasing [T]. After [T] Befides the effect on the audience it must greatly influence the sensibility of the actor, on whose feelings the true expression of the paffion, and consequently the feelings of the spectator must greatly depend, and these will be affected by a much finaller incongruity. Το cite the words of a writer very well informed as to dramatic effect, (Hill's Actor, chap. xv.) • As love can neither be concealed nor dissembled in real life before eyes that have any degree of difcernment, so on the ftage that illusion which is the foul of all theatrical reprefentations will never be well kept up in a love scene unless the perfons who perform the characters have hearts naturally susceptible of the passion; and we shall then see it in the • greatest perfection when those who are to protest, and figh, and vow to one another on the 4 stage in reality sigh and doat on one another off. We can remember two persons who though they

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. After the restoration, when the theatre acquired its last and brightest ornament, the addition of beautiful and elegant female performers, love reigned unrivalled in the drama; and from that period for many years, except the tragedies just mentioned, no new drama was exhibited without a love tale either principal or fubordinate. Of late years, as we have before observed, the stage has been taking a different turn. We have feen Douglas, the Grecian Daughter, and other tragedies of the fame nature, brought forward with applause suitable to their merit. And this complexion of our drama feems to be encreasing. The peculiar abilities of a justly celebrated actress for the representation of matrons, though excellent in all parts, has occafioned love in almost every new tragedy to give place to conjugal and maternal affection; indeed, so much has the latter got poffeffion of the theatre, that the introduction of a nursery is become almost a hacknied stage trick. ' they had both great merit as players, and had neither any thing of that diffolute life too fre- ، quent among those of their profession, yet when they were to be lovers on the stage never • played naturally. It will be seen that I have in my eye Mr. and Mrs. -. Happy as they were in one another the flat poffeffion put an end to transport; and though perhaps enjoying fomething much worthier and better they could not dissemble that. We may on the ⚫ other hand recollect instances, (but I shall not name the perfons) where those who were • pretended lovers on the stage were real lovers off it, and we never faw characters performed ⚫ in such perfection.' See Note VIII. Chap. xv. and Note 11. Chap. XI. and Note II.. Chap. XVII. as also the note immediately preceding this. NOTE

13.5. mvp-aristotle-comment-42 13.6

OEDIPUS AND THYESTES.

METASTASIO is much dissatisfied with both these examples. He maintains that Thyestes is a character entirely vicious; and that Œdipus, ، to use his own words, ' is a man of fo fublime and pure a virtue, that ، ، to avoid the risk of becoming, as the oracle had menaced, incestuous and a parricide, he quits what he believes to be his paternal house, • hazards the fucceffion of a crown, and goes alone and voluntarily into exile. He is a man of fuch exalted courage, that being attacked and • infulted by a multitude of persons, instead of flying he valiantly de- • fends himself though alone, kills one, wounds another, and disperses • the rest.' ESTRATTO DELLA POETICA, page 259. To this eulogy on Edipus we may oppose the reasoning of Batteux. • It was in his power to avoid his crime and his misfortune, although • foretold by an oracle. This was the common belief of all Greece [u].. • Laius believed that by destroying his fon he should avoid his destiny; ، Edipus believed that by flying from Corinth, where he thought his ' father and mother then lived, he should avoid the fatal disafter with [u] I think this affertion wants foundation. Laius and Edipus believed they could avoid their destiny, but the event of the fable shews the contrary was the received opinion of the time. The fame may be faid of Aftyages and Cyrus, and Cræsus and Atys, in Herodotus. There are a thousand stories modern as well as ancient of attempts to avoid foretold evil, but they are always unsuccessful. The apologue attributed to Æfop, of the young man who is killed by striking at the picture of a lion, is intended to enforce the impossibility of avoiding our deftiny. • which

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. • which he was threatened. Admonished as he was by the oracle, • should he have thought it sufficient to fly from Corinth? Should not ⚫ he have respected the age of every man who was of a time in life to • be his father? Should not he have been afraid of marrying any woman ' of an age to be his mother? So far from taking this precaution, he no fooner leaves Delphi than he kills the first man he meets, which • happens to be his father Laius; he arrives at Thebes; he triumphs over the Sphynx; elated with his victory, and the offer of a crown, • he marries a woman who evidently might be his mother, fince the ، actually was so. His unhappiness therefore, was obviously the fruit • of his imprudence and his paffions, and might serve for an example to • all the Greeks.' To this it may be added, that the cause of Edipus consulting the oracle was a doubt concerning his being the offspring of his supposed parents Polybius and Merope. Besides, we are to take the manners of Edipus from the picture of him drawn by Sophocles, and he has evidently drawn him as a most violent and inconfiftent character. In a scene between him and Jocasta, where she describes the manner of the death of Laius, he is instantly struck by the circumstance, and precipitately condemns himself, though Jocasta tries to console him; but in a subsequent scene, when Jocasta herself is convinced, and endeavours to dissuade him from further enquiry, he is obftinately refolved to fee the shepherd, and instead of dreading the fatal discovery is in a rage from the fufpicion of a design to represent him as a man of obfcure birth. The last speech of Edipus before the entrance of Phorbas has a ftrong tendency to leffen our concern for his own horrid fituation, and to encrease it for that of Jocasta. The chorus having expressed a dread of the effects

effects of the deep and filent grief shewn by the queen on her going out, Edipus replies : [w] • Burst as it will;-how mean foe'er my line, • I am refolv'd to trace it home.-Perhaps, ، (Such is the pride of woman,) she disdains My humble birth. - The child of fortune, I- • Blest in Her smile, such groundless scorn despise.- 'HER care maternal; and the kindred months • With gradual course from life's inferior scenes • Have rais'd me up to greatness: for my lineage, • Whate'er it be, enquiry cannot change it.' There are some strokes in the soliloquy of the Bastard in King Lear not unlike part of this speech; and perhaps the reader will trace some resemblance between one passage in it, and a reflection of Macbeth. • Come what, come may, • Time and the hour run thro' the roughest day.' [w] Ὁποῖα χρήζει ῥηγνύτω· τ᾽εμὸν δ᾽ ἐγὼ Κ'ει σμικρόν ἐσι σπέρμ᾽, ἰδεῖν βουλήσομαι. ᾿Αυτὴ δ᾽ ἴσως, (φρονεὶ γὰρ γυνὴ μέγα,) Τὴν δυσγένειαν τὴν ἐμὴν ἀισχύνεται. Ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν παῖδα τῆς τύχης νέμων, Τῆς ἐῦ διδέσης, ὀυκ ἀτιμασθήσομαι. Τῆς γὰρ πέφυκα μητρός· ὁι δὲ συγδενεις Μῆνές με μικρὸν καὶ μέγαν διώρισαν. Τοιός δε δ᾽ ἐκφὺς οὐκ ἂν ἐξέλθοιμ᾽, ἔτι Πότ᾿ ἄλλος, ὥσε μὴ κ' μαθεῖν τ᾿ εμὸν γένος. As

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. As to Thyestes, those who are determined never to find Aristotle and the Greeks in the wrong, may at least allow him to be as good a character as Richard the Third. Though to speak candidly, I rather think them both exceptions to the rule laid down by Ariftotle than examples to illustrate it.

13.6. mvp-aristotle-comment-43 13.7

NOW, THE SUBJECTS OF THE BEST TRAGEDIES ARE TAKEN FROM A FEW FAMILIES.

IN the time of Aristotle, the walk both of history and fable was confined within very narrow limits. (x) The transactions of Greece and Persia were the principal, and indeed the only objects of history properly so called, for that part of the works of Herodotus which does not relate to those countries, is rather the compilation of the traveller than the narration of the regular historian; and fable was confined to the Grecian mythology. Our dramatic field is greatly enlarged. Befides poffeffing almost every story proper for the drama which was known when Ariftotle wrote, we have the additional advantage of events drawn from the annals of more than twenty succeeding centuries, with all the variety of incident and manners that must arise from the adventures, the customs, and prejudices of different ages, governments and climates, and all the combinations that memory and imagination have been able to form out of fuch an immense mass of matter. It is true,' as Bossu observes, ⚫ that the ancients could not foresee what would happen after them: ، [x] See Note Iv. Chap. Ix. LI • but

، ' but he, (Boffu) who had the advantage of seeing it, might have em- 'ployed it to shew the possibility of compofing poems that would possess more incident, more striking situations, more manners, more pictures ' of human actions; in fine, more examples of every kind than can be • found in the ancient poets.' TERRASSON ON THE ILIAD. Perhaps there is something a little invidious in this observation; for the chief object of Terrasson seems to be the depreciation of Homer. That Homer from the scanty materials he possessed should have been able to form works containing such vast variety of incident and manners, as the Iliad and the Odyssey, and that Ariftotle from his writings, and their copiers the tragic poets, should have been able to deduce rules so generally applicable to the nature of imitative composition even at the present day, must excite at once our wonder and veneration. Nevertheless though the general precepts are so perfectly just, as being founded on truth and nature, it is impoffible they can strictly apply to all the variety of subjects which have enlarged the sphere of epic and dramatic fable in the course of fucceeding ages. We may trace in the institutions of Alfred the great outline of the British constitution, and find those striking canons of polity and freedom which the accumulated wisdom of centuries has never attempted, and I trust never will attempt to alter or amend; for in politics as well as poetics, all alteration of excellence is corruption. But at the fame time that we allow this, we cannot expect to find in a code of laws framed for a rude people, and comparatively a circumfcribed dominion, every regulation necessary for the government of a powerful and commercial empire, and its refined and luxurious inhabitants. NOTE

13.7. mvp-aristotle-comment-44 13.11

THE SECOND FORM, WHICH IS ESTEEMED THE FIRST BY SOME, IS THAT WHICH HAS A DOUBLE COMPOSITION LIKE THE ODYSSEY; HAVING A DIFFERENT CATASTROPHE FOR THE VIRTUOUS AND VICIOUS. THIS FORM APPEARS TO BE THE FIRST, FROM THE WEAKNESS OF THE SPECTATORS, WHICH THE POETS ARE INDUCED TO FOLLOW, AND COMPOSE THEIR PLAYS TO GRATIFY THE FEELINGS OF THE AUDIENCE.

WHY it should be the duty of a poet not to gratify the feelings of his audience, or why it should be a weakness in the audience to wish to see virtue rewarded and vice punished in the catastrophe, provided the paffions of pity and terror have been strongly excited during the course of the drama, is I confefs totally beyond my comprehenfion. If the principal person of the piece, on our interest for whom the general interest of the drama must depend, is to be shewn as falling from happiness to mifery, through some great frailty, short of any species of guilt that shall fink him in our esteem, and is to be represented happy till the catastrophe of the piece, in the catastrophe only will the tragic impreffion be made. Or if the distress begin with the drama, and gradually increase till the fatal catastrophe, the peripetía or fudden revolution of fortune will be wanting. It is impoffible however to reduce to rules that which can be only tried by the criterion of our feelings; and from the passage before us it is obvious that the feelings of the Athenians L12 were

were in oppofition to the opinion of the Stagirite; and from a former part of the chapter it is equally clear that Euripides had been censured by his countrymen for forming his tragedies on the plan afterwards approved by Ariftotle, though many of his tragedies, especially his Alcestes, his [v] Iphigenia in Tauris, and his Ion, befides the Cresphontes, which will be particularly noticed in a note on the next chapter, are written in the popular form. Whatever might be Aristotle's motive for oppofing the general taste of Athens in this particular, it still less applies to the modern drama. However elegant the taste of the ancients may have been, it is I think sufficiently obvious from all the classical writers that they were not so much alive to the feelings of sensibility as the moderns. We find few of those nice touches which mark the delicacy of the sensations, and which intereft more than the strongest pictures of distress. The only striking instances I recollect of this kind, are the account of the behaviour and words of Alcestes when she supposes herself dying, in Euripides; and the elegant compliment of the wife of Tigranes to her husband, and the pathetic tale of Abradatas and Panthea in Xenophon's Cyropædia. Neither did the Greek tragedy possess the power which the modern stage does of exciting pity and terror during the course of the action from nice and pathetic touches of paffion and manners. Their theatre was not calculated for affecting situation; and therefore if the incidents themselves were not strikingly dreadful, little interest could be excited. Aristotle himself in the beginning of the next chapter, mentions the (Y) In the Iphigenia in Aulis, after the death of Iphigenia appears inevitable, she is faved by a machine, contrary to all probability as well as in opposition to the received fable. See the eleventh Pythian Ode of Pindar, and the Agamemnon of Æschylus. repre-

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. representation and the combination of the incidents as the only means of exciting pity and terror: if therefore that representation and that combination were not very striking, they could have but little effect on a theatre, whose apparatus was so ill calculated to conceal the means of imitation. [z] For, after all that has been faid of the dramatic probability of the ancient tragedy, encumbered as it was with its chorus, its exaggerated and unnatural recitation (A), its enormous masks and stilts as described by Julius Pollux and Lucian; its frequent instances of buffoonery, not put, like the similar passages in Shakespear into the mouth of fervants and clowns, but uttered by heroes and kings, and blended with the most serious parts of the drama, we may surely say with Mr. Twining [B], that the Greek tragedy was in ' many respects a fimple, unequal, imperfect thing.' [c] The modern theatre is very different; the means of imitation are less obvious and more natural, and the illusion much more complete. And befides it enters more into the detail both of passion and sentiment, and confequently has a variety of modes of affecting the feelings which [z] See Note II. Chap. v. and Note II. Chap. vI. [A] An enraged grenadier, with a fabre in his hand, is undoubtedly an object of terror ' and alarm; but if to make himself taller he mounts upon stilts; if in order to seem more ' enraged he covers his face with an illumined mask, he will then become a scare-crow, and • frighten children only; his enormous strides will but serve to render him the more ridiculous ' to the rational spectator.' LINGUET ON VOLTAIRE'S TRAGEDIES. [B] See Note 215 near the end. This is faid only as to dramatic effect. The spectacle was undoubtedly most magnificent. [c] See Note 1. Chap. Iv. were

were denied to the ancients. • In the drama of the Greeks we may • see indeed the strongest colors, but they are distinct, neither softened • by reflection or melted into each other; while in the modern drama ، we fee a thousand combinations which far from weakening the picture only serve to render it more lively, more various, and more interesting.' MARMONTEL. The impreffion of the paffions of pity [D] and terror on the mind as to their strength, will be influenced like every other impression corporal as [D] How much we are influenced by particular circumstances and situations, as to affecting impressions every one who confults his own feelings, or studies the feelings of others, will be foon convinced. To take a very familiar instance from the popular amusement of sporting: many a man who during the enthusiasm of the chace, will look on the death of a deer or a hare not only with unconcern but with pleasure, would feel a real pain at seeing a lamb slaughtered by a butcher, or will kill a pheasant or a partridge with his gun for his diversion, when he must be strongly pressed by hunger indeed before he would strangle a fowl with his hands. To those who like to judge rather by others sensations than their own, and think experiment inferior to classical authority, a quotation from Xenophon and Arrian on this subject may have weight. Xenophon speaking of the hare-chace says, ' This animal is so pleasing that who- ⚫ ever fees it either trailed, or found, or pursued, or taken, forgets every thing else that he ⚫ is most attached to. To all this Arrian assents in his Treatise on Coursing except the taking of the hare, which he says ' is neither a pleasing nor a striking sight, but rather dif- • gusting.' The difference of opinion in Xenophon, Arrian supposes to arise from his being ignorant of the use of greyhounds. Undoubtedly the corporal sufferings of the hare are more obvious to the courser than the hunter. Mr. Somerville in his Chace, where certainly it is not his purpose to diminish the enthusiasm of the sport, has chofen to mention a very improper circumstance, and which tends strongly to do it, in his description of the death of the hare. Till round inclos'd • By all the greedy pack, with infant fcreams • She yields her breath.' Thomfon

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. as well as mental, both by the force of the stroke and the sensibility of the object struck. If then the moderns possess more fenfib lity, and at the fame time their theatrical imitation not only exceeds the ancient in truth of representation, but enters more into affecting detail, it may produce that kind of illufion which shall be so strong as, on painful fubjects, to produce the paffions of pity and terror unallayed by the sensation of any attendant pleasure. In this case surely Aristotle would not condemn a poet for softening the pathos of the dramatic story in compliance with the feelings of his audience, fince in the passage quoted from his Treatise on Government he mentions (E) pleasure as a necessary concomitant of the purgation of the paffions by the imitative arts. Here however an objection may possibly occur. Aristotle indeed tells us, that the Athenians were best pleased with the happy catastrophe ending differently to the good and the bad; or in other words, with what is or rather has been usually called POETICAL JUSTICE. But how shall we Thomson not only censures hunting as a cruel diversion, but even blames the use of animal food. Angling however, he praises as a delightful amusement. Even there he feels for the worm. But he speaks with all the complacency imaginable of fixing with gentle twitch the barbed * hook' in the mouth of the fish. The early instructors of youth are now very careful in preventing them from tormenting animals, and it is a very proper care; but at the fame time it oftener originates from mistaken fondness than cruelty. If the fly-killing anecdote of Domitian be true, I think it rather a proof of his want of rational resources of amusement than a specimen of the natural barbarity of his disposition. [Ε] Καὶ πᾶσι γίγνεσθαι τινὰ καθάρσιν, καὶ κώφιζεσθαι μέθ ἡδονὴς. See Note I. Chap. VI. That the primary object of poetry is to please was the opinion also of Erastofthenes, another ancient philofopher, who says, ποιητὴν πάντα σοχάζεσθαι ψυχαγογίας ου διδασ καλίας. The poet effects all his purposes by interesting us not by instructing us.' See the beginning of the bishop of Worcester's Effay on the Idea of Universal Poetry. account

account for what has been said in favor of the opposite conduct of the tragic drama among ourselves? The answer to this objection appears sufficiently obvious [F]. People are very apt to think they like what they ought to like. How far this decifion of Aristotle might change the taste, or rather the fashion of Athens in this cafe, we have no opportunity of knowing; but that it has influenced, afsisted by the critical decifions of Addison and others, the opinion of many of the people of London, though perhaps not their real taste, is certain. Mr. Addison and his colleagues in the composition of the Tatlers and Spectators, have been at great pains to disseminate and enforce this doctrine of Aristotle, to the entire conviction of such of his readers as chose rather to judge of their feelings from the authority of philosophers and critics than their own sensations. See Spectator, No. 40, and Tatler, No. 82. The last mentioned paper is by the later editors attributed to Steele [G], but the doctrine [F] The father of English poetry makes no bad distinction between the decision of pedantry and nature in putting the commendation of the system of Ariftotle in the mouth of the monk, and giving the other opinion to the knight and the hoft. See the quotation from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales by Mr. Twining, Note 100. See also Beattie on Imagination, Chap. v. page 202. [G] In one of these tales which I do not quote as they are in every one's hands, we can hardly, on reflection, pity the man whose misfortune is brought on by so absurd an act as the pulling the trigger of a fire arm at a woman, even with a certainty of its being unloaded, which was not the cafe. A great frailty may be a proper foundation for tragic distress, but I doubt if a great folly is. As to the other story which Gay has made the groundwork of a very popular ballad, the event on which it turns is barely possible but very improbable, and therefore unfit for poetry. I have heard of an event as extraordinary, though directly opposite in the catastrophe, from an eye witness whose veracity I can depend on, which though on the same ground unfit for fable, those of my readers who think as I do on the subject will forgive me for relating. My friend was at one of the small bathing towns on the fouthern coast of England, I believe Teignmouth, when the Royal George was loft at Spithead. He was in the street when the account came. A poor woman in

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. doctrine as to poetical justice, and the weakness of the audience, is exactly correspondent with that of Addison in the Spectator, and this doctrine is supported by the introduction of two as shocking tales as a gloomy imagination ever invented, or the accidental occurrence of diftrefsful incidents actually occasioned. In this country, however, the authority of a dictator even in matters of taste will never be admitted, an appeal lies to the people, and their decree has reversed this dictatorial edict. [H] The tragedy of King Lear has always ended with the happinefs of Cordelia and the restoration of the old monarch, from the first alteration of it by Tate. Indeed Addison himself was too good a whig in all the agony of maternal grief exclaimed, I had a fon on board. A man at the instant was riding down the street. It was that son who had got leave of absence, and had left the ship the day before the accident. In No. 117 of the Tatler, a doctrine diametrically opposite is held. 'Inventions of this ' kind (ending happily) ' are the food and exercise of a good-natured disposition, which they ' please and gratify at the same time that they nourish and strengthen.' This paper the later editors attribute to Addison, but the internal evidence is strongly in favour of its being Steele's. Particularly the story of the dream. [H] Davies in his Dramatic Miscellanies has remarked, that King Lear in its original state was never a favorite. Mr. Colman altered Tate's alteration, preserving the happy catastrophe, but rejecting the love scenes between Edgar and Cordelia. The reason given by Tate for this love episode is quite a la Françoise, viz. the want of heroism in Edgar to take such a mode of saving his life for his own fake only. However the idea that Cordelia gives those harsh answers to her father to avoid a difagreeable marriage, reconciles us to a conduct otherwise a little inconsistent with so gentle a character; but on the other hand it deprives Albany, who is drawn as a perfectly just man, of the only excuse he can have for arming against his own conviction. < Where I could not be honest, ‹ I never yet was valiant: for this business, ' It touches us as France invades our land.' Mm not

not to lay afide his assumed authority, and bow to the majesty of the people, and flatter their prevailing taste even in violation of ancient manners by wedding a Roman virgin to a barbarian king, and of Roman history by dismissing to happiness and quiet a young patriot, who expired foon afterwards with his country's freedom in the plains of Philippi, for the fake of giving a happy catastrophe to his celebrated tragedy. I fay a happy catastrophe, for as to the character of Cato, as it is drawn by Addison, we are neither interested in his life or concerned for his death. To argue from my own feelings, that arrangement of dramatic fable is at the same time the most affecting, and the most pleasing in which those characters in whose welfare we are strongly interested, after experiencing the greatest distress, and while their utter ruin or death seems inevitable, are at once relieved by a sudden revolution of fortune quite unexpected and yet not improbable [1]; and the pleafure received from this will be greatly encreased if the distress of the fable arises from tyranny and oppreffion [K], the author of which. is involved in ruin by the peripetía. Such an arrangement will both: excite pity and terror, and the catastrophe will be still agreeable to our feelings. This form is exemplified in the Wife for a Month of Beaumont and Fletcher, the Marriage A-la-Mode of Dryden, the Grecian [1] The difficulty of doing this, I believe, has occafioned more poets to follow the oppofite plan than the precept of Aristotle; for as Dryden observes in his preface to the Spanish Friar, It is not so easy a business to make a tragedy end happily; for 'tis more difficult • to save than 'tis to kill. The dagger and the cup of poifon are always in readiness; but • to bring the action to the last extremity, and then by probable means to recover all, will * require the art and judgment of a writer, and cost him many a pang in the performance.' [K] This is even approved by Ariftotle. See Note VI. Chap. XVIII. Daughter,

Daughter, and above all in the fourth act of The Merchant of Venice. At the moment Shylock is preparing to execute his bloody purpose, the interpofition of Portia, Tarry a little-there is something else,' and the terror and disappointment of the Jew, has been already mentioned as affording the most striking theatrical situation that can be conceived. Perhaps the subsequent effect is something hurt by the raillery of Gratiano, the force of which should be kept down as much as poffible in the performance, instead of being highly exaggerated as it usually is. We have feen indeed the character of Portia given to a comic actress, and the gravest and most spirited parts of this scene made the vehicles of mimicry. In this Mrs. Clive was followed by Miss Macklin and others. Miss Young, now Mrs. Pope, had the honor of restoring Portia to her proper dignity. The fate of Sir Giles Overreach in Maffinger's New Way to Pay Old Debts, would be a masterpiece of this fort were it not for the circumstance [L] of his daughter being a party in the scheme to betray him, and the lord degrading his character as a nobleman, and still more as a foldier, by taking a principal part in the deception. Though the peripetía, or sudden revolution of fortune, when arifing even from accident is allowable in the tragedy with a happy catastrophe, as in the Wife for a Month of Beaumont and Fletcher, yet I think in the tragedy of the other form the unhappy catastrophe should be a necessary or probable consequence of the circumstances of the fable. Undeferved [L] From a circumstance of the same kind, though not immediately connected with the catastrophe, Shylock moves more of our compaffion than perhaps the poet intended; though this is greatly counteracted by the scene where his imprecations against his daughter's disobedience are alternately interrupted by his vows of vengeance against Antonio, Mm 2 mifery,

misery, purely accidental, will always displease in the representation. Our sense of moral fitness is hurt by it; we are apt to say [M] such things ought not to be. When such things happen in real life our first sentiments take that turn, and we can only reconcile them with our notions of a just and merciful Providence, by looking beyond this life; but we are not likely to make reflections of that kind at the theatre; the dramatic illufion is momentary; the instant we reason about it it vanishes. The distress in Romeo and Juliet arifes only from the Friar's coming a few minutes too late to the monument; and in Garrick's [N] alteration, by Romeo's drinking the poison a few moments too foon. The catastrophe of King Lear and of Douglas are both derived from accident. Tate has altered the first by making the messenger arrive only an instant sooner in the prison; in the original he comes time enough to fave the king. The other may be altered, and I believe has been on a private theatre, by making Douglas turn a moment sooner on Glenalvon. Tragedies of this fort do not require the great art and judgment mentioned by Dryden to change the catastrophe, but it can very feldom be done when the catastrophe arises inevitably from the incidents; as in the Edipus of Sophocles, and in Coriolanus, Othello, Timon of Athens, Venice Preserved, and the Fair Penitent. [o] Dr. Beattie blames the punishment of Lovelace in Clarifsa as not being the immediate consequence of his wickedness, but of fome infe- [M] Elements of Criticism, Vol. II. page 379. [N] By Garrick's judicious alteration the pathos is greatly increased. At the same time that I express a general opinion that the unhappy catastrophe ought not to arise from accident, I do not mean to say that when such an arrangement is adopted the merit of the poet does not increase in proportion as the power of affecting is made more forcible. [o] Effay on Fable and Romance, page 569. riority

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. riority to his antagonist in the use of the small sword. But though the wisdom of the age has abolished the trial by combat from our courts, it still makes a part of the jurisprudence of fable whether epic or dramatic [P]. On the stage we are pleased to fee Richard fall by the hand of Richmond, and Macbeth yield to Macduff, though from the characters of the combatants, it is most probable that the decifion of a duel would in reality have been the reverse. [P] We must nevertheless allow, that when either the epopee or the drama chuse to punish a character they have drawn superlatively vicious with death, they ought not to diftinguish his final conduct with any particular strokes of heroism. The ingenious author of Zelucco has erred in this respect when we consider what a fiend he is made. I think Thomson saw this clearly from the answer he makes Cassandra give to the vaunt of Ægifthus, in his tragedy of Agamemnon. EGISTHUS. We this important day • Will or with conquest crown, or bravely die. CASSANDRA. No, tyrant, no! the gods refuse thee that: • Not like the brave, but like the trembling coward, • Th' afsaffinating coward, shalt thou die.' M. Leffing, in speaking of the German tragedy of Richard the Third, makes a fimilar observation. (For the character of Richard, as drawn by the German poet, see Note Iv. on this chapter.) After so many crimes which we have been compelled to witness, we hear ⚫ that he has fallen in the field of battle. When the queen' (his sister-in-law, I prefume,) ' is informed of it, and the poet makes her say, "This is something," I have never been able ⚫ at the representation to refrain from faying to myself, " No! it's nothing." • More than ' one virtuous monarch has fallen in defending his crown against a powerful rebel. Richard ' dies indeed, but he dies like a hero; dies on the bed of honor: and can fuch a death recom- ⚫ pense me for the pain I have felt during all the piece from feeing the triumph of successful • villainy?' DRAMATURGIE, Part II. page 36. It was given only to Shakespear to paint the character of Richard as a cruel and successful tyrant without caufing him to awaken our disgust, and to make his death at the fame time honorable and supremely dreadful, by means of preceding machinery. NOTE

A COMMENTARY ON THE CHAP. XIII.

13.8. mvp-aristotle-comment-45 13.12

THE SATISFACTION ATTAINED BY THESE MEANS IS NOT THAT WHICH SHOULD PROPERLY BE EXPECTED FROM TRAGEDY, BUT RATHER WHAT BELONGS TO COMEDY. FOR THERE, THOUGH THE CHARACTERS ACCORDING TO THE FABLE ARE AS IM- PLACABLE ENEMIES AS ORESTES AND ÆGISTHUS, THEY MUST GO OUT RECONCILED AT THE END OF THE PLAY, AND NO PERSON MUST BE KILLED BY ANOTHER.

i I PERFECTLY agree with Mr. Twining in his idea concerning the allufion to comedy. Nothing can be more natural than for Ariftotle, after having blamed the happy catastrophe arifing from the punishment of vice, and the reward of virtue, and saying that such an arrangement wanted the tragic requifites of pity and terror, and partook rather of the nature of comedy, to add, that comedy was indeed so averse to objects of pity and terror that it could hardly admit the punishment of vice; the scene must, on no account, be stained with blood; guilt must be reclaimed not punished; and enemies reconciled, even though the event violates the known facts on which the fable is founded. The notion that the death of fome of the persons is an essential characteristic of tragedy, has I believe prevailed on the modern theatre; and some of those dramas which take a higher tone than is usual with comedy, without including any fatal accident, have been announced to the public under the general name of plays. In common conversation we never apply tragic to any event, however distressful, that is not attended by fome fatal consequence. From

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. From the mention of Orestes and Ægisthus, one might be tempted to think that comedy sometimes interfered, as to her subjects, with the province of tragedy. But I conceive it is only meant as a strong example to illustrate the predilection of comedy for the universal happiness of the catastrophe. The reconciliation of enemies is seldom a subject of the drama, but that of friends who have quarrelled has been a favorite scene, which succeeding poets have copied from each other. The archetype of this was given by Euripides, in the scene between Agamemnon and Menelaus, in the Iphigenia in Aulis. Our Shakespear exhibited a masterly trait of the same kind in the interview between Brutus and Caffius. Beaumont and Fletcher copied him in the dialogue between Melanthus. and Amyntor in the Maid's Tragedy; and Dryden imitated the fame fituation twice, viz. in the scenes between Troilus and Hector, and Dorax and Sebastian. To these may be added the scene between Horatio and Altamont, in the Fair Penitent; and the reconciliation of Lord and Lady Townly in the Provoked Husband. Defects are not so generally imitated. At least we may be sure that what is so often found in the compofitions of those whose chief business it is to please the public, must be found capable of producing that end. Of the dramatic effect. of all but the two last I cannot judge, but in reading they affect my own feelings in a higher degree than any other dramatic circumstance whatever; and the last scene of the Provoked Husband always draws as many tears from the eyes of the audience as the strongest efforts of the tragic muse, though assisted by the powers of Mrs. Siddons. CHAP..

A COMMENTARY ON THE CHAP. XIV. i !

14.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-46 14.3

THOSE WHO PRODUCE WHAT IS MONSTROUS INSTEAD OF WHAT IS TERRIBLE, BY THE REPRESENTATION, HAVE NONE OF THE PROPERTIES OF TRAGEDY.

THE word used by Aristotle here (τεραζώδες) I conceive to apply in this cafe to any thing wonderful and supernatural, or as Metastasio renders it, ' il monftruoso ed il portentoso.' (A) The critic has first mentioned two modes of producing pity and terror; by the apparatus of the theatre, and by the construction of the fable. Yet he not only gives the decided preference to the last, but he even goes so far as to say it is in fact the only mode that can fairly be esteemed the work of the poet, as being capable of producing the proper end of tragedy without the assistance of theatrical representation; while that which depends on the apparatus is almost independent of the poet, and depends chiefly for its effect on the [B) person who furnishes and arranges the decoration of the spectacle. [A] See Mr. Twining's note on this passage, note ci, in which there is much judicious criticifm. [B] The Choragus which I have rendered manager of the theatre' to make it more obvious to the English reader, was the person who furnished the chorus, the actors, the dresses, &c. at his own expence. This mode of bribing the poorer citizens by the rich, was as popular at Athens as feasting them is in Britain. The fame method was followed by the Roman demagogues towards the close of the republic, though generally by the means of a more barbarous

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. spectacle. But he now proceeds to shew, that the very small share the poet could claim of this effect is entirely lost, when the monstrous is exhibited, merely as such, and unconnected with the terrible, since the trifling powers he does possess in this method of exciting the paffions, viz. the pointing out to the perfon who regulates the apparatus, the objects on which he is to exercise his art, are applied to a purpose not at all connected with the proposed end of tragic imitation [c]. What was the power of the ancient theatrical apparatus to produce terror, we can only learn from history. We are told indeed, though perhaps from no very good authority, that in the Eumenides of Æschylus so many furies in horrid forms were brought on the stage, that children were thrown into fits, and pregnant women miscarried. Whatever may be the authority from which we receive this anecdote, it seems by no means improbable. We know the effect that scenes of this kind have over weak minds at the present hour. No one has I believe ever cenfured the behaviour of Partridge at the theatre, as contrary to nature; and a person who will really feel themselves ill by the supposed influence of animal magnetism, may certainly be strongly affected by theatrical horror. We may also allow, that the decoration of the Athenian stage with its masks and its buskins, was as superior to our own in representing these wonderful and supernatural appearances, as I must think it was inferior in imitating the truth and nature of real life. ! ! barous exhibition than the drama; this being afterwards adopted by the emperors on a larger and more expensive scale, had no small share in reconciling the people to the lofs of their influence in the administration of the government.

[c] The reader who wishes to fee an application of this to the modern pantomime, and a very humourous examination of that species of the drama by the rules of Aristotle, is referred to Mr. Twining, note cr. Nn The

The preternatural beings of Shakespear have been praised so often and by so many critics who stand high in the literary world, that it might feem superfluous to say any thing on the subject, did I not confider it as the duty of a writer, profeffing to illustrate the Poetic of Aristotle by modern examples, not to pass over the poet whose excellence in this respect is unrivalled, and is of a different cast from any thing of the kind in the Grecian drama, and that in a circumstance which I do not recollect to have ever seen noticed.

In the production of fupernatural beings by the Greek tragedians, both from the pieces themselves and the judgement of Aristotle, it appears the terror was produced chiefly, if not entirely by the apparatus. We find none of that solemn language which we at once feel, [D] though we hardly know why to be so strictly characteristic of the shadowy speaker. This is so independent of, and so superior to the art of the Choragus, that no theatrical decoration is capable of heightening its effect. What representation can give us such ideas of the ghost of Hamlet as we received from the terrible and pathetic dialogue between that aweful phantom and his fon. Perhaps the effect is stronger in the closet than on the stage. This is certainly the cafe with Macbeth. The witches with their high-crowned hats and broomsticks, might be objects of terror, in the reign of a monarch who wrote a treatise on their art, against which sanguinary laws were not only in existence but put into frequent and severe execution; but to us they are merely objects of ridicule, as having no hold either on our belief, or the faintest traces of [D] The cause of this is examined and investigated as far as it is capable of investigation, by the author of the Effay on the dramatic Character of Falstaff, page 71. our

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. our recollection of fuch belief; and we are at full leisure to laugh at the grotesque figures of the mafculine and bearded women. The Bishop of Worcester in his Letters on Chivalry, mentions the superior horror of the gothic to the ancient superstition, and how much more we are affected by the ghosts and witches of Shakespear, than by the Lemures of antiquity. The fact as to the ghosts, at least with regard to ourselves is indisputable, and I think the reason of it is sufficiently obvious. The fictions of ancient mythology are only matters of amusement to us; but the gothic superstitions have, to most of us, been at one part of our lives the objects of our belief and our terror. For parental care has seldom been able entirely to guard our infancy from the impressions of the nursery. M. Leffing, in his criticism on the Semiramis of Voltaire, introduces so just a comparison between the machinery of Shakespear and Voltaire, that I shall make no apology for inserting it though it is of some length. • Is it never permitted now to admit a ghost on the scene? Is this • source of the terrible, of the pitiable entirely exhausted? By no means; ' that would be too great a loss to the poetic art. Cannot we produce ، many instances where genius confounds all our philosophy by rendering things terrible to the imagination, which to the cool reason would appear perfectly ridiculous? We must reason differently then; perhaps the first principle we argue from is not well-four.ded. "We “ believe no longer in apparitions." Who has faid this? Or rather, • what does it mean when it is said? Does it fignify that we are so far ⚫ enlightened as to be able to demonstrate their impossibility? Are those • incontestable truths which contradict the idea of such prodigies so universally spread, are they always so much in the minds of the people, Nn 2 ' that

، ' that every thing that is repugnant to them must necessarily appear ridiculous and absurd? That can never be the sense of the phrafe. "We believe no longer in apparitions," then can only mean this. On a fubject on which different opinions may be supported, and which never has been and never can be decided, the prevailing opinion of the ، day occasions the balance to preponderate on the negative side : many • individuals are convinced that there are no apparitions, a great many ⚫ more pretend to be convinced, and these harangue on the subject and give and support the fashionable doctrine. But the multitude are filent, they are indifferent on the subject, they sometimes take one fide ⚫ and sometimes the other, they laugh at ghosts in broad day-light, and • liften with trembling avidity at night to the terrible stories that are < told of them [E]. • The disbelief of spectres in this sense neither can nor ought to prevent the use of them in dramatic poetry. We have all in us at least • the feeds of this belief, and they will be found most in the minds of • the people for whom the [F] poet principally composes. It depends ⚫ on his art to make them vegetate, and on his address, in the rapidity of • the moment to give force to the arguments in favor of the reality of ⚫ these phantoms. If he succeeds, we may be at liberty in common • life to believe as we please, but at the theatre he will be the arbiter of our faith.

[E] I am too well convinced of the accuracy of M. Lessing's knowledge of human nature to doubt the truth of this account of German credulity. It would have better suited this country half a century ago than at present. But, even now, there are more people who will feel the truth of it than will own it, even in England.. [F] Especially the dramatic poet. It is faid of Moliere that he used to read all his comedies to an old female servant, and generally found her decisions confirmed by the public. Shakespear

• Shakespear knew this art, and he is almost the only one who ever • did know it. At the appearance of His ghost, in Hamlet, the hair • stands an end, whether it covers the brain of incredulity or supersti- ⚫tion. M. Voltaire was much in the wrong to appeal to this ghost, • which makes both him and his apparition of Ninus ridiculous. The ghoft of Shakespear really comes from the other world, at least it appears so to our feelings : for it arrives in the solemn hour, in the dead • filence of midnight, accompanied by all those gloomy and mysterious ، accessory ideas with which our nurses have taught us to expect the appearance of spectres; while that of Voltaire's is not fit even to terrify a child. It is merely an actor who neither says or does any thing to perfuade us he is what he pretends to be: on the contrary, all the 'circumstances with which it appears, destroy the illusion and betray the • hand of a cold poet who wishes indeed to deceive and terrify us, but • does not know how to go about it. It is in the middle of the day [G], ،

' in the middle of an assembly of the states of the empire, and preceded by a peal of thunder, that the spirit of Ninus makes its appearance from ⚫ the tomb. From whence did Voltaire learn that apparitions were fo • bold? What old woman could not have told him that apparitions were afraid of the light of the fun, and were not fond of visiting large [G] Shakespear knew the confequence of adapting his scenery to his action, in exciting terror by natural as well as supernatural agents. • The sun is in the heaven; and the proud day, • Attended with the pleasures of the world, • Is all too wanton and too full of gawds To give me audience :- if the midnight bell • Did with his iron tongue and brazen mouth, • Sound one unto the drowzy race of night: If this same were a church-yard where we stand.'- K. JOHN. • affemblies?

'assemblies? Voltaire was undoubtedly acquainted with all this; but ⚫ he was too cautious, too delicate, to make use of such trifling cir- 'cumstances. He was desirous indeed of shewing us a ghost, but he ، was determined it should be one of French extraction, decent, and ' noble. This decency spoiled the whole. A spectre, who takes liber- 'ties contrary to all custom, law, and established order of ghosts, does not seem to me a genuine spectre; and in this case, every thing that does not strengthen the illusion tends to destroy it. 红 • If Voltaire had examined with care, he would have felt the inconveniency, which on another account must attend the bringing a phantom before so many people. On its appearance, all the persons of the assembly (that is to say, all the actors who were representing the ' council of the queen and the states) ought to shew in their counte- ، nances all the terror that the situation required; each ought even to shew it differently from the rest to avoid the cold uniformity of a ballet. How could such a troop of stupid assistants be trained to this exercise? • And when it had fucceeded as well as possible, would not this variety ⚫ of expression of the same sentiment have divided the attention of the spectators, and necessarily have drawn it from the principal characters ? That these may make a strong impression on us, it is not only necessary • that we should fee them, but it is also proper that we should fee nothing else. • In Shakespear, it is only with Hamlet that the ghost converses. In • the scene where the mother is present, the spectre is neither seen or ⚫ heard by her. All our attention then is fixed on him alone; and the ، more we discover in him the signs of a foul distracted by terror and • surprize, the more cause we have to think the apparition which occa- • fions

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. • fions such agitations, as real as he seems to believe it. The [H] ghost ، operates more on us through him, than itself. The impreffion that it • makes on him passes into our minds, and the effect is too sensible and ⚫ too strong for us to doubt of an extraordinary cause. Of this secret, • Voltaire knew little. It is precisely because his spectre tries to ' terrify many people, that it produces little terror in any one. Semi- ⚫ ramis cries out once only, " O, heaven, I die!" and the other assist- ⚫ ants are very little more affected by the shade of Ninus, than they ' would be by the unexpected appearance of a friend, whom they be- ' lieved to be at a distance. • I observe also another difference between the French and English • spectre. The first is only a poetical machine solely employed to [1] • unravel the plot; we take no interest in him. On the contrary, the Not that it was [H] Fielding makes Partridge account for his fear in the fame manner. • the ghost that surprized me neither: for I should have known that to have been only a man • in a strange dress: but when I saw the little man so frightened himself it was that which took < hold of me.' TOM JONES, Book xvr. Chap. v. [1] This intention however is expressly disavowed by Voltaire; and what is rather surprizing, in a paragraph in which he quotes, with approbation, the celebrated rule of Horace, • Nec deus intersit nisi dignus vindice nodus.' • I would have (he fays) these bold attempts never employed, except when they serve at the ' same time to add to the intrigue and the terror of the piece; and I would wish by all means ⚫ that the intervention of these supernatural beings should not appear absolutely necessary. I • will explain myself: if the plot of a tragic poem is so involved in difficulty, that the poet can • only free himself from the embarrassment by the aid of a prodigy, the spectator will perceive • the distress of the author and the weakness of the resource.' DISSERTATION ON TRAGEDY PREFIXED TO SEMIRAMIS. • other

، ، ⚫ other is really an efficient person of the drama, in whose fate we are interested; he excites not only terror, but compaffion also. ، This has probably arisen from the different manner in which these two authors have confidered the general notion of apparitions. Voltaire has regarded the appearance of a dead person as a miracle, and Shakespear as a natural event. Which of the two thought most as a philosopher is a question that we have nothing at all to do with; but the Englishman thought most as a poet.' DRAMATURGIE, Part I. page 39, et seq. ، After all, though there is great truth in much that is here advanced, I do not think an English audience would now endure a ghost from a modern hand, however well executed. That we have still belief in apparitions sufficient for dramatic effect, is obvious from the reception of Shakespear's Ghosts. But we require that the poet should have rather a stronger credulity. This is illustrated by the comparison between the faith of Shakespear and Voltaire in the concluding paragraph of the quotation. Every modern poet must be in the predicament of the 1atter. There is very nearly the fame distinction between the machinery of Homer [K] and Virgil. An instance perhaps of the marvellous pushed too far, may be drawn from Dryden's Edipus. I have read fomewhere, that on the revival of that tragedy, the audience were disgusted with the variety of prodigies, and the ghost of Laius with his numerous attendants. Brumoy, (Vol. I. page 393) speaking of Seneca's Edipus, fays, Creon makes a more [K] See note I, chap. xxiv. ' than

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ⚫ than infernal description of the prodigies he had feen.' And Dryden in the preface to his tragedy, prides himself for bringing that before the audience which Seneca had only described. Perhaps he chose here to enter the lifts with Shakespear. It would have been more conducive to his reputation, if he had recollected his own words in the prologue to his Tempest, where he tried to imitate and add to the machinery of a play, which was in every respect inimitable. • But Shakespear's magic could not copied be; • Within that circle none durst walk but he.' We have lately seen an attempt of the fame kind by a person of the highest eminence in a fister art, whose recent loss is justly an object of national concern. I mean the fiend at the head of the dying Cardinal in the celebrated picture of Sir Joshua Reynolds, in the Shakespear gallery.

14.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-47 14.10

IT NOT BEING ALLOWABLE TO ALTER ESSENTIALLY STORIES THAT HAVE BEEN GENERALLY RECEIVED, BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, CLYTEMNESTRA MUST BE KILLED BY ORESTES, AND ERIPHYLE BY ALCMEON; IT IS THE DUTY OF THE POET TO FIND OUT SUCH TRADITIONAL STORIES, AND EMPLOY THEM SKILFULLY.

TO explain clearly my notion of the spirit of this precept, it will be necessary to give some degree of paraphrafe. The critic has decided on what incidents, and between what persons, the force of the passions of pity and terror should be founded. But he then adds, that it not being allowable

allowable for the poet to alter the essential circumstances of known stories, he ought to feek out for such historical events as furnish those tragical incidents; and having found them, to employ and arrange the circumstances in such a manner, as to give them the greatest force on the feelings of the audience. There are three opinions on the meaning of the phrafe in the original, Αυθὸν δὲ ἑυρίσκειν δεῖ. καὶ τοις παραδεδομένοις χρῆσθαι καλῶς. The most general is, that it directs the poet to invent new fables himself, like the [L] Anthos of Agathon, and arrange the circumstances of traditional stories properly; another is, that the poet should find out new historical subjects; and the third, that he should find out new stories, making a proper use of fables already received, which is that adopted by Dacier, but seems to me wrong as to the last part of the fentence. In my former edition I had followed the first interpretation. But the [M] arguments of Mr. Twining, to which I refer the critical reader, are so convincing in favor of the second, though he has admitted the first into the text of his tranflation, that I have followed him without hefitation. This argument seems confirmed also by what Aristotle says in the last chapter, and repeats again in this, of the scarcity of proper dramatic fubjects. On which account, it may justly be confidered as the duty of the poet to feek diligently for fables which afford fuch incidents.. I cannot however agree with Mr. Twining, in thinking that ἑυρίσκειν is obviously opposed to τοις παραδεδομένοις χρῆσθαι. If that were the cafe, I should be still inclined to adhere to the first tranflation.; but I think it [L] See chap. Ix.. [M] See his note civ.. cannot.

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. cannot be justified without altering the conjunction καὶ, which, taking in the sense of the whole passage, seems to connect and not diftinguish the [N] finding of the fable, and the employment of its circumstances when found. Among all the editors and commentators who have written on Shakefpear's Hamlet, and who have traced its fource in an old novel, founded on an event recorded by Saxo Grammaticus, I am furprized that no one has noticed the striking resemblance between Hamlet and Orestes. But though this has not been remarked by his countrymen, it has not escaped the observation of a French critic. It appears from a letter of the Abbé Le Blanc, to the French dramatic poet Crebillon [o], that the Abbé Prevot has written a comparison between the tragedies of Electra and Hamlet, in which he commends the English poet because wiser than Sophocles, he forbids young Hamlet, by the apparition of the ghost, to attempt any thing against his mother's life.' And Le Blanc himself was so much struck with the resemblance as to say, he is 'inclined to ⚫ think the likeness between the tragedy of Hamlet, and the Greek one • of Electra, is not the mere effect of chance, but that we may eafily • discover the perfon of Oreftes in Hamlet, which Shakespear has ac- [N] The English translators of Aristotle and other Greek writers, have frequently been drawn into error by the Latin word for ἑυρίσκω. INVENIO. of which the English word, IN- VENT, though its derivative, is by no means the proper tranflation. Ποιέω signifies to invent in the sense which is here supposed, and is universally used for it in this work, and its proper Latin translation is FINGO. But though Ariftotle's precepts here, as well as the examples with which he illuftrates them are drawn from received fables, they apply equally to those which are the pure invention of the poet. [o] See Letters on the English and French Nations, Let. LIX. commodated

• commodated to his own manner of writing.' There certainly are more circumstances of co-incidence between the stories of Hamlet and Orestes, than can well be refolved into accident. As the monarch being killed by a brother in one, a coufin german in the other, who possesses his wife and ufurps his throne; the fon robbed of his right, his life treacheroufly attempted, and himself urged to vengeance by supernatural means; the friendship of Hamlet for Horatio, and Orestes for Pylades, both of whom by the way are cyphers in the action, and even the madness of Hamlet when joined with the other circumstances. And here I must remark, that the advantage of Shakespear over Sophocles, allowed by the French critic, arofe from the former not being fettered by this precept of Aristotle; and being at liberty to free his chief character from the horrid crime of matricide, without altering an essential incident of a well-known history.

14.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-48 14.11

I WILL EXPLAIN MORE CLEARLY WHAT I MEAN BY SKILFULLY.

THOUGH Aristotle is here laying down rules for giving the best arrangement to those leading circumstances in received or traditional stories, which the poet is not allowed to alter, it is obfervable, that of all the examples he gives, the story of Alcmæon and Eriphyle is the only one in which the manner of the event, as well as the event itself, is not according to received opinion. Medea is always supposed to destroy her children knowingly, and the incest and parricide of Edipus to be involuntary, and so of the reft.. NOTE

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. !

14.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-49 14.15

AND THERE IS NO OTHER METHOD EXCEPT THESE, FOR A PER- SON MUST EITHER ACT, OR NOT ACT, AND MUST EITHER KNOW, OR BE IGNORANT OF, THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACTION.

OF these methods, according to the opinion of Aristotle, at least as delivered in this chapter, the following is the order in point of merit, beginning according to his usual custom with the lowest degree. First, for the character to meditate some atrocious crime, perfectly acquainted with its consequence and the relation which the object of it bears to him, and to desist from the perpetration of it from a change of sentiment. The example Aristotle brings of this is the intention of Hæmon to kill his father in the Antigone of Sophocles... The Love Triumphant of Dryden furnishes a modern instance. The catastrophe of As You Like It, depends on the ufurper changing his purpose.. Secondly, for a character in the same predicament to execute the purpose. Medea is the example of Aristotle. We may produce Othello and Macbeth. Thirdly, for a character to perform some terrible action ignorant of the consequence, and the relation of the object, and to make the discovery afterwards; of this Edipus and the Orphan are examples. Fourthly,

Fourthly, for a character, in the fame circumstance with the last, to discover the consequence and the relation before the purpose is executed. Of this Merope will ferve both for an ancient and modern example. Dryden's Conquest of Granada furnishes another. Discovery of persons is not so often the hinge on which the modern drama turns, as discovery of innocence or other circumstances. In which cafe the first and last species will be often blended. (P) Othello will be removed from the second to the third class, which will also comprehend Zara [2]. Having stated these different forms, it remains to examine how far Aristotle appears right as to the respective rank in which he classes them according to their comparative excellence, and particularly to enquire how far he is justified in the fevere sentence he passes on the first; and how the preference he appears to give the last can be reconciled with the opinion he delivers as to tragedy, in the preceding chapter. In doing this, I shall endeavour as much as I am able, to keep the observations on the respective forms separate. Though from the neceffity of comparing them with each other, it will be impoffible sometimes to avoid blending them. In regard to the first arrangement; its only difference from the second arifes from the want of the pathos, the actual suffering of fome person, [P] For want of a circumstance of this fort the fable of Medea is infinitely more shocking, and less interesting than that of Othello. The discovery of Iago's villainy, and Desdemona's innocence, are affecting in the highest degree. [Q] When the first and second species have no discovery whatever, they will of course remain as classed by Ariftotle. which

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. which Aristotle thinks so necessary for tragedy; and the decision of Aristotle in this place, makes his preference of such tragedies as Merope still more wonderful; since this mode has exactly the same difference from the second that the fourth has from the third; for the improbability of the change of fentiment, on which something might be faid, is not what Ariftotle censures, but the want of (R) effect, because no perfon fuffers. In the tragedy of Macbeth, the first and second modes are mixed. Macbeth and his wife are both acquainted with their relation to Duncan,, by the joint ties of blood, of gratitude, of allegiance, and of hofpitality. The former executes the act, while Lady Macbeth on the point of doing it defifts, because as she says, he ' resembled her father as he fslept.' This stroke has been frequently admired, as marking the natural tenderness and sympathy of the female fex in action, even when capable of urging another to the most atrocious deeds of cruelty. [s] Metastasio approves this first arrangement as giving the strongest powers of marking and concluding the struggle between the various contending suggestions of love, of reason, of manners, and of despair, by an act of fuicide; and he draws his example from the same source with Aristotle, the Antigone of Sophocles. If Hæmon, worked up to the highest degree of frenzy, by the struggle between conjugal love and [R] Ου τραγικὸν, απαθὲς γὰρ.. [s] ESTRATTO DELLA POETICA, page 272. The reader who wishes to compare this with Metastasio, will observe, that he enumerates the forms according to their merit, while I have followed the order of Aristotle. parental

parental cruelty, on the point (T) of plunging his sword into the bosom of his father, had turned it against his own; he observes, and justly, that in such an arrangement the paffions of pity and terror would be strongly excited, and the indispensable (u) Ariftotelian pathos, the perturbation arifing from the fight of wounds, and death, still preserved. But this production of pity and terror, arifing from a struggle between remorse and paffion as to the commiffion of an atrocious crime, and terminating in the resolution of committing it, whether fuch resolution is actually carried into execution or not, is branded by Aristotle with the epithet of [x] disgustful. Corneille is of a different opinion from Ariftotle as to this. He allows indeed the theatrical effect which attends the discovery incident to the third and fourth modes, and especially the fourth, to be particularly striking; and that the incident in Merope (of which I shall speak more at large presently) is the most affecting that can be imagined. But he adds, all this beauty is confined to the single moment of the discovery; ' that is to fay, the end of the drama (v); throughout the whole course ' of which the principal character remains in the same situation of [T] I do not recollect such an incident in any regular modern drama; but there is something like it in an anomalous dramatic poem of Lord Lansdowne's, called the British Enchanters, where Conftantius in despair, catches his favored rival by the throat, and is on the point of stabbing him, till recollecting the distress it will bring on his mistress, he exclaims, • But for Oriana's fake 'tis better here,' and instantly kills himself. [U] 'Patos Ariftotelico." [*] μιαρόν. [x] Which by the way is not the cafe in the modern tragedies of Merope. • wishing

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. • wishing to kill a person neither connected by friendship or confanguinity. A fituation not tragical, according to Ariftotle himself. From • whence the poet can find no opportunity of agitating the paffions. But on the contrary in the other cafe, (that of Medea) where an atrocious • deed is knowingly purposed and executed; the continual agitation of ⚫ the principal character always fluctuating between love and rage, be- ، tween the defire of vengeance and the horror of the deed, will not be • confined to the catastrophe but will pervade the whole tragedy. Since • the causes which lead by degrees to the conception of so horrid a design, the repugnancy of natural affection, the passions of rage and * tenderness that must alternately prevail, will furnish the poet with ample materials for shewing his principal character in situations always new, always violent, and always perplexing, till the last impulfe that • finally fixes his resolution.' It is impoffible to avoid feeing the truth and justice of these remarks. Why then should Aristotle call this arrangement disgustful? Perhaps we may trace the cause in the nature of the ancient theatre, which, rather calculated to represent [z] action than paffion, was ill qualified for the exhibition of this struggle between those contending sensations, which could not, in cases of extreme guilt especially, be opened at large in the prefence of a chorus [A], and therefore the criminal intent appears to the audience in all its horrors, without any alleviating circumstance. [z] See Note VII, Chap. XIII. [A] In the Medea of Euripides, the chorus argue strongly with her on her unnatural defign. The struggle in her own bosom is drawn in much fainter colors; and her fixed resolution in fo horrid a design is well calculated to excite the disgust mentioned by Ariftotle. Pp In

In this point, that is in the continuation of the interest arifing from contending and contradictory passions, the first and second modes exactly agree. It remains to examine the catastrophe in which they differ. The prevention of the perpetration of a horrid crime by suicide, as proposed by Metaftafio [B], would certainly have a good theatrical effect, but it does not exactly come under the censure that Ariftotle gives to the catastrophe occafioned by the change of mind only, without any positive action, and therefore is not an answer to it. When in the course of the struggle, reason alone preponderates againft paffion, and the character desists from acting, merely from reflection, the conflict will either not appear to be carried to the highest pitch, or the change of purpose will seem to want a fufficient cause [c]; for if it happens from any extraneous cause whatever, apparently adequate to work such a change, it will have all the effect of a discovery, and the species will be changed from the first to the fourth. [B] Racine has managed this matter in a very extraordinary mode in his tragedy of the Thebaide. Creon and his fon are rivals for the affections of Antigone. Hæmon is killed in trying to feparate Eteocles and Polynices, who, as is well known, fell each by the other's fword in fingle combat; and Creon finding his rivals, both in love and ambition, removed by the death of his fon and his kinsmen, offers his hand and his throne to Antigone, who chose rather to facrifice her life to the memory of her lover and her brothers. On which Creon, after having called on heaven to deftroy him with a thunder bolt, faints away in the arms of his guards; reminding us a little of Kitty's speech in THE WHAT D'YE CALL IT. • Lead me to bed and there I'll moan and weep, < And close these weary eyes in death or fleep.' [c] It must be acknowledged that the story of Coriolanus, which is certainly a very good one for a tragedy, depends on a change of resolution; and the fame may be faid of Dryden's Love Triumphant, on the catastrophe of which he prided himself, and which is really a good But in both these cases, the change of resolution is occafioned by conclusive reasoning and earnest resolution: the combat is violent, and the victory gradual. one. • A French

A French poet, M. de Longe Pierre, has chosen to give this arrangement to the story of Medea, whom he has represented on the • very point of murdering her infants; but at the instant she is going to facrifice them to her vengeance, her tenderness revives, the dagger • falls from her hands, she is not able to perpetrate the crime she • had meditated, which occafioned a surprise as lively as it was unexpected.' I have quoted this from the work of an anonymous French writer, entitled PRINCIPES POUR LA LECTURE DES POETES. If the French poet has taken this liberty with the fable of Medea, and transferred it from the second species to the first, an eminent writer of our own has chosen to give the fable of Edipus, or at least the most disgusting, if not the most tragic part of it, with heightened circumstances and another name, the form of an intentional perpetration. I mean the printed, though unpublished tragedy, of the MYSTERIOUS MOTHER. If as Ariftotle, and after him Horace affert, the poet to affect others must put himself into the situation of his character, one would wonder how such a work could be [D] the production of the elegant and humane author to whom it is ascribed. I cannot however here avoid the mention of one of the finest possible dramatic effects that it contains; which though a natural event, has all the force and the appearance of a ma- [D] One of the reasons given by Plato in his Republic, 1. III. for banishing the poets from his commonwealth is, because from putting themselves often in the situations of vicious men, whose sentiments they want to express, they will in time be apt to acquire those manners which they are so often in the habit of imitating. I believe this observation is more ingenious than true. Nothing is more common than to see the poetical and natural character of the fame person perfectly at variance with each other. The gloomy genius of Young's muse was not confined to his Night Thoughts, it is strongly to be traced through all his tragedies; and yet he is faid to have been a very chearful man, and to have actually been the first to fet on foot an affembly at Welwyn, in Hertfordshire, where he resided.

Pp2 chine.

chine. I mean when the priest is opening to his colleague his horrid scheme, and his determination to perfift in it, the fudden interruption by a voice from within crying, Forbear!' which strikes even such a character with horror, till the repetition of it shews both him and the spectators, that it is only the first word of a choral hymn, sung behind the scenes. As the first and fecond modes are exactly alike in the course of the fable, fo are the third and fourth, and only diftinguished by the cataftrophe. The principal observations therefore as to the comparative merit of these forms must relate to the catastrophe, which will neceffa-- rily involve in them those circumstances in which they agree. The first thing that strikes us here is the seeming contradiction in the opinion of the critic, who apparently gives the preference, and that in a very strong expreffion, to that catastrophe which feems only to differ from the other in terminating in happiness instead of distress. His opinion on that point has not only been decidedly given in the preceding chapter, but even in this; for he does not blame the catastrophe in the first form because it is brought about by improbable means, but because. it is not tragical.. Many have been the labors of critics, and translators, to clear up this point, and reconcile the opposite doctrines. But I own I think none of them fatisfactory. Some of these I shall state which appear the most plausible, at the fame time mentioning my own objections to them. But while I confefs this general dissatisfaction, as to all that the searches of others, or my own reason can suggest on this subject, my opinion is inclined to that of M. Leffing, though. I do not entirely subscribe to his

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. his solution of the difficulty. That ingenious and candid critic, after mentioning a fellow-countryman, Mr. Curtius, who declares it to be his idea that Ariftotle has not treated this article with his usual exactness, proceeds thus: ' I own this does not appear probable to me. A • writer like Aristotle is scarcely liable to fuch flagrant contradiction; • when therefore I find the appearance of it in the works of such a man, • I distrust my own judgment rather than his. I redouble my attention; • I read the passage ten times; and I am not able to perfuade myself he * can have contradicted what he has formerly afferted till after I have • examined, through all the combination of his system, how and on what account he could be drawn into that contradiction; and if I do not • find any thing that gave rise to it, and which must in some measure ' have rendered it inevitable, I am convinced it is only apparent, for * otherwise it must have occurred to Aristotle, who had fo often exa- ' mined his matter with more attention than I can possibly have done, • who enter newly on the subject and chuse him for my guide [E].' Just as this reasoning is in general, it is not however absolutely conclufive, and especially the last sentence. Though a man must know his own meaning better than another, it does not follow that he shall have formed a regular chain of causes and confequences in a [F] hasty sketch, which I conceive this piece to be, and not a finished work. Or even if it was, who has ever yet formed a compofition in which it is impoffible for criticism to find a fingle inaccuracy? On this ground we may fuppose, (I hazard it merely as a conjecture,) that the philosopher who has mentioned the [G] intent to kill as equivalent to the actual execution of that intent, in examining the subject farther, and being inquisitive after [E] Dramaturgie, Part 1. page 178.. [c] Ἢ ἀποκτείνη ἢ μέλλη.. [F] See preface.. truth,

A COMMENTARY ON THE CHAP. XIV. truth, and not supporting an hypothesis, without confidering exactly what he had faid before, might be led to remark, that if the tragic effect was carried to the greatest height, and the distressful catastrophe seemed inevitable, it was better to avoid the commiffion of a deed too [H] shocking for representation, even through ignorance of the relation, though the consequence should be, a catastrophe accompanied by a change from mifery to happiness. This in fact, had the treatife been compleat, might have been so explained as to have been no contradiction to his former decifion; for it by no means follows that what is in general preferable must absolutely and invariably be so in every cafe, and under all poffible circumstances [1]. M. Batteux tries to vindicate Aristotle on the supposition that he does not mean the best manner in general, but the best of these four modes; forgetting that he has faid there are no other modes except these four, and that he is pointing out the best way of conducting properly a tragic fable. Dacier takes up partly the same idea, that Aristotle is not speaking of fable in general, but only giving directions how to manage atrocious [Η] τι τῶν ἀνηκέςων. [1] See Mr. Twining's note 106, who defends Aristotle exactly on this principle, supposing him to say, When the circumstances of the traditional story from which the poet takes his < plot, are such as leave him only the alternative either of disgusting and shocking the spec- › tator, or of gratifying his wishes, the latter is clearly to be preferred, and the διπλῆ σύςασις › to which I affigned the second place, will in that particular case deserve the first. But is not this idea both of Mr. Twining and myself rather a justification of Ariftotle's supposed opinion in this place than a reconciliation of it with his former decifion, since he is certainly speaking of the general construction of tragic fable, and not of particular exceptions ? actions

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. actions properly, without changing the essential part of the fable. When, for instance, the murder of Clytemnestra by Orestes is fixed on for the subject of a tragedy, we should examine which arrangement would fuit it best. The first will not fuit it as being too atrocious and efssentially altering the story; the second, (which is the real fact by the way, and which the three (K) Greek tragic poets that remain to us have adopted) will be too horrible; the fourth would entirely destroy the received fable; therefore the third only remains. But would not the fable be equally destroyed by this; and is it not an essential part of the story that Orestes does not kill his mother by accident, but to revenge his father's death? It is true such an alteration is faid to be made in the tragedy of Eriphyle, but as we have no circumstantial account of that story, or do not know with what variation it may have been related, or have any remains of the tragedy, we can only say that it does not feem to fall exactly under the fame predicament with the story of Orestes and Clytemnestra, which is recorded by Homer (L) as well as the three principal ornaments of the Grecian tragic drama. It would however have been on this account a much better example for Dacier to have chosen. M. Lessing, immediately after the passage I have quoted from him, undertakes the defence of Aristotle on another ground. He argues that the affecting part of the tragedy arifing from peripetía and discovery are distinct things from the catastrophe, and that they often happen prior to it: as, for instance, in the fourth act of the Edipus: as alfo in the Iphigenia in Tauris of Euripides, and the very tragedy he is criticising, [K] In the Choephori of Æschylus, and the Electra of Euripides and Sophocles. [L] Homer does indeed mention Eriphyle, but in a very cursory manner. the

the Merope of Voltaire and Maffei. M. Lessing then adds, That it ' is easy to shew in the fubject of Merope itself, how perfectly it is ، poffible in the fame fable to combine the most tragical [M] peripetía with the most tragical pathos. We find indeed the last, but what * hinders us also from having the first? Suppose, for example, after having discovered her fon before the killed him, she had occafioned • afterwards either his death, or her own, by her zeal to protect him against Polyphontes. Why might not this piece terminate as well by • the death of the mother as of the tyrant? Why might not the poet * be permitted to carry our pity for a most affectionate mother to the < highest degree, and then make her perish through that very affection, or to cause the son to fall by the artifice of the tyrant after having escaped the vengeance of his mother? Would not fuch a Merope unite ⚫ in effect the two properties of the best form of tragedy which the • critics have found so contradictory? As to the former part of the question the answer is obvious. That the discovery of the son in Merope, and the brother in Iphigenia in Tauris comprehends peripetía as well as pathos there cannot be a doubt. And a poet may, if he pleases, introduce two or ten peripetías in the course of his drama, alternately counteracting the effect of each other. But that after giving a very strong and pathetic peripetía tending to happiness, the addition of a distressful catastrophe would unite two beauties supposed to be incompatible, is so far from the cafe that it must destroy the effect of both. It is indeed an arrange- [M] It is a bold step to render κράτισος, by most tragical. In the use of this word, as in many others, the figurative sense is more familiar than the direct one; most tragical is not fynonymous with beft fitted for tragedy. Were I to say the pathos of Merope is more according to the proper rule of tragedy than Edipus, but the catastrophe is not fo tragical, I think the diftinct meaning of each would be clearly understood, however improper it might be to oppose them to each other in the same sentence. ment

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ment of fable that I believe no poet has ever yet attempted, and which I believe, if it were attempted, no audience would endure. As to the new catastrophe proposed for Merope, (which if Euripides had chofen it for his Cresphontes would have been directly in oppofition to the rule of Aristotle, as to deviating from received fables,) it is exactly that of Douglas, who absolutely perishes from his mother's too earnest anxiety for his preservation; but there is no previous happy peripetía. Lady Randolph's finding a son she imagined had perished when an infant by accident is nothing like the circumstance in Merope. As for the discovery and peripetía in [N] the Œdipus fo long before the cataftrophe, it has all the weight that an error in a great writer ought to have in justifying fucceeding poets for copying his blemishes, if they are not able to imitate his excellencies. It must be remembered [o] also that Ariftotle recommends that species of tragedy where the peripetía and discovery are united, and that he expressly says the discovery is a transition from ignorance to knowledge, producing either friendship or hatred, in the characters as they are designed for happiness or misery; that is, in other words, occafioning the catastrophe. In the Iphigenia in Tauris indeed, the difficulty and distress continue after the discovery as they do in the modern tragedies of Merope. Of the Helle we know nothing. But I cannot be perfuaded that the scene in Merope of Euripides, the effect of which is so highly spoken of, could be in any other place than the catastrophe. M. Lessing is very fevere on Voltaire for his misrepresentation of Aristotle in his epistle to Maffei, wherein he asserts that the philosopher [N] See Note 1. Chap. VII. [o] See Poetic, Chap. xx. • does

• does not fcruple to call the recognition of Merope and her fon the • most interesting moment of the Greek scene.' Here Voltaire has undoubtedly been guilty of a mistake, either wilfully or accidentally. Ariftotle says no such thing. But that it was highly interesting indeed, we have the authority of Plutarch, who must have been a better judge than any modern can poffibly be. Behold,' he says, ' Merope in the ، tragedy, lifting the axe over her fon as fuppofing him the murderer of • that fon, and saying, " This arm to thee a juster wound shall give." • What a confusion it occasions among the audience, who start up ⚫ through terror and anxiety, lest she should anticipate the arrival of the • old man and strike the youth [P].' Such was exactly what I felt the first time I saw the representation of King Lear, the alteration of which I had never previously read. Why Maffei and Voltaire, who were at liberty to have acted as they pleased in this respect, chose to infert this interesting scene in the middle of the piece rather than in the catastrophe, I cannot determine. It could not be from any difficulty in arranging the mode. It appears from Plutarch that Merope is going to destroy her fon with an axe, and with an axe of facrifice Voltaire makes the tyrant fall at the altar'; the two events therefore of the discovery of the young man and the death of Polyphontes, might have happened almost at the fame moment. Perhaps the choice of the plan they adopted was influenced by a defire of imitating the arrangement of Aristotle's other example, the Iphigenia in Tauris. But without applying to authority our own feelings will con- [P] Plutarch Περί Σαρκοφ. vince

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. vince us the effect of the two scenes must be very different in point of interest. We can never be affected in the same manner by a virgin priestess, who is in the habit of facrificing innocent strangers to Diana, and a mother frantic to revenge the death of a beloved fon on his supposed murderer. Perhaps we may impute this to another cause, the difficulty of keeping up through five acts, an interest in a situation so little affecting as the wish to kill a supposed criminal, neither connected by friendship or blood. But the poet might have supplied this, and made the agitation of the spectator compenfate for the deficiency of it in the character, by informing him of the real connection of Merope and the young man, which must obviously have been the case in the Greek tragedy mentioned by Plutarch. It is true when the discovery is made at the fame time to the spectator and the character, the impreffion on the feelings is greatly increased; but the effect of fuch a discovery is weakened after the first representation [Q]. ، The discovery of Ion in a tragedy of Euripides, imitated by Mr. Whitehead in his Creusa, seems to me in the original, the most perfectly affecting and surprising of any extant, either ancient or modern. To use the words of the Jesuit Poree, which I cite from Mr. Mason's Life of Whitehead, prefixed to the third volume of his works.. In spite of all the faults either real or apparent that may be found in this piece, nothing can be conceived more perfectly theatrical than the representation of a mother on the point of killing her unknown fon, ⚫ and at the fame time of dying unknown by his hands, when at the ، [Q] See Dramaturgie, Part. 1. p. and Note vI. Chap. xvI. and Note 11. Chap. x1. • fame

* same time this double project of parricide serves to restore the fon to * his mother and the mother to her fon.' Perfectly agreeing as I do with Mr. Mason in applauding the great skill of the English poet in the general improvement he has made of this tragedy in his Creusa, I must with him with he had not deviated so much from Euripides in the cataftrophe, to which I suppose he was induced by a defire to adhere to the precept of Aristotle laid down in the last chapter, and to render more tragical that poet whom he had declared the most tragical of the Greek dramatic writers. On examining this passage and the context with attention, we may poffibly find at last that every attempt to reconcile Aristotle with his own reasoning even here, is perfectly impossible, supposing him really to give the preference to the last arrangement. It will be in vain to excuse such a preference on any partial ground, such as that though it might not be the best general form, it may become so in certain instances, or in some particular parts of the drama. Since he declares it not to be so when compared with the other forms, on those very principles from which he decides on their merit; and that not in a different part of the work but in this identical place. The first form he totally rejects because disgustful from the atrocious design, and yet not productive of tragic effect as no one fuffers. Why he gives the preference over this to the next he does not mention, but the reason is clear, for though he cenfures it on account of the disgust arifing from the atrociousness of the design, it has yet the tragic effect he requires. The third species he tells us in express terms is free from the disgust occafioned by a wilful criminal intent, and besides this will have the interest arifing from an unexpected discovery, which is an advantage the other two do not possess. But besides this advantage over the other two it will poffefs the

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. the tragic effect of the second. The last mode will possess the radical advantage of avoiding the criminal intent, and the adventitious one of the unexpected discovery. But it will be deficient in the radical advantage of producing tragic effect from personal suffering, which he is here infifting on, and in which the third mode is not deficient; and therefore Ariftotle cannot give the preference to the fourth mode without forsaking the very ground on which he is absolutely then arguing. But let us go a little back. When Ariftotle first explains what he means by a skilful arrangement of the fable he names only two modes. The most obvious one, and what was generally practised by the older writers, was the simple perpetration of some great crime, not indeed through radical depravity but through paffion, knowing the situation of the persons who were the objects of it; like the Medea of Euripides. To this however has been discovered an improvement which will obviate any disgust arifing from the intentional crime, by making the character ignorant of the connexion of the person who is the object of his vengeance with himself. He now recollects a third mode besides, but which seems to be only suggested by his mention of the other two, as that which he absolutely condemns appears to be brought to his mind by the enumeration of the four only possible forms which arifes from the cafual recollection of this. If these obfervations are right how shall we justify the approbation that Ariftotle gives to the last mode? But has he given fuch approbation? It will be a little fingular if after the censure M. Lessing has bestowed on Voltaire with no niggardly hand, for the hyperbolical eulogium he bestows on this scene in Merope, that the pen of the French poet,

poet [R], like the random pencil of Apelles, should have at once done what so much skill and pains had been in vain employed to do, and that he should have given, though with fome exaggeration indeed, the true meaning of Aristotle, which at once folves every difficulty, and restores the confiftency of his theatrical doctrine. Let us confider the force of the word κράτιςος, and its fituation here. The primary sense of this word, as given by all the lexicographers, as confirmed by a thousand passages from ancient writers, and in conformity to its derivation, is [s] MOST POWERFUL. Why the commentators and translators have universally chosen to give it here the general sense of BEST I can fee no cause but from its immediately following Βέλτιον, the very reason as I should conceive that would have made against that sense of the word. For I believe it is very unusual in comparison of adjectives to mention one word in the positive, another in the comparative, and another in the superlative degree, yet all in the same sense. Stephens in his Lexicon, on the word κράτιςος, after giving many instances of its fignifying MOST STRONG and MOST POWERFUL, adds, 'that it is • sometimes more conveniently rendered by BEST, even in some of the places that he has cited.' The same thing may certainly be said of MOST STRONG or MOST POWERFUL, in our own language, or of FOR- TISSIMUS or VALIDISSIMUS, or VIRIBUS PRÆSTANS, in Latin; but I do not think they could well be confidered as the proper superlative of BETTER or MELIOR. Were I to say such a thing is better than another, but a third has the strongest effect, the superlative strongest (R) I imagine Voltaire was no Greek scholar.. S [s] I have in this edition of my translation ventured to tranflate it, having the most • powerful effect. must

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. must be taken generally as far as that particular quality goes, and not as the superlative of better; though if strength of effect were the quality on which the merit of the subject depended, it would certainly imply it. The fame will hold in Latin. • Melius eft ignarum feciffe, factumque agnoviffe, fortiffimum vero, poftremum.' Could there be in this case any reason for supposing FORTISSIMUM could poffibly be confidered as the superlative of MELIUS? It seems very natural for Aristotle, after having mentioned the two modes he most approved as having the proper pathos in the catastrophe, and given the preference to the latter as avoiding a fault incident to the former, the wilful perfeverance in an atrocious crime, knowing it to be so, and possessing besides a striking discovery, to reflect on the instant that one of the forms he had been condemning possessed this last in a more extraordinary manner, as being capable of producing the strongest dramatic effect poffible, which is by no means an hyperbolical tranflation of κράτιςος, supposing it to be applied in this manner. Surely then there is no inconfistency in relating a fact, however it may make against his own hypothesis, and that it must have been a fact is obvious. Ariftotle in the last chapter shews the great predilection of an Athenian audience for the happy catastrophe: and Plutarch bears a strong teftimony to the effect of the scene between Merope and her fon; and our own feelings will justify this. There is also another reason befides the gratification of our feelings why the happy discovery and peripetía must be more striking than the unhappy one. The reverfe of fortune must be foreseen, or at least suspected in the tragedy ending in distress, or the body of the drama must be deficient both in incident and interest: but the more the tragedy of the other form is filled with distress, the more imminent and inevitable

inevitable the fatal conclufion appears; the stronger will the tragic effect be throughout the course of the drama, and the force of the peripetía and discovery more violent in proportion as they are unexpected and fudden; and they cannot be too much so if they do not exceed the bounds of probability. I do not recollect any tragedy ending unhappily in which the peripetía is not either misery added to former fuffering, or the accomplishment of the expectation of it; as in the Edipus, the Fatal Marriage, and Douglas. I have already mentioned the effect of the scene. in Tate's King Lear. Shakespear tried to create a peripetía of an oppofite kind, by raising our expectation of both Cordelia and Lear's safety through. the interference of the dying Edmund. Perhaps this example may give a full explanation of Ariftotle's use of κράτιςος. We will suppose him reasoning on the alteration of Shakespear's Lear with all his prejudice in favour of the unhappy catastrophe. • I will allow,' he might say,' that Tate, though an inferior poet, has by a small and probable change • introduced a most striking and affecting situation; we are at once • anxious for the event, and delighted with its accomplishment; it is • the strongest, the most violent stroke of theatrical effect I know; I ⚫ do not hesitate to say it is the most interesting moment of the English ، ، ، stage; but it is not tragic; it does not possess that pathos, those means of exciting pity and terror, which are the proper objects of the tragic drama.. We do not expect from tragedy the pleasure arifing from • furprize, and affecting situation, which are momentary, but to have our paffions excited, and at the fame time softened by continual and lasting impreffions of terror and distress; and every fort of pleasure is not to • be expected from tragedy, but only that which is proper and peculiar • to itself.' Perhaps

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. Perhaps the reader, who recollects what I have faid on this subject in [T] another place, may think I am defending Aristotle's consistency at the expence of my own. But he will observe I am delivering what I think would be his opinion, and not mine. I must acknowledge that I owe the first hint of this solution to the [u] Cambridge edition of the Poetic, Mr. Cooke having rendered Κράτισον, • Quod maximè valet.' And he has the following note on the passage. What, is that the best form of action which he mentions ، • last, and is the structure of the fable in Cresphontes to be preferred to Edipus? Can Aristotle dissent so much from himself? Or rather do ⚫ the interpreters of Aristotle dissent so much both from him and from ' truth? Let them recollect that third form, which he connects with • the preceding ones by these words ἔτι δὲ, as if doubting whether he • should mention them at all, as unfit for tragedy though adapted to the popular tafte. For such is the force of this word Κράτιςον. ὁ κράτει ὁ νικᾶ, For the vulgar indeed applaud that structure of HAS THE VOGUE. • fable for the causes already given. The action of Cresphontes, con- [T] See Note VII. Chap. XIII. [U] In the same volume Mr. Cooke has given a very elegant and classical Greek version of Gray's Elegy. I will however take the liberty of pointing out one fault. The first line, is rendered The Curfew tolls the knell of parting day,' Νυξ πέλει, ἐδ᾽ ἀν᾿ ἀγρὼς πυρὰ καίεζαι ἐδ᾽ ἀνὰ κώμας. Now though this extinction of fire is faid to have been the etymology of Curfew, it is by no means the consequence of it now, or is the idea at all intended to be conveyed either by Gray, or by Milton in the Il Penseroso, but merely the found of the evening bell. See Chap. xx. Rr cerning

cerning which Plutarch has handed down a pleasant fable, is deftitute * of all tragic force because it wants pathos.' I have ventured to give Κράτιςον a much stronger meaning. Indeed I do not recollect such a use of the word as Mr. Cooke suggests; but if I did I should prefer the other, as I think Aristotle must have allowed the discovery in Cresphontes to be forcible, as well as fashionable; neither would he, nor does he, treat the opinion of an Athenian audience as the sentiments of the vulgar. Nor can I fee why an illustration of a moral effect, in a grave treatise by Plutarch, drawn most probably from a very familiar, and certainly a very natural example, should be confidered as a pleasant fable only. CHAP.

15.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-50 15.1

IN FORMING THE MANNERS FOUR THINGS ARE TO BE AT- TENDED TO. THE FIRST AND MOST ESSENTIAL IS, THAT THEY SHOULD BE GOOD.

BEFORE I enter on the particular passage which is the more immediate fubject of this note, I cannot avoid remarking the fuperiority of the dramatic writer, from which we may draw our examples, to any that the author of the Poetic could have recourse to. In regard to fable, as Shakespear was feldom an original inventor, so he was not scrupulously nice in his choice; and as to his arrangement of those subjects which he took for the ground-work of his dramas so as to produce the best tragic. effect, his most sanguine admirers must allow that he has feldom studied it much in the general conduct of the fable, though he has frequently done it in particular parts; and wherever he has done it, he is, as in every other respect, inimitable. But in painting manners, he stands alone and unrivaled: to use the words of the author of the essay on the dramatic character of Sir John Falstaff, • The reader must be sensible of fomething in the compofition • of Shakespear's characters, which renders them essentially different Rr2 from.

، ، ، ، from those drawn by other writers. The characters of every drama must indeed be grouped; but in the groups of other poets, the parts ' which are not seen do not in fact exist. But there is a certain round- • ness and integrity in the forms of Shakespear, which give them an independence as well as a relation, infomuch that we often meet with passages which, though perfectly felt, cannot be sufficiently explained in words, without unfolding the whole character of the speaker.' See NOTE ON THE ESSAY, page 58, of which I have only quoted a small part, the whole note is well worth the perusal of every admirer of Shakespear, as placing his superiority in the delineation of manners in the clearest light. Indeed, to recommend that original and convincing piece of criticism partially is doing it injustice, since every part of it is replete with elegance of taste and accurate and impartial judgement. In regard to the [A] Analysis of the character of Falstaff; though I first took the book up on the recommendation of a friend, it was with the strongest prejudice against what I thought an indefenfible paradox; yet every word led to conviction; and I laid it down with the firmest assurance, that the author was perfectly in the right. I have fince recommended the perusal of it to several of my friends, who have all opened it with the fame prejudice, and shut it with the fame conviction. That the perusal of the book will not be equally convincing to all I can eafily believe. For, to use the words of the author (page 108), 'How many - forts of men are there whom no evidence can perfuade! How many, • who ignorant of Shakespear, or forgetful of the text, may as well read • heathen Greek or the laws of the land as this unfortunate commentary! • How many who, proud and pedantic, hate all novelty and damn it [A] See Note 1. Chap. VII. • without

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. without mercy under one compendious word [B] paradox! How many more who, not deriving their opinions from the sovereignty of reason, hold at the will of some superior lord, to whom accident or • inclination has attached them, and who, true to their vassalage, are re- • folute not to furrender, without express permission, their base and illgotten poffeffions.' We have another writer also, Henry Fielding, who in his comic epopees, is a most accurate delineator of manners. Howeyer there is one distinction between him and Shakespear, which, though perhaps it gives his pictures a more striking effect, renders them not equal in real merit to those of our great dramatic poet. Shakespear paints for all ages and all countries; while the portraits of Fielding are generally drawn from local and national circumstances [c]. [B] The author of the Dramatic Miscellany seems to have been a critic of this description. He says he cannot think the author serious in his hypothefis. One of the proofs (and he says it is unquestionable) is Falstaff giving an additional wound to Percy. I confess I think with, the author of the Essay, it is rather indecent than cowardly. [c] Dr. Johnson says, 'There is all the difference in the world between the characters of • Fielding and those of Richardson. Characters of manners are very entertaining; but they are to < be understood, by a more superficial observer, than characters of nature, where a man must dive ⚫ into the recesses of the human heart.' BOSWELL'S LIFE OF JOHNSON, Vol. 1. p. 299. This I think would be a very just distinction between the manners of Fielding and Shakespear, but I cannot allow it between Fielding and Richardson. His characters can never be drawn naturally which are drawn contrary to his own intention. Richardson certainly meant Clariffa for a perfect character. And yet Dr. Johnson says of her in another place, that there always appears something in her conduct that she prefers to truth; and he adds, 'that Fielding's • Amelia is the most perfect heroine of a novel.' MRS. PIOZZI'S LETTERS. IN BOSWELL'S LIFE, Vol. 1. p. 342, Johnson says he read Amelia through without stopping. To

L To return to the particular object of the note. The meaning of the. word GOOD, as the first essential of tragic manners, has been a cause of much difference of opinion among the tranflators and commentators of the Poetic. If we consider χρησà here in its usual and obvious sense of morally good, the passage is neither reconcilable with Aristotle's definition of the proper tragic character in chap. XIII, nor with the practice of all the ferious epic and dramatic writers, ancient and modern. To still greater impropriety shall we be driven, if we take up the opinion, originally I believe started by Boffsu, and fince followed by Dacier, Harris, and Metastasio; that Aristotle by χρησὰ meant manners well marked. So strongly expressed, as to shew clearly what the character is, whether good or bad. For such a quality, so far from being diftinguished from the other three requifites, is essential to them all.. Since, whether a character is to be drawn good, or proper, or like, or uniform, it certainly ought to be well drawn, and strongly marked. In short, this is removing the epithet from the character of the manners represented, to that of the mode of representing them, and is nearly equivalent with a person who in laying down rules for composing a good poem, should begin with faying, that the first and most essential rule was, that the poem should. be good. But I think Ariftotle has sufficiently explained his meaning in several parts of this treatise, and especially in the beginning of the second. chapter [D], where he points out the difference as to manners of the objects of tragic and comic imitation; the first of which only he is now treating of particularly. The same idea is, I conceive, kept up with regard to tragic action; viz. that it should be important, in the fixth [D] See Note 1. Chap. II. chapter,

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. chapter [E], and in the thirteenth as to character again, when we are told that illustrious men, like Edipus and Thyestes, or even [F] better characters in preference to worse are the proper objects of tragedy. Accordingly we find this rule universally adhered to in all serious fables whatever. Macbeth and Richard the Third, though they are objects of our detestation, never excite our contempt [G]; they have a dignity, a superiority of character which commands our respect, while their crimes are objects of our abhorrence. In this respect Milton is beyond all praise in his character of Satan [H]. Though I by no means put him in general on a footing with Shakespear as a painter of manners, yet in this single instance he certainly goes beyond him, fince he had a difficulty to encounter, which must have been pronounced infurmountable if he had not furmounted it. He was to represent a being not the creature of his own imagination, but marked by the most sacred authority as the abstract of wickedness and impiety, in such colors as to be a proper, and yet principal epic character; and this he has done in so masterly a manner, that the character of Satan alone is to me a fufficient illustration of the meaning of Ariftotle in this place, and the proper distinction between poetic [Ε] πράξεως σπεδαίας. [F] ἢ Βελλίονος μᾶλλον ἢ χείρονος. [G] In Chap. v. Aristotle in his account of comedy explains what he means by 'worse perfons,” (φαυλοτέρων) not such, he says, as are perfectly depraved, but only those who possess that species of turpitude that will excite ridicule. Is it not natural, when he is speaking of that tragic goodness which he has already opposed to this comic turpitude, for him to mean not abfolute goodness, but that species of it only which is proper to excite respect.

[H] See Beattie's Illustrations on Sublimity, page 613; and Efssay on Poetry and Music, page 78. and

and moral goodness; not because the character is well marked, for that might have been as well done had he been made contemptible, and the manners of Belial and Mammon are as capable of this excellence as those of Satan; but because he never loses our respect, nor ever appears to us • less than archangel ruined.. [1] Perhaps this subject cannot be better illustrated than by a comparison between the scene in the Fatal Curiosity of Lillo, when the wife is exciting her husband to the murder of the supposed stranger; and the scene between Macbeth and his wife. According to Mr. Harris, the manners in both are equally good poetically though not morally; 'Be- • cause it is natural such a wife should perfuade, and fuch a husband be perfuaded; and here we have all we require, because (here he blends, ، or rather confounds two of Aristotle's requisites) all we require is a suit- • able consistence.' To this we may add, that the intent in Macbeth is infinitely more atrocious. Wilmot, urged by extreme necessity, aggra-- vated by the remembrance of former affluence. For, • The needy man who has known better days, • One whom distress has spited at the world, * Is he, whom tempting fiends would pitch upon • To do such deeds, as make the profperous man • Lift up his hands and wonder who could do them.' DOUGLAS. Wilmot, I fay, resolves to reinstate his fortunes, by taking the life of a man he conceives a perfect stranger, with whom he is no otherwise connected, than by the common bands of nature and hospitality. But Macbeth, loaded with large poffeffions and newly acquired honors, is goaded [1] See Note III. Chap. XIII. by

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. by an inordinate ambition to sacrifice his kinfman, his benefactor, and his king. One who under his roof was ، - In double trust, First as he was his kinsman and his subject, Both ftrong against the deed; then as his host, • Who should against the murderer shut the door, • Not bear the knife himself.' Surely in the distinction of these two scenes the poetical GOODNESS OF CHARACTER is sufficiently marked and makes the chief difference between them: but it obviously does not arise from moral goodness, or striking delineation of character; or if it does excel in the latter, it must be from fuperior merit as to one of the three last requifites, propriety, likeness, or uniformity. In the old and middle comedy, the manners, like those in modern farce when it keeps its true character, and in the burlesque epopee, fuch as Hudibras, are represented as devoid of this poetic goodness. [K] But in what we call genteel comedy, and the comic epopee, the manners of the principal characters at least, though drawn in general conformity to those of the age, partake of this goodness in fome degree. Though Tom Jones. is not drawn different from other men as Achilles is, though he is not drawn as a perfect character, and therefore as a monster, like Grandifon and Clariffa, every reader will fee he has no foibles that disgrace him, one only excepted, his venal amour with Lady Bellaston. And there Fielding has committed an error, and every reader feels it, against this rule which Aristole has given, or rather transcribed from the volume of [K] See Note 1. Chap. 11. Sf nature.

nature. I have mentioned this as relative only to the principal characters. The fubordinate ones may be purely burlesque even in comedy and the comic epopee. A character can never be respectable without possessing a sense of honor and of courage. The defect of these qualities is evident in Gil Blas, who, throughout the agreeable novel of Le Sage, for so it is in fpite of this defect, can never interest us; for who can be much concerned for the welfare of a despicable character, who is both a cheat and a coward; and such a character Gil Blas certainly is [L]. ners. The Orphan is a striking instance of a want of this goodness of man- Castalio and Polydore are certainly two unprincipled scoundrels, and Chamont is, as Caftalio calls him, ' a noify boisterous ruffian.' The Chaplain I do not mention as he is intended for a character in low comedy. But if the reader wishes to fee an instance of flagrant violation, not only of goodness but every requifite of manners, he may find it in a speech of Monimia, who when Polydore, in language too gross for quotation and which would degrade him at once from the character of gentleman, had it been addressed to a common prostitute, accuses her and her sex of every vice, the last and most confpicuous of which is unbridled lust, acquiesces in the justice of the charge, and coolly replies, • Indeed, my lord, • I own my sex's follies, I have 'em all; And to avoid its fault must fly from you. [L] See Beattie on Fable and Romance, p. 570 and 572, where, speaking of Fielding's Joseph Andrews, he wonders' what could induce the author to add to the other faults of his hero's father, Wilson, the infamy of lying and cowardice.' The

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. The French poets so far from neglecting this rule of Aristotle, have pushed it to a most ridiculous excess, in which they have been but too much followed by many of our tragic writers. Instead of giving that natural dignity of character, which prevents even vice from becoming despicable, they have substituted an inflated and artificial character, the supposed consequence of high rank. The kings and heroes of Racine and Corneille, put us in mind of Alexander and Cæfar dressed in the hoops of the Italian opera. This false taste is well ridiculed by [M] Lessing, in a criticism on the Earl of Effex, by Banks. After quoting several passages in which Elizabeth speaks like a woman rather than a queen [N], he proceeds, Yes, indeed! these things are intolerable, the refined critics, and perhaps some of my readers will say, for unluckily there are Germans yet more frenchified than the French themselves. It is for their diversion • that I have selected these low passages, according to their notion. I • know their mode of criticising. These little negligences which are so terribly offensive to their delicate ears, and which are so difficult for the poet to find, and who has carefully scattered them here and there, to • render the dialogue more natural and give the discourse an appearance • of being the real inspiration of the moment; these they tack cleverly [M] DRAMATURGIE, Part I. page 96. [N] Telephus aut Peleus cum pauper et exul uterque • Projecit ampullas et sesquipedalia verba • Si curat cor spectantis tetigisse querela.' HOR. < Peleus and Telephus poor banish'd! each • Drop their big fix-foot words and founding speech; • Or else what bosom in their grief takes part.' COLMAN. Sf2 to-

، ، together, and then almost kill themselves with laughing at them; and shrugging their shoulders from mere pity, they gravely pronounce ' that the poor man knows nothing of the great world; that he has not conversed with many queens; that Racine knew much better, but * then Racine had lived at court. ، ، All this is very well, but it does not alter my opinion. If queens either do not, or dare not speak in this manner, so much the worse for ⚫ them. It is not to-day I have learned, that a court is not exactly the place where a poet should study nature. But if pomp and etiquette ⚫ transform men into machines, it is the duty of the poet to change ، • these machines again into men. Let real queens speak as affectedly and politely as they please, those of the poet should speak naturally. Let • him liften attentively to the Hecuba of Euripides, and confole himself ⚫ for having never conversed with other queens [o].' From the principle above-mentioned arose all the abfurd cenfures of the French critics on the fimplicity of Homer, and all the mifrepresentations of the French translators. It is to be lamented that Pope, who in his notes has often treated Mad. Dacier with great afperity, chose to follow her example as to this in his version. The manners of the Iliad are altered too much; but those of the Odyssey are entirely and radically changed [P]. [o] See alfo Beattie on Imagination, Chap. Iv. page 183; and Brumoy's Reflections on: Iphigenia. [P] See this more enlarged on in Note 1, on Chap. xxiv.. NOTE

15.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-51 15.2

A WOMAN, OR EVEN A SLAVE MAY BE DRAWN WITH THIS EX- CELLENCE OF CHARACTER, THOUGH IT IS PROBABLE THAT A WOMAN SHOULD BE WORSE THAN A MAN, AND THAT A SLAVE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY BAD.

THIS decifion of Aristotle does not appear very favourable to the ladies [2]. Metastasio is angry with him for having thus without any neceffity, insulted half the human race. But if the principles on which Metastasio explains this passage, as mentioned in the preceding. note are right, there will be no insult at all. For if goodness of manners means manners strongly marked, it will be obvious to common observation that the remark is just, without recurring to Athens, where women were almost as much secluded from the general commerce of the world, in the time of Aristotle, as they are now, but even at the present time in western Europe, where they mix so much and take so active a part in society; I am speaking in general, there may be particular exceptions; but these it is not the province of poetry, at least of tragedy to imitate. A professed delineator of manners almost in our own time, has pronounced the same judgement on the sex. Pope says, and he quotes a lady as the author of the remark, Nothing so true as what you once let fall; • Moft women have no character at all.' [Q] Bossu (whom Mr. Harris calls Ariftotle's best interpreter) observes, ' As for the fex, • Aristotle says in his Poetic, that there are fewer good women than others, and that they do < more harm than good.' In what part of the Poetic did he find this passage? My

My hypothefis it is true, will not afford this excuse for the Stagirite's want of gallantry. But whoever reflects on the fituation of the Grecian women, must know they could not poffefs that goodness of character which I imagine Ariftotle to mean, in an equal degree with men. For they were very little better than in a state of domestic fervitude, and therefore could feldom have opportunities of exerting dignity of character. This is by no means the cafe with the modern female character. Their manners, indeed, are not so strongly marked as those of men, nor afford so much variety, but they are equally capable of this poetical goodness, as far as they are marked, with those of men. I do not mean such characters as Lady Macbeth and Medea, who do not properly pofsess female manners, but such as Juliet, as Constance, as Desdemona, and as Belvidera. As for a flave, our tragic drama knows no such character as existed under that name in the FREE republic of Athens. Zanga and Oroonoko are captive heroes. I would not be understood however, either as wishing to palliate or apologize, for the opinion of Arifstotle in this or any other place where I think him abfolutely in the wrong. Of the unfavourable idea he entertained of the fair sex there can be no doubt. This is proved beyond contradiction, from a passage in his natural history (R) of animals, which Mr. Twining has quoted, and I shall venture to tranflate, as a compleat specimen of the purest absurdity. • Woman is more apt to pity and • fall into tears than man. She is more given to envy, more ready to • find fault, fonder of scandal, and more apt to give blows. She is • also more addicted to anxiety and despondency, more impudent, more * false, more easily deceived and less apt to forget, also more wakeful, [R] Book IX. Chap. I. • and

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. [s] and yet more slothful, and on the whole more obstinate than • men.' Perhaps I may be thought to take up the cause of the most amiable part of our species too warmly, when I declare this passage alone is a fufficient answer to all those, who think Ariftotle never in the wrong. The philosopher is not here speaking of the civil but the natural character of woman, confidered as an animal, as the female of the human race. He is enquiring into the nature of females in general throughout the whole of animated nature. These are his words. Females (he says, with an ، exception as to tigers and bears) are lefs ferocious but more malicious, • deceitful, and infidious than males, and more attentive in nourishing ' their young.- The traces of these manners are to be found, as I may say, in all animals, but they are most confpicuous in those whose manners are most marked, and especially in mankind whose nature is • most perfect, so that these habits will be most confpicuous in them.' And then follows the definition above quoted. Here therefore the ladies are marked as the representatives of the whole creation, with the flattering exception indeed of tigresses and she-bears; but certainly moft of the distinctions between the sexes mentioned by Aristotle are diftinctions of artificial habit, the consequences of custom and education, and not natural habit or instinct. In fome of them, as timidity and softness, the ancient and modern females agree; in others, as impudence and [s] Αγρυπνότερον καὶ οκνηρότερον. Of this apparent paradox, Mr. Twining gives the following humorous solution. ، More able to keep late hours, and at the same time more lazy than men,' might not this be rendered 'fonder of fitting up late, and lying in bed late;' perhaps this may be the cafe in general at present, as the ladies are fonder of dancing, and as yet at least, though I doubt if that will continue, not quite fo fond of sporting as the men. diffimulation,,

diffimulation, they differ, on account of their different mode of life. But wherever male jealoufy and tyranny, in modern times, reduces females to the fituation of flaves, the qualities of flaves will still be found in them. Surely there is not more difference between the characters of men and women, as stated by Aristotle, than there is between a foldier and an attorney (T). And I should hardly impute this to natural instinct. I have heard it observed, that on examining the ruins either of Pompeia or Herculaneum, the bodies of the men were found in the attitude of resistance, the women in that of refignation, which I conceive to be as much the consequence of habit as the discovery faid to have been made of a young man in women's cloaths, by attempting to draw a chair in a method which his dress would not permit [u]. To In a note on the former edition of my translation, I have faid a more perfect character might be found among women than men. trace the causes of this, may perhaps throw fome light on the subject of the preceding note. The qualities that raise men in the esteem of the world, that render them in the general opinion of mankind great and respectable on which poetical goodness of character depends, are often not connected, but [T] I do not mean to say, that there are not particular instances of good or bad dispositions refifting the force of habit; there are certainly rapacious and cunning soldiers, mafculine women, and honeft and even liberal-minded attorneys, for I cannot agree with Mr. Shenstone, or at least am more lucky in my acquaintance with them, as I know several in whom the gentleman, the christian, and the man is NOT (as he afferts) swallowed up in the lawyer. [U] Is not the imputation of these distinctions to natural causes something on the fame principle with the remark of the old groom, who had found, from long experience, that cropped horses were naturally good? frequently

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. frequently even in oppofition to what may strictly be called moral virtue. That a degree of this poetical goodness is not incompatible even with atrocious crimes, has already been observed; and we may add, that in modern times it frequently depends on acknowledged vices, as a certain degree of gallantry and duelling. In regard to the first, how nearly has Fielding made Joseph Andrews an object of ridicule; and what pains is he obliged to employ to excuse him, by his violent attachment to another woman. The same may be observed as to duelling, in the character of Sir Charles Grandison, who, after all the trouble Richardfon has taken to draw him perfect, is neither the object of our love or our respect. Indeed the poet's pencil is not always true to his intention (x). I have no doubt that Rowe, in the Fair Penitent, meant to make Altamont the object of our esteem, and Lothario of our detestation. But he has fo contrived in the execution, that we despise Altamont, and the gallant gay Lothario is the favorite of the spectators, though he is an unprincipled, and in one instance a despicable villain, for no crime can be more truly defpicable than boasting of a woman's favors. The same may be faid of two other characters in different works, Lovelace and Sir Charles Grandifon. But a woman may be drawn perfectly good, and at the same time perfectly interesting, for there is no virtue in the catalogue of moral or christian duties that is not becoming, and does not both give and receive additional lustre, when possessed by that amiable sex. The utmost exertions of patience, and meekness, which at least fink the dignity of the tragic hero, raise the tragic heroine in our esteem. The characters of Imogen, of Desdemona, and of Cordelia, are as nearly patterns of [x] Maffinger has fucceeded in this in his Fatal Dowry, from which Rowe entirely borrowed his plot, though without any acknowledgement. See a comparison between these plays in the Observer, No. 89, 90, 91.

Tt perfection

perfection as human nature will admit, erring only as to that passion which we have already mentioned as furnishing [Y] that μεγάλη ἁμαρτία, that great frailty which causes the distress of virtuous characters without awakening our disgust, or sinking them in our esteem. manners. Before I quit this part of the subject I must make one observation, though it partly anticipates the subject of the next note. It relates to the tendency my fair countrywomen have to violate in real life an example of Ariftotle given to enforce the neceffity of poetical propriety of He tells us ⚫ there is a character of courage and fierceness adapted to men, which would be very improper in a woman.' My own feelings on this head are so much in unison with those of the Stagirite, that I am as much disgusted at seeing a delicate and accomplished woman drawing a bow, or managing a spirited hunter, as I should be at a man's working a pair of ruffles, or embroidering a waistcoat. These exercises are not only unfit for female delicacy but even destructive of female beauty, as they tend to make the arm mufcular, and consequently to rob it of its first grace, rotundity, and softness of outline. There is even something repugnant to our sensations in seeing a woman skilful in things that do not become her sex. In such cases there is a beauty even in awkwardness. There is a masterly stroke in Rousseau's Emilius [z] exemplifying this. Sophia could not fit still. She rose with vivacity. She ran over the whole shop, examined the tools, felt the smoothness ' of the planks, picked up the shavings, looked at our hands, and faid • she liked this kind of work because it was so clean. She playfully ، attempted even to imitate Emilius. With her white and delicate hand • she run a plane over a board, the plane slid on without having any [Y] See Note Iv. Chap. XIII. [z] Vol. II. Part II. • effect.

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. • effect. I thought I beheld the god of love in the air laughing and • beating his wings. I thought I heard him shout with delight, and fay, " Hercules is revenged." ، Homer who lived in more natural times than Aristotle, or the Greek tragic writers, was much more favorable to the characters of women. In what amiable colors has he drawn Helen, the cause of so much war and bloodshed. How different is the behaviour of Hector to her, and that of the pious Æneas of Virgil! Her lamentation over the body of Hector, in the last book of the Iliad, is beyond expreffion beautiful [A]. The cafe with regard to flavery was different, and Homer expresses himself on that head with nearly as much strength as Ariftotle. [B]' Jove fix'd it certain that whatever day • Makes man a flave, takes half his worth away.' POPE'S ODYSSEY, 1. xvii. v. 393- [A] Madam Dacier's criticism on this speech is the very Βαθος of the absurd. • Homer • does not say this only to shew the goodness and humanity of Hector, but also to support the • probability of the poem. For if Hector, who was master in Troy, both on account of ⚫ his own valor and the old age of Priam, had not been in the interests of Helen, there • would have been no likelihood of her not being delivered up to the Greeks in the course of so fatal a war.' Madam Dacier in this remark omits the testimony Helen bears to the paternal tenderness shewn her by Priam. Ἑκυρὸς δὲ, πατὴρ ὡς, ἤπιος ἀιεὶ. There is the fame omission in Pope's tranflation. [Β] Ἥμισυ γὰρ τ᾿ ἀρετῆς ἀποαίνυται ἐυρύοπα Ζεὺς ᾿Ανέρος εὖτ᾿ ἂν μιν κατὰ δέλιον ἦμαρ ἕλησεν. Tt2 ODYSSEY, 1. XVII. v. 322. NOTE

15.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-52 15.3

THE NEXT REQUISITE IS THEIR BEING CHARACTERISTIC.

BY characteristic is meant confonant with the profession, rank, fex, and age of the perfon. This is clearly defined as to the last condition by Horace in his Epistle to the Pifos [c]. The celebrated speech of Jaques in As You Like It, describing the seven ages of man's life, seems an imitation of this passage in Horace. But with all the veneration I have for Shakespear, I cannot agree with Mr. Colman in thinking his alteration in making two of his examples characteristic of station, instead of age, an improvement; fince comparatively confidered, so few men are ever either soldiers or justices. I say two examples, though Mr. Colman makes them three, enumerating the lover in them. But here I think Shakespear has adhered more to general nature than Horace. Love is certainly more naturally characteristic of youth than hunting. An objection has been made to Iago as a deviation from this rule, as the character of an artful revengeful villain is very opposite to that of a soldier: and had Iago been the only foldier in the play the objection would have been just, as in that case he must have been confidered as representing the general manners of the profession. But as in Othello all the principal persons of the drama are soldiers, the manners are characteristic of the individual not of the profeffion. From national prejution. [c] See v. 156 to v. 178 in the original, and v. 230 to v. 265 in Mr. Colman's tranfladice

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. dice we are apt to be rather unfavorable in our representation of French characters; and had Parolles been the only Frenchman in ' All's Well ' that Ends Well, we should not scruple to confider him as an example of fuch prejudice; but as the scene lies in France chiefly, no such idea is ever entertained [D]. As to the propriety of character, the ghosts, witches, and fairies of Shakespear, are deservedly allowed superior excellence, as they certainly act in conformity with the manners, we impute to such imaginary beings did they really exist. Yet Shakespear had here some archetype to follow; for popular opinion had already marked the outline of their habits, which was as advantageous to him in giving them characteristic manners as it was difadvantageous to (E) Milton in giving Satan poetical excellence of manners. But how Shakespear (F) has contrived in such characters as Caliban, the pure creation of his own imagination, to give to what never did, and never was supposed to exist, such manners as we are irresistibly impelled by our feelings to pronounce truly characteristic, is a power of art that criticism is as inadequate to investigate, as genius to imitate. [D] See Bishop Warburton's Defence of Shakespear in this instance against the hypercriticism of Rhymer. [E] See Note I. on this chapter. [F] See Effay on the Dramatic Character of Falstaff, page 75, note. NOTE

15.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-53 15.4

- THE THIRD ESSENTIAL IS LIKENESS. THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS AND WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED ABOUT THEIR BEING GOOD AND CHARACTERISTIC.

THESE words obviously imply that though there is a diftinction between them they are liable to be confounded, which is exactly the case with being like and characteristic. But there feems to be almost a direct opposition between likeness and goodness. • For,' as is very juftly remarked by Mr. Twining, 'there was more danger of a reader's thinking the ὅμοιον too different from the χρησὸν, and as a general precept incompatible with it.' I can find no other way of solving this difficulty than by the common effort of unsuccessful and bold commentators alteration of the text, and leaving out the word χρηςόν as supposing it added by a transcriber in conformity to ὥσπερ ἕιρηται, as both goodness and propriety have just been mentioned. ، The difference between propriety and likeness consists merely in this, that the one relates to what is becoming and natural in a person of such an age, sex, or profeffion; the other, to what is appropriated to any particular character, from history or tradition. Mr. Twining illustrates this by the example of Medea, ' where the violence and fierceness which form her ⚫ traditional character, and therefore the likeness of the poet's picture may be said to be proper, or suitable with respect to the individual, • though improper and unfuitable to the general character of the fex.' Mr.

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. Mr. Mason, as he has drawn his Elfrida, whose historical character is one of the worst in the annals of human kind, has preferred general propriety of character to individual resemblance. This subject is discussed at large by M. Leffing, in a criticism on a comedy called SOLYMAN THE SECOND [G], taken from one of Marmontel's tales, from which I shall make a confiderable extract, as it in many places applies strongly to the Elfrida of Mr. Mason, and without design, and confequently without partiality, urges what may be faid on both fides as to such a delineation of an historical character. M. Leffing first quotes the following extract from the JOURNAL ENCYCLOPEDIQUE for January, 1762, page 79. “ “ Solyman," say they,' was one of the greatest princes of his age. His victories, his talents, his virtues, rendered him an object " of veneration even to the enemies he triumphed over. But this hero " so sensible to glory was not insensible to love; though delicate in his " “ pleasures, he felt amid the corruption of a seraglio, that pleasure unaccompanied by sentiment is contemptible. He imagined he had " found this in Roxelana, a young Italian captive, not perhaps inca- “ pable of tenderness but nevertheless artful and ambitious, and skilled " in the means of making her pleasures the fource of her elevation. “ By feigning sensibility herself, she induced Solyman who really felt it, to violate a law of the empire which forbad the sultan to marry. [G] Dramaturgie, Part II. page 70, & feq. We have a very pleasing after-piece on the same subject, in which the character of Roxelana has received additional interest from the powers of Mrs. Abingdon and Mrs. Jordan. " She

" She afcended the throne with him, an ambition in itself pardonable, " if she had not employed her afcendancy over her lover to force him to " fully his glory by the sacrifice of an innocent fon. This woman M. "Marmontel has chofen for the heroine of one of his tales. But how he " has changed her! Instead of Italian he has made her French. Instead " of an artful woman affecting sensibility he has made her the coquet " of a Parifian circle; and instead of a foul overwhelmed by ambition, “ “ “ " " and capable of the boldest and most atrocious actions to fatisfy it, he has given her an undesigning head and an excellent heart. Are fuch changes allowable? Can a poet or a novellist extend the license, whatever it may be, that is given him, to known characters ? Though permitted to change facts, has he a right to paint Lucretia as a coquet, and Socrates as a fine gentleman ?" To this M. Leffing replies : ' I do not chuse to charge myself with • the justification of M. Marmontel on this point. I have already ob- • served [H], that characters should be more facred to the poet than • facts. First, because when the characters are well observed, the facts [H] Dramaturgie, Part I. page 57, where he defends the anachronisms as to the age of Elizabeth in Corneille's Comte de Essex, against the Criticisms of Voltaire. Corneille reprefents her as young when Effex is executed, which really happened near the close of her reign. Lessing says, ' If her character gives the poetic idea of that which history attributes ' to that queen the poet has fulfilled his duty, and we have no business to bring the work to ⚫ the strict tribunal of chronology or history.' In confirmation of this doctrine we have had three tragedies on this subject on our theatre, to which the history of Elizabeth must be much better known than it can be to a French audience, which have all the fame defect without its producing any ill consequence as to their reception on the stage. See Note IV. Chap. xvu. as

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. • as being the consequence of fuch characters can never vary much [1], • as on the contrary the fame facts may be derived from characters en- ⚫ tirely different. Secondly, because the instruction does not lie in the • facts themselves, but in the knowledge that such characters in such • circumstances do and can only produce such facts (K). Nevertheless • Marmontel has done just the reverse. The fact is, that there was formerly in the seraglio an European female flave, who had art enough to get herfelf declared legally married to the emperor. The character • of this flave, and that of the emperor, determine the manner in which ⚫ this fact really happened; and because there might have been many • different characters by whose means it might really have happened, it certainly depends only on the poet, as poet, which, either of the • characters established by history, or of others, he chuses to employ, ⚫ according as the moral he has in view, requires one or the other. All ⚫ that is expected of him, in cafe he chuses other characters than those • which are furnished by history, or even such as absolutely contradict ، ، it, is to abstain also from historical names, and rather ascribe known • [L] facts to unknown persons than give to known persons manners • which do not belong to them. The first encreases our knowledge, or at least feems to encrease it, and pleases even on that account; the [1] This I think will hardly be granted, and indeed seems confuted by the other member. of the sentence. As the leading facts of the story of Elfrida not only might have been, but actually were nearly the fame as represented by Mr. Mason, so had Elfrida been drawn as she really was, undoubtedly the consequential facts might have been entirely different.. [K] The reader will observe that part of the reasoning here arises from M. Lessing's mistake as to the meaning of the Contes Moraux, or moral tales, mentioned in Note I.. [L] See Note Iv. Chap. XVIII.. Uu. fecond

33° ، ، second contradicts the knowledge we already have, and displeases for that reafon. We confider facts as accidental, and what may happen in common to many different persons, but characters on the contrary as something essential and particular. We permit the poet therefore to arrange the first according to his fancy, provided he does not make them contradictory to his characters. But as to the second he may put them indeed in the best light, but he must not alter them. The • least variation feems to destroy the individuality, and give us fictitious ، ، and deceitful perfons, who ufurp the names of other people, and try to pass on us for characters they in reality are not. ، Notwithstanding this, it appears to me a much more pardonable fault not to preserve in the perfons those characters which history has given them, than to err either as to probability or the moral intended to be conveyed in such characters as are chosen at will; for the first • defect may very well be united with genius, but not the second. It • is allowed to be ignorant of a thousand things that every school-boy • knows. It is not the acquifitions of memory, but the power of ، drawing from our own proper funds that conftitutes riches. As to what a poet has heard, or feen, or read, he either forgets it, or does not chuse to know it, just as fuits his purpose. He errs then fometimes through too much security, sometimes through contempt, sometimes through premeditated design, and sometimes not; and he does it so grossly, • and so often, that we poor fouls can never wonder enough at it. Lifting up our hands we cry, How could fo great a man have been ignorant of this? How could it have escaped his recollection ? Did not he take it into confideration? O let us be filent on the subject. • While we are trying to debafe him, we only make ourselves ridiculous ' in his eyes; all that we know more than him amounts folely to what we

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. • we learned at school, without which we should have been completely stupid and ignorant indeed.'

15.5. mvp-aristotle-comment-54 15.5

THE FOURTH IS CONSISTENCY.

BY consistency is meant keeping the character uniform with itself in every respect. Without this it is impoffible for the manners to excel in the other qualities; for a character can never be faid to have poetical go odness, or general propriety of manners, or individual likeness, if these qualities are not uniformly kept up. Horace seems to conceive this admonition chiefly necessary to those poets who draw original characters from their own imagination. [M] • Should you adventuring novelty, engage • Some bold original to walk the stage, • Preserve it well, continued as begun • True to itself in every scene, and one.' COLMAN'S HOR. EP. Tο PIS. 186. Indeed though this rule is equally essential to all characters, original ones will be most liable to offend against it. As there the poet will have nothing to guide him but his own genius, and besides he will be [M] Si quid inexpertum scenæ committis, & audes Perfonam formare novam; fervetur ad imum Qualis ab incepto processerit et fibi conftet.. Uu2 EP. AD PIS. 125. more.

more tempted to take liberties with what he esteems particularly his property, as being the creature of his own invention. He also will efteem himself to be, and indeed actually will be, less liable to detection. The example that Ariftotle gives of failure in this point is the character of Iphigenia in the Iphigenia in Aulis of Euripides, of which more will be faid in the next note. Modern instances of the breach of this rule will be amply furnished by our best poets, serious and comic, epic and dramatic. [N] The character of Hamlet cannot certainly be allowed to be uniform throughout. Befides the neglect or forgetfulness of the poet in making Hamlet, who is only supposed to affect madness, appear often really mad, (an error carefully and effectually guarded against in [o] Edgar,) there are many improprieties which I shall not enlarge upon as they are fufficiently obvious. [N] I have been informed that by order of Mrs. Garrick the tragedy of Hamlet was thrown into Garrick's grave. I think though he was undoubtedly great in that character he was equally fo in many of Shakespear's characters, and superior in Lear. The comic characters I presume were thought too light for so solemn an occafion. If by burying that tragedy with Garrick it was meant to infer that it was loft to the stage with him, a complete edition of Shakespear might, with the utmost propriety, have been interred with that inimitable actor: for what Cardinal Bembó has said of Nature on the tomb of Raffael, may be faid of Shakefpear on the tomb of Garrick. one. [o] When one of the persons assumes a character different from his own it is the business of the actor to mark the distinction, and make the real character appear through the feigned Johnfon has observed, that Garrick did not play Archer in the Beaux Stratagem ' well. The gentleman should break out through the footman, which was not the cafe as ' he did it.' BOSWELL'S LIFE OF JOHNSON, Vol. 11. p. 62. Romeo

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. Romeo also surely acts contrary to the general tendency of his character when after the fall of [P] Paris, on being requested by his dying rival to lay his body by Juliet, he answers coolly, and rather lightly, • In faith I will.' And on recognizing his face he considers him as an object of pity, and feems really concerned for him though his rival, and the occafion of Juliet's death. Valentine's offer of resigning Sylvia to Protheus is a striking instance of the same impropriety in our great dramatic poet; if that play [Q], which I greatly doubt, is really a production of Shakespear. Farquhar has added to this impropriety when he makes Aimwell say to Archer in the Beaux Stratagem, • Take the ten thousand or the Lady;' and in Archer's brutal answer to Dorinda, when the expresses her surprize at the offer. [P] The author of the REMARKS makes a curious observation on these lines spoken by the prince. • And I for winking at your difcords too ' Have loft a brace of kinsmen.' His kinsmen he says are Mercutio and envolio, and therefore proposes to refstore a line which mentions the death of the latter. This ought to be a good lesson to commentators, as it shews how they are able sometimes to fee what is invisible, and to shut their eyes againft what stares them in the face. Mercutio and Paris are obviously the prince's relations. Romeo on first seeing the face of Paris, calls him Mercutio's kinsman. And in the dramatis perfonæ, which is arranged rather according to political than poetical rank, the first character mentioned is Escalus, prince of Verona: the second Paris, kinsman to the prince. [Q] If the hand of Shakespear is to be traced in any part of the Two Gentlemen of Verona, I think it is in the characters of Launce and Speed, which much resemble Lancelot in the Merchant of Venice. In

In the fong supposed to be written by Lovemore for the widow Belmour in the WAY TO KEEP HIM, and which is supposed to give his own sentiments, there is a strong instance not only of inconfiftency but abfolutely of oppofition in this line. Turn the chief of your care from your face to your mind.' Now the only cause of Lovemore's indifference to his wife is her having done this very thing; and the whole tenor of the drama is to enforce the contrary conduct, and shew a woman that the ought, after marriage, to facrifice to the graces as well as to the virtues. There is a fimilar neglect in that excellent comedy the School for Scandal, when Charles Surface says to Sir Oliver on his being difcovered, Believe me when I tell you, (and upon my foul I would not say it if it was not so,) if I do not feel mortified at the exposure of my • follies; it is because I feel at this moment the warmest satisfaction at seeing you my liberal benefactor.' This is quite inconsistent with the character of Charles, and would have exactly suited Joseph in the fame situation, as it conveys a premeditated sentiment, and is besides obvioufly an untruth. I will now produce three instances from works of narrative imitation, and those justly in the highest class of estimation. To begin with Don Quixote. In the part first published by Cervantes, and his subsequent addition in consequence of a fpurious attempt by another hand, he has two distinct characters. • In the first part it is true he is not drawn as an abfolute maniac, when he is not discoursing of knight errantry, ▲ but all his conversation is tinged with fingularity; and the pertinent • things

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ، things he says are incoherently arranged, and themselves out of place; as for instance, his long speech to the goatherds about the golden age : • but in the second part he is made a man of found judgment and elegant literature when the immediate subject of his madness is not • touched upon [R].' My next instance is from a work which is of undoubted excellence indeed, leaving every work of the same nature far behind. I mean the character of Allworthy in Tom Jones. He has always appeared to me a striking instance of a character at oppofition with himself, though more perhaps in general with that which the author tells you in his own person he is, than with his own conduct in those parts where the author suffers him to act from himself. The author is at great pains to inform us frequently that he is, though no scholar, a man of sense and difcernment, with a benevolence almost angelic; and to press this more forcibly on our minds, he has given him a name strongly expressive of his moral goodness, though all his other characters have common names [s]. But how is he really drawn? He is the dupe of every infinuating rafcal he meets; and a dupe not of the most amiable kind, fince he is always led to acts of justice and severity. The consequence of his pliability is oftener the punishment of the innocent than the acquittal of the guilty; and in such punishment he is severe and implacable. As in the cafe of Jones himself, his fupposed father and mother, and black George. He fuffers his adopted fon and his foundling to be ill treated by an imperious pedagogue, whose [R] See Andrews's Anecdotes, p. 31. Article Books. [s] See Note III. Ch. Ix. whole

، whole character and conversation is a fatire on christianity, and to have their principles corrupted by a hypocritical infidel. The third instance is not so striking, but is I think to be found in a character, whose fingularity as well as general uniformity with itself is universally and defervedly admired, and was a particular favorite with its author on this very account. I mean [T] Sir Roger de Coverly in the Spectator. But is his conduct throughout the work consonant with the original delineation of his character? Or can his fingularities, however amiable and however entertaining, be at all faid to [u]' proceed from • his good sense, and be contradictions to the manners of the world, only as he thinks the world is in the wrong?' There are many comedies whose catastrophe depends entirely on this want of uniformity of manners. I mean those in which the event of the fable turns on an entire and radical change of character in one of the principal persons. Where, as Mr. Harris observes, with as much humour as justice, • The old gentleman of the drama, after having • fretted and stormed through the first four acts, towards the conclufion • of the fifth is unaccountably appeased. At the fame time the diffipated 6. coquette, and the diffolute fine gentleman whose vices cannot be occa- • fional but must clearly be habitual, are in the space of half a scene [T] The character of Sir Roger did not, it feems, fuit the delicacy of Shenstone. In his Essays on Men, Manners, and Things, where he chuses to draw what he calls a character, and a most infipid one it is, and make him talk common-place nonfsense among the tombs at Westminster, he concludes by saying he ' sometimes boafted that he was a distant relation of • Sir Roger de Coverly. If he was, ' I am afraid his lady mother played false, for there is not the most distant family likeness.. [u] Spectator, No. II.. miracu-

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ' miraculously reformed, and grow at once as completely good as if they ' had never been otherwife.' Some instances may however be produced in which a sudden and yet lasting reformation may not be improbable, as in Lady Townly. We may conceive a young woman of good natural disposition, but led into habits of diffipation by company and fashion, to be really convinced of her error by one striking incident: but we can never believe that any thing can cure the brutal fufpicion of Strictland [x]. [x] No two passions can be more different than jealousy and suspicion. The one is the offspring of brutality, and may be unconnected with love; the other is the certain proof of a most violent and unreasonable passion. Hoadley in the Suspicious Husband has once, and I believe once only, confounded these characters when he makes Strictland say he cannot bear that even a woman should partake in his wife's love. This is jealousy though pushed to excess. Mrs. Brooks in Emily Montague makes Colonel Rivers express the violence of his passion in these words: ' I would engross, I would employ, I would absorb every faculty • of that lovely mind.' Othello reasons, if I may use the expreffion, in the same manner, when he says, • I'd rather be a toad, • And feed upon the vapor of a dungeon, • Than keep a corner in the thing I love • For other's uses.' X x NOTE

15.6. mvp-aristotle-comment-55 15.6

EVEN IF AN INCONSISTENT PERSON IS THE OBJECT OF IMITA- IMITATED SHOULD BE MADE TION, THE CHARACTER SO CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT.

MR. TWINING begins one of his notes (101) with the observation that Aristotle affords so many passages to exercise the penetration and conjectures of the critics, that they might be perfectly fatisfied without inventing them when they do not find them. An observation that feems peculiarly applicable to this passage, which I own appears to me perfectly plain, and in the common and literal acceptation very naturally and even necessarily connected with what immediately precedes it. After Aristotle had mentioned consistency as one of the essential requifites of manners, it occurred to him that there might be, and perhaps he recollected there actually were, characters whose leading feature was inconfistency; and that he might be supposed to mean that the manners of such persons were improper for poetical imitation. He therefore explains himself by saying such characters were not improper, provided the inconfiftency was kept up throughout the whole conduct of the character, and the person was not made to act consistently with himself in some instances, and inconsistently in others. A very learned and elegant critic however has chosen to give a new meaning to this observation. One of his objections is, that such an inconsistent character is not proper for tragedy. He was induced to this idea by the character given to Tigellius by Horace, which so naturally suggests itself to the recollection of the reader. But it is by no means improbable, that

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. that such characters may be found in the higher and more serious ranks of life, the consequences of whose inconsistency may be as productive of tragic distress as that of Tigellius is of comic ridicule [x]. Bishop Hurd is at great pains to prove, that by ὁμαλῶς ἀνόμαλον he means that a person in some things inconsistent, may yet be so managed by the poet'as to be made consistent with the basis of his character. And as an example of this, he brings Electra, and strange to tell, Iphigenia, the very character marked out by Aristotle to exemplify blameable inconsistency of manners. The Bishop says, that Iphigenia is more easily vindicated from this charge of inconfiftency, than even Electra, notwithstanding this charge of Aristotle against her. It may be so; but if it is so, if Aristotle knew what he meant, or had any meaning at all, he could not intend to praise in Electra what he censures in Iphigenia. If the character of Iphigenia is an inconsistency confiftent with the basis of the character, it is proof pofitive that such is not the meaning of Ariftotle's ὁμαλῶς ἀνόμαλον, which must be some quality that the manners of Iphigenia did not possess. To bring the very character quoted by Ariftotle as an instance of the breach of a dramatic rule, for an example of the exception to such rule on his own supposed principles, and that by changing the received and obvious meaning of the words defining such exception, can hardly be justified by the canons of fober criticifm. The idea of Mr. Markland, mentioned by Mr. Twining, that the inconfistency of Iphigenia 'was intended by the poet as a moral lesson, [x] See Mr. Twining, Note III, whose observations on this passage, and on the Bishop of Worcester's criticism, are as usual, accurate and convincing. Xx. 2 ' a strik-

34° a striking picture of the " levity and inconfistency of the human mind," reminds us of an observation of Brumoy, on part of the conduct of Jocasta in the Edipus of Sophocles. • We perceive (he says) that the trouble of Edipus has fo much encreased, and that his fcruples con- • cerning the death of Laius have taken such deep root in his heart, that ، ، ، Jocasta, to deliver him from them, becomes all at once pious inftead of impious, as the appeared at first. She goes to confult the gods : admirable character! she is a free-thinker in the first act and now a religious enthusiast, and this because both the effects are produced by the different circumstances she is in. Such is the human heart. In going to the temple she meets the Corinthian shepherd, who reassures her concerning the fate of Edipus, and she thinks no more of the gods.' By the way, after all to take the Bishop's own words, is not the fubstance of them a distinction without a difference? for what is such a character as Tigellius but an inconsistent person drawn consistent with the basis of his character, since that basis is inconsistency ?

15.7. mvp-aristotle-comment-56 15.10

SO ACHILLES IS DRAWN AS A GOOD CHARACTER EVEN BY HOMER.

THE paragraph preceding that of which this sentence is the conclusion, whether from being displaced by transcribers or from the defultory mode of composition so frequently apparent in this work, seems to have little to do with the rest of this chapter. Here however Ariftotle returns to his subject. He has before been giving examples of the breach

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. breach of three of the essential qualities of manners, goodness as in the character of Menelaus, propriety as in Ulysses and Menalippe, and consistency as in Iphigenia. We may now suppose him to recollect his omiffion of the other, of which probably the Achilles in the same tragedy may have been generally quoted as an example, where, in order to give him the requifite poetical goodness of character, the poet has deviated from his traditional manners, and even the manners, according to Plato [v], given him by Homer. In answer to this the critic points out the mode by which the faults of a traditional character may be so represented as not to lose their resemblance, and yet retain the neceffary poetical goodness; and this he not only gives such directions how to perform as must appear to every person perfectly confonant with reason, but he illustrates it by the example of the usual practice of another imitative art. And having done this, he observes that even Homer, who has been supposed to have followed a different plan, has really given the requisite poetical goodness of character to Achilles. The contrary opinion however seems to have been generally adopted, even by the moderns; and many are ready to join in opinion with Dr. Jortin, as quoted by Mr. Twining; ' that Achilles is a boisterous, rapa- ، cious, mercenary, cruel and unrelenting brute; and the reader pities none of his calamities, and is pleased with none of his successes.' This is rather a summary mode of deciding a question by a sentence, which if just, is a compleat condemnation of the father of poetry, and all his admirers. For if Homer has so drawn Achilles as to make him not only [Y] See the passage quoted from Plato's Republic, by Mr. Twining, where the Achilles of Homer is accused of possessing together the two opposite vices of mean rapaciousness, and infolent contempt both of gods and men. compleatly

compleatly bad, but compleatly despicable and uninteresting, the Iliad is effentially defective; and those who have admired it, or rather have pretended to admire it, have acted in opposition to their own feelings. Perhaps many modern readers, and Dr. Jortin among the rest, have never been much interested either in the character of Achilles or in any part of the Iliad or Odyssey; as these divine poems are seldom introduced to us in a very pleasing manner, and as early associations of ideas are not very easily eradicated [z], perhaps some feelings of restraint and punishment may always be connected with a work with which we were first acquainted, under the influence of such circumstances. To recur to my own feelings on this subject, it happened to me, that my first knowledge of the Tale of Troy divine was unaccompanied by any restraint, and yet drawn from the Iliad. (A) Pope's Homer being one of the first books I ever read for my own, amusement, I declare I was as much interested in the character of Achilles as I ever was for the most perfect hero of novel or romance. I certainly was then no critic, and had never heard of Ari- [z] I think this is a strong objection to the use of the fcriptures, in the teaching either English, Latin, or Greek. [A] I do not pretend to say Pope gives an accurate copy of the original, but a much more perfect idea of the general story of the Iliad would be acquired even by Ogilvie's tranflation, read so as to comprehend the whole, than by reading and studying the original in parts. I could gain a more accurate idea of the general and relative situation of a country by looking at a map for ten minutes, than I could by riding over it, without such assistance, in as many years. Mr. Spence declares in his Polymetis, he never perfectly understood the Epistles and Satires of Horace, as to their general connection, till he read Pope's Imitations of them. Pope has not given Achilles virtues denied him by Homer; but a striking instance of the contrary conduct is pointed out by Dr. Beattie in his Essay on Poetry and Music, Part 1, Chap. Iv. page 81.. note. In the same place will be found a complete and unanswerable defence of the Achilles of Homer against such critics as Dr. Jortin. stotle,

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. stotle, and what I read of hím occasionally in the notes I did not understand; but I as certainly could not be deceived as to my own feelings. How often have we heard the absurd story of Achilles being invulnerable every where except in the heel, (which is mentioned by no ancient writer except Statius) imputed to Homer. [B] Tom Brown, of facetious memory, but a very good classical scholar, taking this for granted, makes this curious, and indeed if he were right in his first assertion, just remark. • Homer not only makes Achilles invulnerable every where but in • his heel, but likewise bestows a suit of impenetrable armour upon his in- • vulnerable body. (c) Bully Dawson would have fought the devil with ⚫ these advantages. So far however has Homer been from giving Achilles any unfair advantage over his principal antagonist, that he takes great pains to make Hector his match. Whatever excellence there was in armour made by a divine artist and given by the gods, such armour was possessed by Hector; as he had taken from Patroclus, the arms worn by Achilles through the first nine years of the war; and as for his being invulnerable, befides the proof I have brought [D] elsewhere, and particularly the wound given him by Afteropæus in his hand, in the twentyfirst Iliad; in the eighteenth Iliad, when the body of his friend Patroclus [B] He was the first English critic who noticed the impropriety of calling such irregular compositions as the Odes of Cowley, Pindaric Odes. [c] For an account of this hero, the reader is referred to a note on the second number of the Spectator. Edition of 1789. [D] In a note on verse 112 (82 in the tranflation) of the ninth Olympic Ode of Pindar. is

is on the point of being seized by the Trojans, and he is defired to interfere by a message from Juno, he excuses himself and with some degree of petulance as if to an unreasonable request [E]. 'How can I go into ' the battle? They have got my armour, and I know of no other • whose armour I can put on unless the shield of Ajax Telamon, and ' that is I hope already engaged among the front ranks of the battle.' If Achilles was invulnerable then he did not know it himself. Neither did Eustathius who, though he has a long note on this passage, does not drop the remotest hint of it [F]. [E] See Iliad XVIII. v. 187. I have not taken Mr. Pope's version, because when an author is quoted to establish any point of this fort, his literal sense is necessary; besides the word arms used by Pope is equivocal, but the Greek words ἔνεα and τέυχεα fignify only defensive armour. Pope however, though the words he puts in the mouth of Achilles are not so expressive of indignation as the original, shews he felt the idea, by adding - He cries, (with fury warm'd.') [F] In the note on Pindar above-mentioned, I have taken notice of an observation of a scholiaft on that poet, and another on verse 820 of Iliad XXIII, which shew that Ajax being invulnerable, was a popular story among the ancients. In Villoifon's edition of Homer, with the ancient Scholia, where particular passages are diftinguished by such a mark as this which is called διπλή καθαρά, there is one on that very verse, and its occasion noted in these words, ἡ διπλῆ ὁτι ἐκ τέτων καὶ τῶν τοιέτων φάινεται κάθ Ὁμηρον μὴ ὤν ἄτρωῖος ὁ Αίας : « The mark is put because from this verse and others like it, it appears that Ajax was * not invulnerable according to Homer;' a proof certainly that there was an opinion at least that Homer had made Ajax invulnerable. NOTE

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. !

15.8. mvp-aristotle-comment-57 15.11

THESE RULES OUGHT TO BE OBSERVED; AND NOT ONLY THESE, BUT SUCH ALSO AS REGARD THOSE OBJECTS OF THE OTHER SENSES THAT NECESSARILY ACCOMPANY DRAMATIC POETRY.

BY this I imagine Aristotle means the theatrical apparatus, such as the dress, and masks of the actors, on the proper adapting of which to various characters, much of the effect of dramatic representation must have depended. In the article of dress both the ancient and modern theatre were much in the fame circumstance; but as to the masks, the ancients, at least in comedy, as we may gather from Julius Pollux, were mechanically exact in adapting them to particular characters, which cannot be the cafe as to the modern stage where the actors appear without such monstrous difguises. However the manners, both as to the dress and the figure of the actors may be divided in the fame way as in the compofition of the drama itself.. For first as to goodness. It is obvious that the dress of the characters not only in tragedy, but in comedy and even farce, must be above the level of real life, as is evident in the theatrical representation of shepherds and beggars. As to the perfon of the performer the fame holds in a more essential degree especially in actresses. In real life we know Yy from

from every day's experience, that very plain women are capable of exciting very violent attachment; and if we look among our acquaintance for those who have formed imprudent connections with the sex, we shall not always find the objects remarkable for their personal charms. But a person who does not feel this particular attachment, or if he does, contemplates it in another person, can only conceive beauty as the natural object of love. [G] A Romeo therefore fighing to an ugly Juliet, and apparently turned of forty, will not only excite ridicule but disgust. The theatre is much more delicate in this refpect than it was formerly. I have seen Mr. Havard and Mrs. Pritchard perform Constant and Lady Brute, when the progress of age and decay was marked not only by their figure but by the tremulous modulation of their voice. This however never appeared in Garrick; he acted even young Hamlet and Archer with propriety till he quitted the stage. One of the most beautiful and elegant women living either on or off the stage will, I hope, forgive me for citing her as an example of an impropriety exactly of an opposite nature; I mean in the character of Mrs. Oakley. I will not pretend to determine how far a most lovely and accomplished woman might, in real life, contrive to render herself disagreeable and troublesome to a husband, by conftant and unreasonable jealousy; but every general spectator will be rather inclined to think the man, whom Miss Farren, from suspicious fondness, cannot bear to have out of her company a moment, an object of envy rather than pity or ridicule. The requifite of goodness alfo on the modern theatre applies to the scenery, as in chambers and cottages; indeed this is also sometimes defective [G] See Hill's Actor, paffim. from

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. from being too good. There is no poffibility of representing the inside of Bobadil's' convenient cabin,' on a London theatre. Secondly, The dress and persons of the performers should be in character, and the scenery likewife. A foldier should not be dressed like a senator or acted by an old or feeble man; neither should the scene represent a room when the dialogue shews the action is in a wood. The third requisite differs from this only as particular characters do from general ones. Prince Henry should not be as fat as Falstaff. Firelocks should not be introduced at the battle of Philippi; nor should the scene represent St. James's Park when Richard falls by the hand of his competitor in Bofworth field. A breach of the fourth requisite consistency was fully exemplified by the practice of the old theatre taken notice of in Note v. on Chap. vI. when one or two characters only were dressed in the habit of the time or place of the drama, and the rest in the fashionable dress of the day. Yy 2 CHAP.

16.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-58 16.1

THE DISCOVERY HAVING BEEN ALREADY DEFINED, WE WILL NOW DISTINGUISH ITS DIFFERENT FORMS. THE FIRST, WHICH IS THE LEAST ARTFUL, AND TO WHICH THE GENERALITY OF POETS IN THEIR DEFICIENCY OF GENIUS RESORT, IS THAT BY TOKENS.

THE critic having in the eleventh chapter, given a general definition of the discovery as an essential incident to the interest of poetic fable, proceeds now to mention and diftinguish the merit of its various forms, beginning according to his usual method with that which he esteems lowest in point of excellence. He divides this mode by tokens, first into natural and adventitious; and these he fubdivides again into such as are produced on purpose and such as happen accidentally. Of all these our theatre affords examples. The tokens that occafion the discovery of Douglas and of Indiana in the Confcious Lovers, are accidental and adventitious. That of Almanzor in the Conquest of Grenada is accidental and natural. That of Arviragus in Cymbeline is natural and shewn on purpose. That of [A] Sir William [A] Perhaps this does not exactly come under the predicament of the spear and embroidery of Oreftes, as he is rather recognized by his person than his star and ribbon. Honeywood

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. Honeywood in the Good-natured Man, is adventitious and shewn on purpose. I confefs I do not fee the difference as to merit, between the accidental and intentional discovery which Aristotle insists on, and upon which his general scale of excellence feems so much to depend. This circumstance feems to me to be entirely regulated by the fituation of the character. If he even knows himself his own situation and wishes to conceal it, as in the case of Ulyffes and Euryclea in the nineteenth book of the Odyffey, it must be accidental, as it certainly must if he is ignorant of his own situation as in Douglas. But if conscious himself who he is, though concealed from others, he chuses to discover himself as in the cafe of Ulysses to Eumæus and Philætius in the twenty-second book of the Odyssey; or if unconscious himself, a person who knows his fituation like the old man in Merope and Belarius in Cymbeline discovers him, I must think the intentional discovery infinitely preferable. The intentional discovery even by merely throwing off a disguise, as in the Countess of Salisbury, and the Duke in Measure for Meafure, has a fine theatrical effect. Perhaps there is no instance more striking than Æneas's discovery of himself in the second Æneid. [B]Coram quem quæritis adfum • Troius Æneas Libicis ereptus ab undis.' [B] The spirit of this is lost in the translations. For me to attempt the restoration of it after such names as Dryden and Warton, would be at once folly and prefumption. Shakespear however has caught it not indeed from Virgil, but from nature. ،

This is I Hamlet the Dane -

NOTE

16.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-59 16.4

THE SECOND ARE THOSE INVENTED BY THE POET AND THEREFORE INARTIFICIAL.

THIS passage at first fight appears very extraordinary as all the modes of discovery may be said to be invented by the poet. But Aristotle soon explains himself by the example he gives of [c] Orestes in the Iphigenia in Tauris, who is not discovered to his sister as she is to him by a natural and accidental circumstance, but from saying what the poet chose to put in his mouth: that is in fact by declaring directly he is Orestes, and bringing such proof as he, or rather the poet thought necessary, as describing a particular spear, and a piece of Electra's embroidery, which used to be in her chamber, and which from the reserved life of the women of Greece, could have been only seen by a near connection as a father or brother. But this mode of discovery the critic adds borders on what he had blamed in the former species, the introduction of tokens for the fole purpose of confirming the discovery; for Orestes might as well have [D] actually introduced a token, as recalled the memory of one. For this sense of the passage I acknowledge myself obliged to Mr.. Twining. It perfectly agrees with the context. The similitude between this and the first mode is striking as well as with the web of Philomela; for however affected the voice of a shuttle' may be to [c] Perhaps the whole circle of fable ancient and modern, does not afford a more interesting and affecting discovery than that of Joseph to his brothers in the sacred scriptures.. [D] Εξῆν γὰρ ἕνια καὶ ἐνεγκεῖν. See note on the translation. express

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. express [E] a story represented in embroidery, it seems to be the most reasonable interpretation that can be given of it: and its resemblance with the embroidery of Electra is very obvious. Neither do I think the objection started by Mr. Twining, that a traditional circumstance like this, could not be said to be an invention of the poet has much weight. For though the story is now very common from being related in so popular a work as Ovid's Metamorphofes, it does not follow it was so in the time of Sophocles, or that he might not have invented it in the tragedy now mentioned. That such a thing is very possible appears from the tale of Achilles being invulnerable [F]; which, though imputed to Homer, seems to have originated with Statius.

16.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-60 16.6

THE THIRD FORM IS BY RECOLLECTION.

THIS cannot mean that the recollection is itself the immediate cause of the discovery, but that it occafions the person recollecting to discover himself by some sudden exclamation, passion, or action. For fuch are the two examples given by Aristotle. A person bursting into tears on the fight of a picture [G], and Ulyffes weeping at the recital of his [E] This is however greatly softened by the very probable conjecture of Mr. Twining, that this expreffion is not the language of Aristotle but a quotation from the tragedy. Suppose the words in answer to a question of Tereus, 'Whose voice condemns me?' and accompanied with the production or mention of the web. [F] See Note VII. Chap. xv. [G] Virgil if he had chosen it, might have availed himself of this circumstance, which he has used in his first Æneid, to have discovered Æneas to Dido, but he preferred the mode mentioned in the first note on this chapter. own

own adventures. The discovery of Lady Randolph to the old Shepherd in Douglas, and that of Julia in the Two Gentlemen of Verona, where she faints on hearing Valentine offer Sylvia to his rival, are exactly in the same predicament. Perhaps the most whimsical discovery in any drama, and which is also caused by a fudden exclamation, is in the original French opera of Richard Cœur de Lion, where the old Knight is discovered to be an Englishman by saying GODDAM.

16.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-61 16.10

THE FOURTH IS BY REASONING.

THIS mode of discovery must also come under the fame class with the preceding one, and arise from some sudden effect wrought on the character by his reasoning, or rather from his reasoning being over-heard, which occasions his discovery, and not from the reasoning itself. For an inference occafioned by the circumstances, is the fource of every kind of discovery; as recollection, mentioned in the last note is the cause of our recognizing the perfon in the morning whom we parted with the evening before. Befides all the examples given by Aristotle imply this, except that from the Choephori if the tragedy of that name written by Æschylus is meant, which remains to be proved, [H], as several tragedies of the fame name and even on the same story may differ, and frequently do, as to the manner of arranging the circumftances of the fable, and bringing about the catastrophe. [H] See Note Iv. Chap. XVIII. See also Mr. Twining, Note 130. This

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. This mode seems to border strongly on the worst possible discovery that of over-hearing a foliloquy, as in the discovery of King Henry to the Foresters in Hen. VI. Part III.

16.5. mvp-aristotle-comment-62 16.11

THERE IS ALSO A COMPOUND (1) SPECIES OF DISCOVERY ARISING FROM A FALSE REASONING OF THE SPECTATORS.

THE precise meaning of the paragraph of which this sentence is a part, and especially the example included in it, baffles all conjecture. The only rational meaning that can be supposed is, that besides these modes of discovery where the reasoning is just, there may be a mode in which, from the combination of various circumstances, the spectator may be induced to think there is sufficient proof to infer the reality of the person discovered, and yet on examination such an inference will not logically follow from the premises. A's to the tragedy produced as an example, all seems utter obscurity. I will however mention a conjecture on the subject communicated to me by a learned and ingenious friend, which is at least very plausible. He supposes the tragedy in question to be taken from the discovery of Ulyffes to Penelope in the twenty-third book of the Odyssey, and in [1] Ariftotle calls this mode of discovery ΣΥΝΘΕΤΟΣ ἐκ παραλογισμᾶ τῷ θεάτρα. Synthesis by combining simple terms produces a truth' (or a falfhood if the premises or reasoning are false ἐκ παραλογισμέ). Hermes, Book 1. Chap. I. page 3, and then in a note. Περὶ γὰρ σύνθεσιν καὶ διάιρεσιν ἔςι τὸ ψευδός τε καὶ τὸ ἀληθές.. « True and false are seen • in composition and division.' Zz which

which he is disguised as a messenger instead of a beggar; a change certainly very consonant with the dignity of tragic representation when compared with epic description. And he proposes, that instead of τόξον we should read τοιχον [κ]. This conceded, the whole answers my notion of the sense of the passage. Penelope who is neither satisfied of the identity of Ulyffes, by the testimony of Telemachus and Euryclea, nor by a miracle wrought in favour of her husband by his restoration to the youth and figure he possessed on his leaving her twenty years before, is at last convinced by his description of her nuptial bed, which he had framed himself, and which no one else had seen but a faithful flave named Actoris. < The fecrets of the bridal bed are known To thee, to me, to Actoris alone, (My father's present in the spousal hour, • The fole attendant on our genial bower,). • Since what no eye has seen thy tongue reveal'd, • Hard and distrustful as I am, I yield.'... POPE'S Odyssey, L. XXIII. v. 241. Original, v. 225. [K] The words are so alike as to be easily confounded by a careless or a conceited transcriber, who recollecting how much depends on a bow at the conclusion of the Odyssey, might be tempted to change them on purpose, as the article τὸ which marks the gender, Mr. Win- The word τοιχος seems particularly applied to a bridal stanley observes is omitted in one Ms. chamber in Canticles, Chap. 11. ver. 9. Ἰδοὺ ἦτος ἔςηκεν ὁπίσω τῷ τοίχε ἡμῶν Παρακύπλων διὰ τῶν θυρίδων. I know the interpreters render this WALL, but it does not seem to agree with the context; and the Hebrew word כתל which occurs only in this place, seems derived from the fame word in Arabic, which as a verb signifies, to unite, COEGIT IN UNUM, and as a substantive, union, ADUNATIO, CUM QUID SIMUL COGITUR. This

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. This certainly was not a fufficient proof of the identity of Ulyffes [L], because there was a poffibility of Actoris having betrayed the secret; therefore whatever may have been the cafe with the spectators of the Ulyffes Pfeudangelus, the readers of the Odyssey if they suppose the difcovery of Ulyffes to Penelope compleatly confirmed by this circumstance are guilty of a paralogism, they draw a false conclufion from the premises. I must add, that in real life we often find persons raifing objections where no difficulty occurs, objecting to arguments that ought to convince them, and being fatisfied at last by a reason that ought not to convince them [м]. There is an objection however to this solution which it is necessary to notice. The discovery of Orestes to Iphigenia mentioned in Note 11. on this Chapter, is exactly liable to the fame observation. The fpear and embroidery might as well have been known to other eyes befides those of Orestes, as the bridal chamber of Penelope might to others, befides Ulysses and Actoris. The force of this objection will depend much on [L] See Pope's Note on v. 183, of the twenty-third book of his tranflation of the Odyssey. Granting One part of which in particular is so very appofite to this passage that I shall cite it. ' that the perfon before her [Penelope ] was a real man, and that no man but Ulyffes was acquainted • with the nuptial bed, it follows that this man is the real Ulyffes.' But neither of these premises can be granted. For the perfon, as suggested by Euftathius, might have been a god, or Actoris might have betrayed the secret to a man.. [M] Though the bed-chambers of the Grecian ladies were so much more fecluded from general observation, than those of the beauties of modern Europe, yet perhaps it would not have been out of character in Penelope, confidering her extreme incredulity, to have faid, on this laft proof with Pofthumus in Cymbeline, This is a thing • Which you might from relation likewise reap,

Zz2. the

the usual accuracy or inaccuracy of Aristotle's examples, and the observation of the reader, whether he finds them comprehending every circumstance of resemblance, or only pointing in one particular instance to the object he wishes to illustrate. There is a passage in the [N] twenty-fourth chapter of the Poetic where Ariftotle is speaking of the epopee, obviously alluding to the same subject, and equally obfcure. Had either been clear it might have illuftrated the other; perhaps some happier critic may be able to strike out a spark of light from their mutual opacity.

16.6. mvp-aristotle-comment-63 16.12

BUT OF ALL MODES OF DISCOVERY, THAT IS THE BEST WHICH IS DERIVED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES THEMSELVES.

I PERFECTLY agree with Mr. Twining, Notes 133, 134, in confidering this as diftinguished by the critic from all the other classes. Indeed this is not only expressly marked by the word ' alone' (μόναι) but from the real fact: for besides the jewels and natural marks which are necessary either for the production or confirmation of the discovery in the two first forms, those tokens also which are in consequence of recollection and inference, may equally be esteemed not only as inventions of the poet, but as invented for the immediate purpose of the discovery. [N] See Note VII. Chap. xxiv. To

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. To form a proper discovery of this kind is of all the arts of the poet by far the most difficult. (P) We have already mentioned how hard a task it is to keep a principal character concealed both from the audience and other persons of the drama during the course of the play, by whatever mode the discovery is made; but when the discovery at last is to arise, and be confirmed by the preceding incidents only, the difficulty is increased to such a degree as to be only furmountable by the efforts of superior genius. What can put both the invention and judgment of the poet to so great an exertion as to contrive his incidents in such a manner that the audience, or the reader should never once conceive the real situation of his principal character, and yet when his real situation is revealed, it should be confirmed by a retrofspect examinate of those incidents. My most diligent recollection will furnish me with no example ancient or modern of a composition in which this arduous task is strictly and perfectly executed, except that wonderful effort of judgment and imagination the comic epopee of Tom Jones. No reader I believe ever guessed that the hero of the piece would turn out to be the nephew of Allworthy and the son of Mrs. Bridget, till the moment before the discovery takes place, and yet how natural is the behaviour of those who know the circumstance, when the incidents are examined afterwards. With what nice touches is the conduct of the mother expressed, and especially her partiality to Jones; and Dowling, when he accidentally meets Jones on the road, actually calls Allworthy his uncle without giving the reader the least suspicion of the truth; so inimitable is the art of the poet. [P] See Note II. Chap. XI. and Note IV. Chap. xiv. The

The Edipus though a masterpiece of this kind is by no means of equal merit. [Q] It was impossible, during so long a stay at Thebes, but Edipus must have heard of the death of Laius, and the exposure of his infant son, so concurrent with the response of the oracle to him, which occafioned his determination not to return to Corinth. Aristotle observed this defect, and he has tried to palliate it by remarking that it occurred prior to the opening of the drama, or as Mr. Bays would have expressed himself, ' Long before the beginning of the play.' ، [Q] See Note v. Chap. XIII. CHAP.

17.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-64 17.1

THE POET AS WELL WHEN HE COMPOSES THE INCIDENTS AS WHEN HE ADDS THE LANGUAGE, OUGHT AS MUCH AS POS- SIBLE TO CONSIDER EVERY THING AS PASSING BEFORE HIS EYES.

THIS rule [A], by which the epopee is much less shackled, though by no means exempt from its observance, is of the utmost confequence to the dramatic poet. As to the instance of a drama failing in the representation from a neglect of this necessary care which Ariftotle adduces, though the particular tragedy is loft, we may easily supply the nature of the error from conjecture. We may suppose Amphiaraus to be in a temple out of which it was impossible for him to come unobserved by the spectators, and then to appear on the stage without being perceived to come out of it. From this obfervation Dacier infers the strict attention to the unity of place on the ancient theatre, of which we have spoken so largely before [B]. But surely it has nothing to do with it. It was undoubtedly not the general practise of the ancient theatre to change the supposed scene of action. And as the action from the continued prefence of the chorus was seldom if ever interrupted, it was barely possible that a cha-

[A] See Note v. Chap. xxiv. [B] See Note III. Chap. v. racter,

racter, after being supposed to go into a confined place in the fight of the spectators could be conceived to come out again unseen by them, without violating, not the arbitrary rules of the drama, but the natural probability of the representation. And on the other hand, from the frequent change of scene and intervals of action this may happen on the modern, or at least on the English stage, without the least absurdity. But nevertheless though this is generally true of both, it is not univerfally true. When a change of scene is plainly implied by the language and incidents of the Grecian drama, such an event may take place there WITHOUT improbability; and if the identity of place and continuation of action is marked in an English drama, such an event cannot take place WITH propriety. In the Eumenides of Æschylus, where, after Apollo has perfuaded Orestes to quit his temple at Delphos and repair to that of Minerva at Athens, his perfecutors follow him, and afterwards he goes out himself; they may without impropriety all enter again at the fame door, because that door, though according to the apparatus of the ancient theatre exactly the fame, is now supposed to be changed from the temple of Apollo to that of Minerva; fince between the verses 234 and 235 the scene is obviously changed from Delphos to Athens, and as Orestes and the chorus immediately appear, there must be a break in the action comprehending a considerable interval of time. And in an English play represented even without scenery in a private house, if a character were to go into a door, we will suppose as into a closet to be concealed, (a common incident in comedy,) and during the obvious continuation of the scene appear at another door, should not we laugh at the striking impropriety? Or to take a contrary instance from a particular play; if in the last scene of the Clandestine Marriage, Sir John Melville were to come out of the very door from which Lord Ogleby is summoning

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. summoning him, we should hardly agree with the learned Serjeant in pronouncing it to be the clearest ALIBI We ever saw proved. The last scene of Shakespear's Romeo and Juliet seems to be at the same time both within and without the monument of the Capulets. The duel between Romeo and Paris is in the church-yard. The death of Romeo, as also the awakening and death of Juliet must be within the monument, the inside of which could not be seen from the church-yard, as on the entry of Friar Laurence he only discovers a light in it, on a nearer approach he difcerns the blood of Paris on the stoney entrance, and obviously on looking down into the vault discovers the bodies of Romeo and Paris. To shew how this confirms the doctrine of Ariftotle as to the difference between the epopee and tragedy in this respect, I never was struck by it though a frequent and attentive reader of our immortal bard, till I faw Mr. Northcote's picture in the Shakespear Gallery, who has drawn the scene in the inside of the vault with the body of Romeo lying at the foot of the stairs that lead down to the bottom of it. In the play as now represented this is entirely obviated by the judicious alteration of Mr. Garrick. For Juliet awakens, and comes out of the tomb as Romeo is about to enter it. It is necessary also for the dramatic poet to adapt his language to the action that must accompany it, especially in those striking situations which are most calculated to produce strong theatrical effect [c]. An [c] We have no appropriated name for these in English. The French call them coUPS DE THEATRE. 3 A over-

over-fight of this kind seems to occur in the Grecian Daughter. When Euphrafia stabs Dionyfius she exclaims, * A daughter's arm fell monster strikes the blow, • Yes first she strikes; an injur'd daughter's arm. • Sends thee devoted to th' infernal gods.' All, or at least the greatest part of this seems to be intended to precede the blow: and yet probability requires that the blow of a woman that kills an armed warrior should be unforeseen and sudden [D]. The Regent affords another inftance of this kind of impropriety. Just at the con-- clufion the Duke and the Ufurper engage hand to hand before all the Duke's friends. They should either have fought before the Duke's attendants had arrived, or in prefence of both parties who might have been supposed to have mutually awed each other from interfering (E]. [D] Mrs. Siddons felt the force of this. She strikes Dionyfius without speaking a word, and repeats the passage over him as he lies on the ground. [E] See this circumstance compared with what Aristotle says of the battle between Achilles and Hector in the Iliad. Note v. Chap. xxiv. NOTE

17.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-65 17.2

THOSE WHO ARE MOVED BY PASSIONS THEMSELVES WILL EX- PRESS THOSE PASSIONS MOST FORCIBLY FROM THEIR OWN FEELINGS. HENCE HE WHO IS REALLY AGITATED, STORMS, AND HE WHO IS REALLY ANGRY UPBRAIDS MOST TRULY AND NATURALLY.

IT is surprising that this sense of the last sentence of the quotation which is the obvious and literal tranflation of the Greek, and exactly an ill ustration of the precept and observation it follows, and with which the fucceeding comparison so exactly agrees, should have had a different meaning given it by all the tranflators and commentators before Mr. Twining; who indeed has not himself admitted it in the body of his tranflation, though he has compleatly established it in a note (138), to which the reader who entertains any doubt on the matter, is referred for conviction. The general sense hitherto given has been the neceffity the poet has of feeling himself, who wishes to affect the feelings of others, and indeed this is the ultimate meaning of the precept, and therefore it is virtually though not literally of the fame weight with the observation of Horace. [F] • To make me grieve be first your anguish shewn.' COLMAN, V. 154. [F]

Si vis me flere dolendum est • Primum ipfi tibi.'- HOR. ART. POET. V. 102. 3 A 2 But

But Aristotle is not contented with saying what ought to be the final effect on the spectator or reader, he is telling us how to produce the cause of that effect, which is the natural expression of the passion by the poet, and which can only be done by his entering himself into the feelings of those he represents. By doing this, he says, he will certainly find the proper means of expreffing those feelings; for who can fo well utter the language of any paffion as he who is at the time under the actual influence of it; having said this he pursues it no further, it being obvious that the best and most natural expression of paffion will awake the strongest sympathy in the mind of the spectator. It is very apparent that the fame precept is applicable to the actor. In vain may the poet paint the passions naturally, if the player does not exhibit the picture to advantage in the representation; and to do this well, his imagination should be as fufceptible as that of the poet. I have: already mentioned a fingular anecdote from Hill's Actor in confirmation of this [G]. The ancient actors could not have the fame powers of enforcing the sentiments of the poet from their theatrical dress, or rather disguise. Yet even their natural feelings were of great effect in assisting the truth of their representation. There is a remarkable instance of this kind related by Aulus Gellius. There was a celebrated Grecian actor who • excelled all others in his action and the elegance and clearness of his voice. His name was Polus. He performed the tragedies of the * best poets with propriety and confidence. This Polus lost an only fon ← whom he greatly loved. However when his grief was abated he re- [G] See Note Iv. Chap. XIII. turned,

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ' turned to the exercise of his art. At this time being to play the part • of Electra in the tragedy of Sophocles, at Athens, he was to carry an urn which was supposed to contain the ashes of Orestes. For according to the subject of the play, Electra supposing herself to carry the remains of her brother, deplores and laments his death as believing ' him to have been murdered. Polus there, dressed in the mournful • habit of Electra, carried the urn and ashes of his fon taken from the ، sepulchre, and embracing them, as if they were those of Oreftes, ful- • filled every requisite of his part, not with fictitious and imitative representation, but with true grief and serious lamentation; and while • he seemed to be only assuming a fabulous character, was fincerely • affected by real forrow.' Much has been faid of the power of the pencil in expreffing at the fame time various and even opposite passions. This one of the best judges of the subject, Sir Joshua Reynolds, has pronounced impoffible; all that painting can do, which is confined to an instant, is to express the succession of paffion by the effect of a consequence of the former paffion, as a tear stealing down a countenance beginning to smile, as Andromache [н]

• Mingled with her smile a tender tear.' POPE. Can an actor do more ? or as much as we talk of being torn by contending paffions, are we ever at the fame instant actually occupied by two of a different tendency, though the tranfition may be so sudden as not to be easily perceptible? [Η] Δακρυόεν γελάσασα.. Hill

Hill in his Actor says, • Had I the power I would make a fingle tear steal down the unaltered face of Cato while he speaks the famous line, " Thanks to the gods, my boy has done his duty."

Though at the expence of striking out the fucceeding observation,

" Rome fills his eyes "With tears that flow'd not o'er his own dead fon."

17.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-66 17.3

HENCE THE FICTIONS OF A GOOD POET MAY BE SAID TO RE- SEMBLE THOSE OF A MADMAN.

I THINK not only the context and the spirit of this chapter, but the whole tenor of the treatise settles the meaning of this passage beyond the possibility of a doubt. Had Ariftotle been treating of lyric and dithyrambic poetry there might have been some reason for supposing that by μανικõ he might mean only violent poetical enthusiasm, the MENS DIVINIOR of Horace, which carried him • Above this visible diurnal sphere.' But the critic is not here, nor in any part of the Poetic speaking of daring flights of poetical fancy, or exaggerated pictures of life and manners, but is giving directions how best to excite the sentiments of pity and terror by faithful and natural copies of the real effect of those paffions on the human breaft, and the external figns by which they become manifeft; and I conceive μανικὸς here to have its fimple primitive signification of a maniac or madman. We are told that the poet should not only

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. only have an eye to the dramatic effect in his writings as to the representation, but should also while he is composing, put himself as much as poffible into the situation of the character he is drawing; for by feeling the internal sensation of the paffion he will be best able to express by language the external figns of it; for though no art can come up to the real effufions of nature, yet those who can most easily put themselves from the ductility of their imagination into fimilar fituations, will imitate them with most exactness; this is obvious from what we may observe in madmen, they really fancy themselves from the disorder of their reasoning powers in situations totally foreign to the truth, and the im-- pression is so strong that they act and speak entirely as if they were the identical persons, and in the precise situations which their distracted fancy suggests to them. Now a poet of a lively and plastic imagination, and who is capable of entering into the true spirit of the character and paffion he is going to draw, should in some measure partake of this feature of madness, feeling and acting, almost as strongly in the fituation. of this imaginary character from the ductility of his fancy, as the mad-- man does from the derangement of his intellects.. In the celebrated passage in the Midsummer Night's Dream, Shake-- spear has made exactly the same comparison; undoubtedly from his own reflection, for I believe none of his most sanguine admirers will suppose him trying purposely to illustrate a precept of the Stagirite; though no man who ever lived seems so capable of shooting his own foul into the bosom of the character he wished to draw. His example seems to be particularly directed to the imitation, if I may use the word, of fupernatural and imaginary beings, in which he so much excelled. The

• The lunatic, the lover, and the poet, • Are of imagination all compact. • One fees more devils than vast hell can hold. • That is the madman.'- With the lover we have nothing to do here. • The poet's eye in a fine frenzy rolling, • Doth glance from heav'n to earth, from earth to heav'n; • And as imagination bodies forth The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen • Turns them to shape, and gives to airy nothing • A local habitation and a name; • Such tricks hath strong imagination.'

17.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-67 17.4

THE POET WHEN HE INVENTS HIS FABLE SHOULD FIRST FORM IT GENERALLY,

THE critic here appears to illustrate what he has faid before of the poet's still retaining that character even when he writes on known stories [1]. The plan of the fable should first be generally drawn; the plot and its solution arranged; and then the episodic and subordinate parts added; and if the fable is purely fiction the names are invented; if founded entirely or in part on truth or tradition, they are inserted from the known story; of which last method he gives an instance both from the epopee and the drama. [1] See Note v. Chap. xx. These

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. These instances seem sufficiently to prove that Aristotle does not confine himself here to fuch fables as are entirely the invention of the poet, as Mr. Twining imagines, (Note 142), for the Odyssey must be at leaft a traditional if not an historical subject. Perhaps the construction of epic and dramatic fable may in this respect be distinguished by three general classes, though each capable of receiving innumerable inferior distinctions and modifications. First, those which are purely historical, such as the Iliad and Odyssey, the Edipus, the hiftorical plays of Shakespear, and the earl of Effex. Here the names are all historical, and the poet must on no pretence deviate from the known story in essential circumstances; all he can do is to find out such a fable, which though founded in fact has like the Odyssey, the proper requifites of general truth, or may be made to have them by some additional touches. [K] As for instance in the tragedy of the earl of Essex, Voltaire is very severe on Corneille, (and the same reasoning will apply to our tragedies on the same subject) for making Elizabeth young when she was really a very old woman, as she certainly was at the death of Effex. M. Lessing in his Dramaturgie [L], though he carries, I think, his notion of general fable rather too far, adopting in some measure the opinions of Bossu, anfwers Voltaire on these principles, that if the queen, though at the age of fixty-eight, was amorous and jealous, in consequence of which an event very proper for a fable took place, there could be no impropriety in supposing her age to be more congenial with her paffions [M]. Were Elizabeth on the stage to appear an old woman, [K] See Note Iv. Chap. xv. [1] Part 1. page 57. the [M] It is impoffible for a drama to come nearer history than the Antony and Cleopatra of Shakespear, and yet much of the effect would suffer were one to be represented as between 3 B fifty

the whole circumstance of the death of Effex would contain that mixture of the dreadful and the absurd, which though frequently found in the tragedies of real life would be very incongruous in dramatic fable. The next are those which are partly historical, and partly fictitious, of which perhaps the Iphigenia in Tauris may be an instance [N]. All the traditional story may be, that on the point of being facrificed she was saved by the interpofition of Diana, and the rest the invention of the poet. The Æneid, and the tragedy of King Lear, as also the Paradise Loft, come under this form. The chief art of the poet here is to draw the manners of the known characters, as Aristotle requires with the proper likeness. In this the [o] Æneid is as defective, as the Paradise Loft is excellent. When the fable and characters are entirely the invention of the poet, as in the Flower of Agatho, and in the Regent, the tragic and comic writer are in the same situation as to the structure of the fable [r], which they first form, and then add any cafual names. fifty and fixty and the other as forty. When Dryden, without any motive, chuses in his All for Love to make Ventidius reproach Antony with his declining age, and his natural incapacity for love, he gives a striking instance how the poet ought NOT to arrange historical incidents. [N] There never was a more fantastick monster ifsfued from the regions of fable than those absurd mixtures of truth and fiction the old French romance, such as the Grand Cyrus, and its spurious offspring the modern historical novel. [o] I conceive the Iliad as the archetype of the received characters of the Æneid. [P] See Note III. Chap. Ix. In

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. In all tragedies founded on novels the fame distinctions hold as in those founded on real history. This was generally the cafe with our old writers, and especially Shakespear. I recollect no other of his plays, either tragedy or comedy, except the Merry Wives of Windfor, for the outline of which he is not indebted to some old tale. The tragic poets of the present day generally supply both incident and character from their own invention. 3 B 2 CHAP.

18.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-68 18.3

PLOT AND ITS SOLUTION ARE INCIDENT TO EVERY TRAGEDY.

THE critic might have added, and to every kind of imitative fable. I found a confiderable difficulty in choosing proper terms to diftinguish these material, and indeed essential parts of tragedy. The word plot indeed was perfectly familiar to the writers on the drama half a Century ago, in consequence of which, though it is now out of use, I have adopted it. The word SOLUTION, though not usual, I preferred to borrowing the word DENOUMENT from our neighbours, or employing the harsh term UNRAVELLING, as it is certainly expressive of the meaning it is intended to convey. The plot then contains every part of the tale that is supposed to happen before the actual commencement of the drama, or the time supposed to be included in the epic poem itself, as also all that is comprehended in them, during which the spectator is in doubt as to the final issue of the story. The solution is the clearing up of that doubt, whether productive of happiness or misery. As all that is not solution is plot, (which comprehends every part of the play or poem, where the action does not stand still, except the catastrophe, and the circumstances from which it immediately arises,) it will be only necessary to specify the solution. That, in the Iliad is the cessation of the rage of Achilles; in the Odyssey the death of the suitors and the recognition of Ulysses by Penelope; in the Æneid the death of Turnus; in

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. in the Paradise Lost the fall; in King Lear, as written by Shakespear, the death of Cordelia and Lear; in Tate's and Colman's alteration their deliverance; in Much Ado about Nothing the vindication of Hero's innocence; and in Tom Jones the discovery of his relation to Allworthy.

18.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-69 18.5

THE PATHETIC.

THE examples given here of this species of tragedy, as the story of Ixion, and especially the tragedy of Ajax, confirm what has been faid of the idea of pathos and pathetic among the ancients, as also what Aristotle says of the Iliad afterwards, as distinguished from the Odyssey[A]. Of this kind of tragedy our old writers furnish innumerable examples. Shakespear, though by no means sparing of blood, is much more moderate than many of his cotemporaries in this respect, unless we rank Titus Andronicus and the Yorkshire tragedy among his compositions.

18.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-70 18.6

THE SIMPLE.

THIS species of tragedy has been already noticed in the tenth chapter [B]. In this the solution rises from the incidents alone, the [A] See Ch. XI. Note (A) on the translation, and Note 1, of the commentary on Ch. XXIV. [B] See Note 1. Chap. x... plot

plot naturally unravels itself without any violent change. Venice Preserved is an instance of this kind.

18.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-71 18.10

THE DIFFERENCE OR SAMENESS OF ONE TRAGEDY AND ANO- THER MUST NOT BE ESTIMATED BY THE FABLE, BUT BY THE PLOT AND SOLUTION.

THIS is illustrated by the observation in the last chapter as to the general formation of the fable, and subsequent application of names. The tragedies of the Regent and the Countess of Salisbury, as to the general plan, and the plot and solution are radically the fame, and both taken from the Odyssey. While the tragedy of Zenobia, written by Mr. Murphy, and Metastasio's opera of the same name, though both founded on the same historical event, related by Tacitus, from differing entirely as to the arrangement of the fable, and the plot and solution, are perfectly distinct dramas. A stronger instance yet may be drawn from Romeo and Juliet and Caius Marius, and the Sophonisba of Thomfon and Lee. Thus the poet has it in his power to transfer the same circumstances from a popular to an unpopular fubject. From whatever reason it arifes, the observation of Dr. Johnson that mythological fables do not fucceed on the English stage is founded on experience. The English like the Roman poets are fond of domestic story. • Vestigia

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. Vestigia Græca ' Ausi deferere & celebrare domeftica facta [c].' On which lines there are some very judicious observations in Bishop Hurd's notes on the Epistle to the Pifos. I think the Odyssey as proper a fable for the drama as any I am acquainted with. But nothing would be so great an advantage as to follow the example of the [D] author of the Countess of Salisbury, and give the incidents an old English garb, which is so well fitted to them. How easily is the Trojan war changed to a crufade, Ulyffes made a feudal chief, ([E) which by the way he much more resembles than the pompous sovereign Pope has made him,) and concealed as a pilgrim instead of a beggar. [F] The happiest instance I know of a tranfition like this, is the Edward and Eleonora of Thomson, taken from the Alcestes of Euripides. [c] And boldly quitting Grecia's beaten ways, ' They twine for native chiefs, dramatic bays.' According to Le Pere Brumoy the French entirely differ from us in this respect. See DISCOURS SUR LE PARALLELE DES THEATRES. [D] I only speak as to the design; the execution of it is below mediocrity. Besides I believe the author never thought immediately of the Odyssey, but only copied it through the medium of the novel called Longsword, Earl of Salisbury. [E] See Note 1. Chap. xxiv. [F] This was attended with peculiar difficulty as the English poet was obliged to produce the solution by nature, which the Greek poet had effected by a machine. On this account an improbability is incurred in the English drama. We may allow Hercules, after the good office he has done, to play a little with the feelings of Admetus. But to suppose such characters as Selim, as Glocester, as Theald, and even as Eleonora herself, would keep Edward a moment

18.5. mvp-aristotle-comment-72 18.11

THERE ARE MANY WHO FORM THE PLOT WELL, AND THE SOLUTION ILL.

THERE are two causes which chiefly lead to this fault. One is a weariness of the subject towards the end of the piece, and the consequent defire of precipitating the catastrophe: a fault sometimes found in Shakespear, in common with other dramatic writers of his time [G]. The other is when a writer has so involved his character in difficulties, that it is out of his power to extricate him by probable means; and not being able to untie the Gordian knot, he is forced to cut it [H]. This observation of Aristotle may be inverted: for there are poets who form the solution well and the plot ill. Such are those who, fixing on some striking event before-hand for the catastrophe of the piece, are afterwards at a loss for preparatory incidents to fill up, with fufficient interest, the long space of five acts [1]. a moment in suspense is highly improbable, especially as the result of Eleonora's concealment is a trial of the prince's constancy; a most indelicate circumstance, from which Alcestes is perfectly clear, as she is entirely passive in the business. There is some refemblance to this in the solution of Much Ado About Nothing; but Hero is a most insipid character; otherwise she would not have thought Claudio's ready acceptance of her supposed cousin a great compliment to her own memory. [G] See Note 1. Chap. VII. [H] See Note VII. Chap. XIII. [1] See Note II. Chap. XII. There

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. There is an excellent observation of Marmontel on this subject. He says, A capital defect, of which the ancients set the example, and ' which the moderns have but too much imitated, is the languor of the 'solution. This defect arises from a faulty distribution of the fable in ' five acts; of which the first is devoted to the opening the subject to ' the spectators, the three that follow to the [K] complication of the intrigue, and the last to the solution. According to this division the greatest danger lies in the fourth act, and to fill the fifth act it becomes neceffary to [L] unravel the intrigue flowly and by degrees, which cannot fail to render the catastrophe tedious and cold. But the fuddenness • of the solution ought never to lessen its probability, nor its probability to lessen its uncertainty. Conditions eafily fulfilled separately, but very difficult to reconcile with each other. It happens very rarely at present, that one or other of these two • censures is not incurred: the solution either is deficient in point of preparation, or of suspense. We carry with us to our pathetic plays two principles directly opposite; feelings which wish to be interested, • and an understanding which dislikes to be deceived. Our pretenfions to judge of every thing cause us to enjoy nothing. (M) We wish at ⚫ the same time to foresee the situations and be affected by them; to • contrive with the author and feel with the people; to have our fenfes • deluded and not deluded. New pieces have particularly this disadvantage that we go to them less as spectators than as critics. There every • connoiffeur is as it were double, and his heart finds a very troublesome [K] ' Au nœud de l'intrigue.' [L] DENOUER. [M] The critic, as described here, is just in the situation of a man who wishes at the fame time to be deceived by the tricks of a juggler, and find out how they are done. 3 C neigh-

neighbour in his judgement. Therefore the poet who had formerly only to feduce the imagination, has now also to surprize the dictates of • cool reflexion. If the clue that leads to the solution escapes the view, ، we cry it is too weak; if it appears, we say it is too grofs. What then • is the poet to do? To work on the foul, and pay no regard to the • cold analysis of the understanding.' ENCYCLOPEDIE, ARTICLE DENOUEMENT.

18.6. mvp-aristotle-comment-73 18.16

IN THE TRAGEDIES THAT DEPEND ON THE PERIPETÍA AND THOSE THAT HAVE A SINGLE ACTION, SUCH POETS OFTEN ATTAIN THEIR PURPOSE; WHICH IS TO PRODUCE TRAGIC EFFECT, AND AT THE SAME TIME GRATIFY OUR FEELINGS BY MEANS WHICH APPEAR WONDERFUL.

I HAVE in this edition adopted the general sense given to this paffage by Mr. Twining, as well as the division of the whole passage, which I think perfectly just (N). Aristotle has condemned Agatho for crouding too many incidents into his drama. He now specifies in what he, and writers of the fame kind excel [o]. As to the expreffion of the [N] See his note 155. [o] As it does not appear that this excellence has any relation to the above-mentioned defect, he appears only to point out this merit of Agatho as a kind of fet-off against the other fault. And when he classes other poets with him, as he does by the use of the plural verb σοχάζονται, he must mean, I think, poets of the fame class with him in this particular excellence. means

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. means being wonderful, (P) I would grasp at the flightest shadow that could justify the meaning I have ventured to give it, after Goulstone, Riccoboni, and Mr. Winstanley. Surprize, wonder, even improbability, are clearly the attendants of the kind of arrangement Aristotle is speaking of; and that they so appeared to him is equally clear from the apology he immediately makes for Agatho, by a quotation from his works. As to his confining these kind of folutions to the tragedies depending on peripetía, and those of a fingle construction, I do not fee the leaft propriety as to the last. Απλόος is in Chap. XIII. used twice by Ariftotle, and each time in a different sense, once as opposed to complicated and once as opposed to double. (See Notes (A) and (c), on the tranflation of Chap. x111.) If it is taken in the first sense as oppofed to complicated, the two examples must take in every species of tragedy, for in the tenth chapter he mentions the distinction between the fimple and complicated tragedy to depend on the one's having peripetía and difcovery, and the other not having them. But every tragedy must either have or not have the peripetía and discovery. Neither does the other meaning of ἀπλόος (which of the two evils I have chofen) agree much better; fince the overthrow of vice, though supported by wisdom and strength, manifestly must produce a different catastrophe for the good [P] That θαυμαςῶς cannot have the sense of per admirabile, is obvious. Mr. Twining fays, ' it feems all the Mss. give θαυμασῷς.' The sense of the context appears to call so loudly for the other meaning, that if all the printed copies and translators agreed, I should be tempted, MEO PERICULO, not to fuffer one figma to stand in my way, but read θαυμασῷ. But besides the authority of the tranflators I have quoted, it appears from the Spanish edition of Flores, that θαυμασῷ was the most popular reading. Since, he says, ' SOME editors (Algunas editores,) read θαυμαςῶς instead of θαυμασῷ. 3 C2 and

A COMMENTARY ON THE CHAP. XVIII. and the bad, which he makes in Chap. XIII, the essential distinction between the double and the single story. ، But here a much more essential difficulty occurs. Aristotle in the thirteenth chapter expreffly declares, that ' a very bad man should not • be reprefented as falling from happiness to misery, for though such an arrangement might be agreeable to our feelings, it would excite neither pity nor terror;' and confequently, according to Aristotle's precife definition of the word, would not be tragical. Yet here he gives absolutely and in unequivocal terms to this very arrangement of fable, the particular merit which he has before expreffly denied it. ، I can folve this difficulty into no other cause than change of opinion. And as I must think such a change of opinion justifies the proverb, * Second thoughts are best;' I can impute it only to the triumph of feeling over hypothesis [2]. Of vicious wisdom deceived, Sir Giles Overreach and Shylock are instances, as is the death of Dionyfius by Euphrafia, of the unexpected overthrow of impious courage and power. [Q] See Chap. XIII. Note III and VII. NOTE

18.7. mvp-aristotle-comment-74 18.17

AGATHO OBSERVES, IT IS PROBABLE FOR MANY THINGS TO HAPPEN WHICH SEEM IMPROBABLE.

THIS passage of Agatho is quoted by Aristotle in the fecond book of his Rhetoric, Chapter xxiv, where he treats largely of general and contingent probability, and the fallacious arguments that may be produced by confounding one with the other. The reason why Ariftotle uses this argument now, is to justify his approbation of an arrangement of fable which is obviously against the general rules of probability. But experience tells us, that events happen every day contrary to general expectation, and as we are told by the highest authority, 'The battle is not always to the strong nor the race to the swift.' The probabilities as opposed to each other are diftinguished into the [R] absolute and the contingent. Now the contingent probability is certainly credible; and the critic tells us afterwards that [s] impoffibility, if the poet can render it even by sophistry credible, is preferable to incredible possibility. By these means we may reconcile this with the strong inculcation of probability both as to incident and character, which we find in Chapters ix and xv. This contingent probability, as indeed every interesting tale can prove [r], is a proper foundation for a dramatic action or character. [R] Απλῶς ἐικὸς, καὶ τὶ εικὸς. RHET. L. II. C. XXIV.. [s] See Note VII. Chap. xxiv. [T] See Mr. Twining, Note 156.. But

But the events of the action, and the behaviour of the character as exhibited in the course of the drama, must follow according to the rules of general probability. To illustrate this by an example, there is a contingent though not a general probability, that an armed leader attended by foldiers, may fall by the hand of a woman; therefore the catastrophe of the Grecian Daughter is no improper dramatic incident. Such an event supposed, the general probability is that it must be performed on a fudden, and unperceived, yet there is a contingent probability that a woman may vanquish a man in fair combat; but such an event would not follow naturally, either from the incidents of the fable or the character of Euphrafia, who is represented as a delicate woman and not as an Amazon. The tragedy of the Fatal Marriage affords a stronger proof of the defect of this contingent probability. Nothing could be more probable than for fuch a villain as Carlos to seal his crimes by the murder of his brother, but that such an act should take effect exactly at the time it did when the characters are in the highest possible distress, is purely accidental, and is not the probable or even incidental consequence of the most truly tragic situation the characters are in. The escape of Iphigenia from the altar (incidentally probable according to the popular belief of Greece) was a very good incident on which to found a tragedy, but a very inartificial solution of plot [u]. [u] As in the Iphigenia in Aulis, and the Iphigenia in Tauris. NOTE

i POETIC OF ARISTOTLE.

18.8. mvp-aristotle-comment-75 18.19

THE CHORUS OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED AS ONE OF THE CHA- RACTERS OF THE DRAMA, AND BE DEEMED A PART OF THE WHOLE, AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE ACTION.

IT appears from this, that the dramatic writers, so early as the time of Aristotle, had found the chorus a dead weight, from which they wished to free themselves, and to render it a merely ornamental and adventitious part of the theatrical apparatus. (✗) However I do not wonder at this precept of Aristotle. As the prejudice of the times would not fuffer the total abolition of the chorus, or permit it to be entirely unconnected with the drama, every deviation from the custom of the best writers who made it an effential though fubordinate part of it had a tendency to restore the exploded form of tragedy in its original state, from which it appears to have been at first raised in opposition [Y] to general prejudice and superstition. [x] Mr. Colman, in one of his notes on the Epistle to the Pisos, makes the following judicious observation. ' Neither of these two critics (Aristotle and Horace) have taken up the • question (that is as to the intrinfic merit of the chorus) each of them giving directions for • the proper conduct of the chorus, confidered as an established and received part of tragedy.. [Y] See Note II. Chap. x11.. NOTE

A COMMENTARY ON THE CHAP. XVIII.

18.9. mvp-aristotle-comment-76 18.20

INTRODUCING SONGS WHICH HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE PIECE.

THESE extraneous fongs which Aristotle calls Embolima, by no means want their counter-part on the present theatre. It is not uncommon to fee it announced in the play-bills, that in fuch a part fuch a fong will be introduced. In the Italian opera (I mean as exhibited in this country) so little is the drama regarded that two acts only are often performed to give more time for the dances. A most ridiculous instance of these Embolima occurs in the English opera of Artaxerxes. The author, or rather the tranflator, took the opening chorus of Adriano in Siria, which happens to follow Artaserse in the works of Metastafio, for his finale, and consequently dressed a Perfian king in all the attributes of a Roman emperor. [z] [z] Adriano in Siria opens with this chorus, Vivi a noi vivi all impero Grande Augusto, e la tua fronte Su l'Oriente prigionero S' accostumi al facro allora. Of which, this tranflation is the finale of Artaxerxes. Live to us, to empire live Great Augustus, long may'st thou From the subject East receive Laurel wreaths to grace thy brow. See Andrews's Anecotes, Article Errors, page 108. CHAP.

... POETIC OF ARISTOTLE.

19.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-77 19.1

THE LANGUAGE AND THE SENTIMENTS.

By the first of these Aristotle means the fimple and grammatical construction of speech, as is manifeft from the succeeding chapter, and by the second the sense and intention that is declared by it. For in the fixth chapter he declares the sentiments, (διάνοια,) to be ‘' the means by • which the intention or opinion of those who speak is discovered.' • In • short (to use the words of Mr. Harris) sentiment in this sense means • little less than the universal subjects of our difcourse.' The modern drama confiders sentiments in a more confined sense; and, as now used, it is properly enough defined by Lord Kaims, 'the expref- • sion of a thought prompted by passion.' Sentiments of this fort well applied so as to flatter the taste, the feelings, or the prejudices of the audience, are the surest traps for applause. In one of the critical papers either in the Tatler, Guardian, or Spectator, the virtue of a Roman theatre is exalted above our own, for the applaufe given to a virtuous sentiment, in one of [A] Terence's comedies. Since [A] Homo fum, nihil humani a me alienum puto.' • I am a man myself, and can think nothing indifferent to me that concerns human kind.' 3 D I have

I have known the theatre, I can answer for a British audience being to the full as virtuous as the citizens of Rome in this respect. This is fo well known, both by poets and players, that our comedies abounded. with these moral fentences to an excess, which became perfectly ridiculous: a very little exaggeration of which, by the masterly pen of Mr. Sheridan, has now in a great measure delivered the stage from their redundancy at leaft.

19.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-78 19.2

WHAT RELATES TO THE SENTIMENTS INDEED MAY RATHER BE REFERRED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF RHETORIC.

M. BATTEUX has given a sense to the whole passage, of which the above quotation is a part, directly oppofite to that of the other interpreters, all of whom he accuses of having applied to oratory what related to tragedy, and vice versa. I must confess I fee no shadow of fuch a fuppofition; and think the general meaning of the whole conveyed very clearly in the exact words of Ariftotle, as given in most of the printed editions; and which seems perfectly conformable with what is really the distinction between oratory and dramatic poetry. The critic first says, that sentiments belong most peculiarly to rhetoric; he then defines the nature and use of them, in raising and directing the feelings. Now he allows that the poet to work the fame effect must employ the fame means, such as amplification, extenuation, &c. but with this difference, that he must effect that by the incidents of the fable which the orator performs by the use of that application of speech which he terms sentiment; therefore sentiment belongs more effentially to rhetoric. NOTE

19.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-79 19.5

FOR WHAT WOULD BE THE MERIT OF THE ORATOR IF THEY WERE TO APPEAR AFFECTING WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF HIS ELOQUENCE?

THE word which I have translated affecting, (ἡδέα, SWEET, literally,) has difpleased most of the commentators, and certainly not without reafon, if it can have no other meaning given it than pleafant or agreeable, expreffive of sensations which it is far from the particular business of oratory, and still farther from that of tragedy to excite. But Horace, in a passage of his Epistle to the Pifos, which is plainly taken from this, and where he is speaking of the language of tragedy uses the very word of Ariftotle, to signify that which (B) influences the paffions strongly, a sense which the context has obliged the commentators to be unanimous in giving to dulcia. • Non fatis eft pulchra esse poemata, dulcia funto, ، Et quocunque volunt animum auditoris agunto.' Which I will venture thus to paraphrafe, Tis not enough that each faftidious eye The drama's faultless structure can defy; The moving tale must charm the raptured foul, And as it lift the yielding sense controul. [Β] Ψυχαγογει. See Poetic, Chap. vI. The only commentator who has given this sense to ἡδέα, is Segni. He translates it indeed PIACEVOLI; but he explains it in a note by 'elle * poffino muovere gli affetti.' See also Dacier's note on the lines of Horace that are quoted. 3 D 2 Shakespear

Shakespear apparently annexes some such idea to sweet, when he makes Jeffica say, I am never merry when I hear sweet music.'

19.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-80 19.6

THERE IS ONE PART OF THE THEORY OF ELOCUTION RELAT- ING TO THE MODE OF EXPRESSION, WHICH PRINCIPALLY BE- LONGS TO THE PLAYER AND THE PROFESSED TEACHERS OF THAT ART; SUCH AS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SUPPLICA- TION, COMMAND, NARRATION, QUESTION, ANSWER, AND ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE SAME KIND.

i Li BOTH this precept, and the example by which it is illustrated, appear to me fufficiently clear. That there is no grammatical diftinction between command and fupplication, and that the distinction depends entirely on the speaker the most sacred part of our liturgy sufficiently evinces. A mark of interrogation added or omitted, will often entirely change the sense of a fentence, for an instance of which the reader is referred to the first chapter of this work [c]. As for the author's instructing the performers how to recite their works, it could only happen in the cafe of new pieces. The player of the tragedies of the three great tragic poets of Greece were as much obliged to tradition or their own ingenuity for giving the proper utterance to their fentiments, at the time Aristotle wrote, as the performers of the [C] See Note [D]. Chap. I. on the tranflation.. plays

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. plays of Shakespear are at the present hour. I question much even if the modern players would be quite so civil to a living poet in this respect as they are to Bayes in the rehearsal, or as the French players were to Voltaire [D]. I was present at the rehearsal of the Jealous Wife, and every circumstance relating to the elocution and the action of every character was directed by Mr. Garrick without one remonftrance from Mr. Colman who was present; though Mrs. Pritchard made several, but which were all over-ruled by the manager. I do not think Mr. Twining has treated this part of the subject with his usual clearness. That by σχήμαζα λέξεως Ariftotle must mean figures or forms of speech, I most perfectly agree with him. But when he says this belongs to the art of the player, and that no blame worthy of notice can be imputed to the poet on this account; it is clearly implied, that it is not only the duty of the player to understand how the poet uses these figures of speech, but to give them their due effect in the performance, by employing the proper gestures and tones of voice. Yet though Aristotle says the blame incurred by the poet on this occafion is not of a serious essential kind, that very expression implies that some blame is incurred. And this is perfectly just. For certainly the poet ought to take care that these forms should be so marked by the sense as to leave no doubt in the mind of the actor or reader. Of this fault Shakespear has been sometimes guilty. For instance, in the celebrated line of Othello, the proper delivery of which has been fo much controverted.. [D] See Mr. Twining's Note 163. Put

Put out the light and then put out the light.' Which I believe has been finally fettled by Garrick to be thus pronounced, 'Put out the light and then.-Put out the light? • If I quench thee,' &c. There is no doubt of this being the best mode, but much I think of its being the mode intended by Shakespear [E]. The fubject of this note is well illustrated by Leffing. ' It is often,' he says, very necessary in order to comprehend the nice touches of • Terence to have the power of figuring to ourselves the action of the ، ، players, for the ancients never wrote [F] stage directions. Recitation had its peculiar artists; and as to the rest, the poets could depend on the skill and judgement of the actors who studied their employment with the most serious attention. The poets themselves were often among their number; [G] they gave directions how they would have [E] Another passage of Shakespear has been thus spoken, This my hand will rather • The multitudinous sea incarnadine, • Making the green,-ONE red.' I am surprised to see the compliment paid by Mr. Stevens to such a substitution of bombafst, for the fimple diction of Shakespear. The late Mr. Sheridan has pointed out many glaring though almost general errors in the reading of the Liturgy. For more observations on this subject, the reader is referred to Note v. Chap. xxv. [F] See Note II. Chap. XII. [G] That is, they explained their own meaning; depending on the art of the player to express that meaning to the spectators. the

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ' the incidents performed; and as their works were not published previoufly to the representation, before the people had an opportunity [H] • both of feeing and hearing them, they had less occafion to interrupt ⚫ the written dialogue by directions in parenthesis, through which the • author in a manner makes himself one of the perfons of the drama. But • if we imagine that the ancient poets to avoid these parentheses marked ' in the dialogue itself, every movement, every gesture, every look, every • modulation of voice that the actor should use, we are mistaken. In Terence alone there are many places in which nothing of all this ' is marked, and where, nevertheless, the true sense can only be dif- • covered by guessing at the proper action which should accompany ⚫ them. In many, even the words may appear to convey a meaning directly contrary to what the actor ought to express by his gestures.' DRAMATURGIE, Part II. page 97. [H] The same is the case now as to the priority of representation; but the printed copies are read by thousands who could not see the drama performed. CHAP.

THOUGH I cannot fee with what propriety Ariftotle begins a direction for the choice of the language of tragedy, by sending us to the spelling-book: yet as I deemed it incumbent on me as a tranflator not to omit any thing that the critic says, I shall avail myself of the opportunity he has given me to introduce some general remarks on grammar, and some that relate more peculiarly to the grammar of our own language.

20.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-81 20.2

A VOWEL.

IT seems very extraordinary, that while every art is in a progressive state of improvement, and that our mode of expreffing clearly the meaning of language to the eye, both in writing and printing, is so much fuperior to that of the ancients from the use of stops, capital-letters, &c. that the means of painting found to the eye should continue to be so very deficient and inaccurate. If the fame character always expressed the fame vowel found, the true pronunciation of language would be as easily conveyed by writing as by speaking. But this is so far from being the cafe, that the vowel sounds marked by letters, are not only confounded with each other, but the fame vowel found when long and short, is hardly ever expreffed by the fame letter, though we have only five [A] charac- [A] I confider Y (when a vowel) and I as the fame, fince they always have the fame found in the same fituation; their diftinct use relates solely to orthography, and has no relation with orthoepy. ters

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ters to express all our vowel founds. For example, the short found of A, which when long is pronounced, as in BACON, MAJOR, is marked by e as in BEND, MEN. The short A as in MAN, has feldom I believe [B] a congenial long found in our language but when it is followed by two confonants, as in MASTER, TASK, BARGE. However A, as in the first instance, may be confidered beyond comparison as the most ufual long found of the vowel, either when lengthened by an E mute, as in BANE and DARE, or when independent of a succeeding confonant, (which case always makes the vowel long in English) as in BASON and MASON. Our long vowel found of 1 has no correspondent short found; but we use I to reprefent the short found of E, as DEAN, DIN. Even if we should wish to express the short colloquial found of BEEN to the eye, we must not write BEN, but BIN [C]. That our characters paint words and not founds is obvious from the directions for pronouncing the vowels prefixed to the vocabulary printed at the end of Cook's Second Voyage to the South Seas. Or if that is not at hand, the hearing a child taught to spell, (the word DIVINATION for inftance,) will be equally conclusive. The Greek diftinguished two of their long and short vowel founds E and o by different characters, while the orientals contented themselves with only three characters, A, O, and 1, to exprefs all their vowel sounds; the two last of which were also used to express one an afpiration, and [B] There are however exceptions, as FATHER, where the TH can be confidered only as one confonant. [c] This subject is treated more at large in Mitford's Essay on the Harmony of Language, Sect. III. page 32. 3 E the

the other a confonant. The different found of these vowels, and sometimes their total omiffion, when [D] very short are left to be supplied by the memory and judgment. When the Arabians under the Caliphs became a polite and learned people, they invented other marks to shew the nicer distinction of the vowel sounds where they were noticed, and to fupply them where they were not. This invention, adopted by the Jews, and afterwards sanctified by a little rabbinical mystery, and then strengthened by monkish superftition and papal authority, is the true history of those wonderful Hebrew vowel points, which have made so much noise, and created so many violent schisms in the learned world. Perhaps some contrivance of this fort would be the best mode of giving our written language the most perfect precision as to its pronunciation, without any confufion as to the etymology of words, from which our irregular orthography in a great measure arises, and which is of the utmost consequence in a language like ours, whose words are drawn from so many different fources. [D] We are not very accurate in this cafe. I think there is not a very diftinguishable difference between the first syllables of MYRTLE, HURTLE, CERTAIN.. NOTE

20.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-82 20.3

BY ACUTENESS, GRAVITY, OR THE MEDIUM BETWEEN BOTH.

I HAVE no doubt of Mr. Twining being in the right in fuppofing that Aristotle, by ' the medium between both,' (τῷ μέσω) did not mean the circumflex. His reasoning on this is conducive. It is very obvious that in every word of more than three syllables, or even in words of three fyllables, whose first or last syllable is acuted, other fyllables are diftinguished by a stronger accent than the contiguous ones, though in a less degree than that which is peculiarly emphatic, and which regulates the accent of the others, in our language at least, and in the pronunciation which we give to Greek and Latin. There is no necessity to feek an illustration of this from the ancient languages, our own will afford sufficient examples which will have fo much more weight, as our prosody is allowed to be essentially regulated by accent, which is indeed the sole efficient cause of our verfification. It will appear from our verse, that this inferior accent has a force not only to distinguish itself in those syllables on which it is placed, but to anfwer the purpose of the strongest accent in the word as to the versification. There is no place in our heroic, or dramatic pentameter, in which ' ùn- • dertáke' would come in, that 'múltiply" would not equally do, as to the measure; though it is obvious that the principal accent is on the first fyllable in the one, and the last in the other [E]. In the burlesque [E] For the fake of perfpicuity I have diftinguished the strongest accent by the acute, and the weaker by the grave mark. 3 E 2 drama

drama of Crononhotonthologus, there is a character of the name of Äldiberòntephöfcophórnia, which is a complete verse in itself, containing one principal accent, to which I have given the acute mark; one inferior to this, but more emphatic than the rest, which has the grave mark; and three others fufficiently diftinguished from the others for the purposes of verfification, which are noticed by a double dot. This fubject has led me unawares into an investigation in which I am much interested. I mean the distinction between accent and quantity. My Greek quotations will shew my opinion on this matter to the learned reader. To him therefore I owe some reason for adopting this fide of the question, but to the mere English reader I am likewise bound not to employ too much of these notes on a subject which must be totally uninteresting to him. I shall confine myself therefore to two points only, and dispatch them both with as much brevity as possible. The arguments I use shall be drawn also from circumstances obvious to the fenfes, and appealing to them for support. The authority of antiquity, produced by Dr. Foster in his Essay on Greek Accent, and enforced and illustrated by Mr. Mitford in his Effay on the Harmony of Language, are and always must remain unanswered, because they are unanswerable. First then, the authenticity of the Greek accentual marks have been proved beyond controversy by the abovementioned treatises; but the pronunciation of them, as it is managed by modern voices, destroys that cadence to which modern ears are accustomed (F). In confequence of this [F] Some persons I know talk of marking both accent and quantity in Greek verse.. I pretend to no such power, but I am far from faying fuch a power did not exift among the Greeks. they

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. they have been disused, and few Greek scholars from such disuse being able to write them accurately, it became necessary to get rid of them at any rate, and this was done by explaining away their utility when their authority was shewn to be unquestionable. They were to fignify mufical notation, tones unknown to the irreligious ears of the moderns; in short any thing but what we call accent. But if these kind of musical notes accompanied the common pronunciation of the Greek language ; if, as is suggested by Lord Monboddo in his letter on this subject to Mr. Steel, In Greek a man raised his voice upon certain fyllables and no other, whether he was speaking with paffion or without paffion, • whether he was haranguing or in ordinary conversation;' if this were the cafe, the most perfect language we know must have been totally deprived of the power on which the force of poetry and oratory moft essentially depends, that of exciting of the feelings of the hearer by congenial modulations of the speaker's voice. And if the ancients by προσωδία and ACCENTUS did not mean what we call accent, which is fo general a property of language, and so distinct from quantity, what word had they to express this property ? for we cannot suppose their languages were without it. This dificulty Dr. Beattie and Mr. Nares have tried to obviate by calling our accent EMPHASIS. But this is substituting the effect of a thing for the thing itself. A man in a red coat is eminently confpicuous among others in black or white, therefore one of the qualities of redness is confpicuity, but redness is not confpicuity itself, because there are other colors that are also comparatively confpicuous. So we know it is one of the properties of accent to make the syllable on which it falls emphatic, or confpicuous; but this property is not peculiar to accent, for, as will be shewn presently, there are cafes in which accent cannot

cannot be so employed, and then quantity produces the same effect. Among monosyllables if it be necessary to make one word emphatic, or confpicuous, it is done by accent, and sometimes with the addition of quantity, or rather the emphatic accent changes the short vowel found to a long one, when the voice is not stopped by a confonant. As in Milton. Know ye not ME? ye knew me once, no mate For you, there fitting where YE durft not foar.' Here in the first line, ME in the former part of the verse is emphatical, and supplies the place of an accented syllable where the verse requires one: the second ME is not emphatical, and is placed where the verse does not require an accent [G]; the vowel found of the first is long also and the second short. In the second line the pronoun ve is emphatical, but the natural vowel found of it is so short as not to be capable of the accent without altering its quantity, which is accordingly done, and the E lengthened, but without altering the accent as far as regards the structure of the verse. When it is required to make a particular fyllable [G] From this circumstance of the ductility of the accent, which is the essence of our verfification, our poets have the power sometimes of regulating the proper expreffion of the thought by the cadence; an advantage denied the ancients from the inflexibility of quantity in Greek and Latin. Of this the first line of the quotation from Milton is an example. A paffage in Thomson's Tancred and Sigifmunda will shew this more strongly from oppofition.

، I will give This scatter'd will in fragment to the winds, • Crush all who dare oppose me to the duft, And heap perdition on THEE.' Here the reciter is under the necessity of either spoiling the sense, or the verse. of

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ! of a word of more syllables than one confpicuous, or emphatic, which is not accented, it is never allowed to alter the accent, therefore this is a cafe when quantity must be employed. This I shall illustrate by two examples from Pope. • Curl'd or Uncurl'd fince locks will turn to grey.' The syllable UN is still confidered as unaccented in the verse, and is only made confpicuous by the quantity, not by lengthening the vowel found of u, for that the connected confonant forbids, but by marking more strongly the two following subsequent confonants by dividing them, and so rendering the length of the fyllable by [H] position more confpi- In this line from Pope's Iliad the length of the vowel is altered. • Turns and Returns him with a mother's care.' cuous. The affair of the accentual marks however, after all that has been faid and proved in their favour, has been finally decided as things of much greater consequence are often decided, by the majority of votes; their pronunciation and even their notation, where detached pieces of

[H] In scanning ancient verse it is usual to say a vowel is long by position, but this is not correct, it is the syllable not the vowel that is lengthened. For as Mr. Mitford justly obferves, • Ten confonants would not oblige even a Greek or Roman voice to give to a pre- ⚫ ceding epfilon or omicron the found of eta and omega, but two consonants distinctly pro- • nounced will necessarily retard any voice in pronouncing the syllable.' ESSAY ON THE Harmony of Language, Sect. IV. p. 55. Double confonants we pronounce as fingle, and the only effect they have is shortening the preceding vowel found, as Holy Holly, WRITING WRITTEN, and as we carry the fame pronunciation into the learned language, as in καλος καλλος, FERO FERRE, we always in this cafe make a false quantity. The ancients I suppose pronounced these double consonants diftinctly like the modern Italians, which perhaps requires a greater delay of the voice than to diftinguish between two different confonants. Greek

Greek are quoted, are entirely disused; and this leads me to the second observation I proposed to make, which I shall introduce by this question. What have we substituted in their place? How do we now read Greek ? I know the answer, and it will not be given without a contemptuous sneer at the ignorance of the querift and the abfurdity of the query. According to quantity to be sure! the only essential constituent of the structure of ancient verfification, and on which its cadence entirely depends. But let us enquire first what reading by quantity is, and if we really do it either in Greek or Latin verse. Do we mean by quantity what it only can properly mean, giving length to the syllables that are really long? (In fyllables long by position we cannot err if we pronounce all the confonants distinctly,) or do we mean giving the acute accent to all long syllables? Now let us try this on the two first verses of the Iliad. Do not we give the found of the eta to the epfilon in Θεα, and do not we lay the accent also on the same short vowel in this word, and in the omicron in Ουλομενην ? The fame in the first line of Virgil's Eclogues. Do we not pronounce the first fyllable of Tityrus as short as it is possible for a fyllable to be pronounced? and do we not accent the first syllable of PATULE ? Therefore if either of the abovementioned modes of reading be reading by quantity we follow neither of them, and if neither of these be what we mean by reading by quantity, I should like to know what is. But though I do not know what reading by quantity is if it is not marking the true time of every fyllable by the voice, I perfectly know what we substitute for the pronunciation of Greek according to the accentual marks, and CALL reading by quantity. It is in fact reading Greek according to rules of Latin accentuation, which naturally produces the fame cadence that we find in Latin verse, depending entirely

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. tirely on accent; for though our judgment revolts at a false quantity our ear is much more offended by a misplaced accent, and the cadence of the verse is much more hurt by it [1]. That the rules of Greek and Latin accentuation were different we know from the authority of Quintillian. One of the canons of Latin accentuation is, that the accent of the penult in all polysyllables depends on its quantity; and I challenge any, the most partial advocate for the modern mode of reading Greek, to fhew me any other reason for laying the accent on the omicron instead of the epsilon, as directed by the accentual mark in the first word of the second verse of the Iliad. It does not even mend the accentual cadence of the verse, for in two lines that follow each other in Virgil's first eclogue,

' Ilius aram Sæpě těnēr noftris ab ovilibus imbuit agnum. • Illě měās errare boves ut cernis, &c.' The four first syllables are exactly, both in accent, quantity, and usual. pronunciation, like Ουλομένην, pronounced according to the Greek accentual mark. Whence this mode of reading Greek has been called. by way of eminence, and in oppofition to the other, reading by quantity, it is perhaps not very difficult to discover. The whole system of. Latin [1] To those critics who are not satisfied of the truth of the accentual cadence of Latin verse being different from the quantity, I would recommend it first to read, and then scan any line of Virgil they chuse. This must convince their ear, but if they chuse authority rather than the teftimony of their senses, I would advise them to read the conclufion of the eighth chapter of Dr. Foster's Treatise on Accent and Quantity, and especially the postscript to it; Mr. Harris's Philological Enquiries, Part 11. Chap. II. and Col. Mitford's Essay, Sect. vI. See also Note Iv. Chap. xxiv. of this commentary.. 3 F accentuation

accentuation in every polysyllable depends on the quantity of the penult. Dissyllables have always the first syllable accented, whether long or short; and all the other accents of polysyllables, which are always on alternate fyllables, depend on the accent, and confequently on the quantity of the penult. Therefore when we hear an error in the accent of this fyllable, as it is the (K) only place where an erroneous quantity is marked in pronunciation, we directly censure the speaker for making a false quantity, and for this reason when we carry this mode of regulating the accent into another language, we use the fame expreffion, and call it reading or pronouncing according to quantity. We can know nothing of the genuine pronunciation of ancient verse but from conjecture. I should imagine quantity was more marked, and accent less, in Greek than in Latin verse. How this was done we can no more judge than an Englishman who had learned to read and pronounced Italian like English could judge how it would found from the mouth of a Tuscan. We must suppose Greek verse to be the natural poetic language of the country, and in this case quantity, the constituent of it, must have been strongly marked by the voice, and that, as in English and Italian verse, scanning was only an exaggerated expreffion of its real cadence. But this might not be the cafe with the Romans, who borrowed their rules of profody from the Greeks. They might like the modern writers of Latin verse, while they regulated the quantity by the judgment, produce also an accentual modulation by the ear. When I fee such a poet as Virgil uniformly employing what I know from classical authority to be [K] Were I to say SIDERIS instead of SIDERIS, I should be immediately accused of a false quantity, but not at all for giving the first syllable one of the shortest possible founds and no accent, inftead of the proper long vowel and the strong accent, by which it is diftinguished in the nominative cafe SIDUS. the

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ، the genuine accentuation of his language, to produce a most delightful cadence, independent of the quantity, to which however he rigidly adheres, I cannot conceive it to be only accident, but that such accentual cadence must have been even essential to the beauty of the verse, especially as we find from the passage in the Philological Enquiries above cited (Note K) that when Latin began to be corrupted more attention was paid to this accentual cadence than to quantity. And does not this receive some support from the expression of Cicero quoted by Mr. Twining (note 5) that the poet was RATHER more confined by numbers than the ora- ' tor.' • Numeris adftrictior PAULO.' I certainly do not mean to infinuate that the quantity of fyllables was not fufficiently obvious to the ears of the Romans; they certainly did not, like us, pronounce the first syllable of VELIM long, or of VELLEM short, but that the verfification of Latin depended more on accentual cadence than that of Greek, may I think be traced in the corruption of both. When quantity. ceased to regulate Latin verse it still retained the accentual modification as the foundation of its cadence, as will appear from the lines of Commodianus, quoted Note 111. Chap. xxII. But when the fame thing happened to the Greek verse it entirely changed its form of verfification, and adopted a new and barbarous cadence, which was regulated by the accentual marks, as in the Chiliad of Tzetzes. See PHILOLOGICAL INQUIRIES, Part 11. Chap. 11. That the cadence of Greek verse depended so much, (not on Latin accentuation surely) but on the strict attention to quantity, as in the recital almost to fink the power of the accents which was forcibly marked in the delivery of prose, is obvious from a passage quoted from another work of Ariftotle in Note VIII.. Chap. xxv.. 3: F 2 I will

I will now release my reader from a subject which, however interesting to myself, may be little so to him. Those to whom it is interesting I congratulate on a prospect at least of the fubject being resumed, and treated of more at large than it has been already, by Col. Mitford.

20.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-83 20.7

AN ARTICLE IS AN UNMEANING SOUND WHICH MARKS THE BEGINNING, THE END, OR SOME PARTICULAR DISTINCTION OF A SENTENCE.

HOW an article can be said to mark the end of a fentence, is I own beyond my comprehenfion. By the distinction of a sentence I imagine Aristotle means such words or phrafes as are diftinguished by an article, and by that distinction feparated from the rest of the difscourse, and in fact made substantives; as when we say, the conjunction AND,' ' the article THE.' In this power 'the Latin, for want of an article, is greatly deficient; and the critical writers in that language are sometimes obliged to have recourse to the Greek article; as for inftance Goulston, in his paraphrase of a sentence in this treatise, uses rò prius, and τὸ pofterius. By means of the article in English a whole sentence is frequently made a substantive, as sometimes also a single gerund is. I say sometimes; as what Dr. Lowth has observed in his grammar, (p. 140) on the gerund being always a substantive when the article THE is prefixed to it, and requiring to be followed by the genitive cafe, I can by no means affent to. In some instances it certainly is so, but in nine out of

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. of ten, when the article is prefixed, it is because the whole sentence, and not the gerund only, is the substantive. For instance, in the example in Lilly's Grammar of a fentence being the nominative case to a verb.

Ingenuas didiciffe fideliter artes • Emollit mores, nec finit esse feros.' If we translate as we may [L], • The having learned the liberal arts,' furely were we to alter the tense of the infinitive from the preterite to the present, we should retain the same general sense and say, 'The learning ' the liberal arts,' not • The learning of the liberal arts.' The gerund seems never to be properly a substantive but when the noun that it governs would be its nominative case if it continued a verb. To explain myself more clearly, were I to say, suppose speaking of a court of justice, such a thing happened before the swearing the evidence, meaning previous to the clerk of the court's adminiftering the oath, SWEARING is a gerund governing EVIDENCE, and THE makes a fubstantive of the whole sentence. But were I to say, before the swearing of the evidence,' I should conceive EVIDENCE as the governing cafe of the verb, which would not then be transative but neuter, and express the act of the evidence and not of the officer of the court, and in this case it would indeed be a substantive. In such expreffions as • the crowing of a cock,'' the neighing of a • horse,' the gerunds are compleatly changed into substantives, and as such will admit a plural. [L] There is no doubt but in this as in several other of the instances, the article may be more elegantly omitted, but it is equally clear that it may also be prefixed, and in some cafes - must be prefixed, which is quite sufficient for the purpose. • Steed

• Steed answers steed in high and boastful neighings.' Or the English genitive, as a horse's neighing. But whether I say ' eating bread,' or 'the eating of bread,' ' EATING' will neither admit the plural, nor the English genitive. The flying a kite' is the diversion of a boy or the experiment of an electrician. • The flying of a kite' is the motion of the machine, or the action of the bird from which it is named. • The carving a door' is the act of the artist; ' the carving of a door' the object of that act compleated. Another proof that the word still continues a gerund without assuming any of the characters of a substantive is the necessity of its being followed by an infinitive, and its incapacity to govern another gerund. We cannot say' the defiring of feeing' as we might the ' defire of feeing, we must say ' the defiring to see.' That the fentence and not the gerund is to be confidered as the fubstantive, will be further proved from instances where the gerund is preceded by a noun in the English genitive case, or a pronoun possessive, which equally with the article mark one or other of them to be a fubftantive. • Peter's denying Christ, would any correct writer say' of • Chrift?' • My reading a passage of Ariftotle;' Would you say' of a passage of Ariftotle ?" if you do you change the sense. Reading will indeed be a substantive, but will fignify some alteration affecting the fenfe, and not the pronunciation of the words.. Dr. Lowth mentions the use of CONTINUAL and CONTINUALLY, the adjective and adverb as a criterion in this cafe. By that criterion. I am

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. am content that my hypothefis shall be tried. If the gerund can poffibly be connected with an adjective, I give up my cause. • He is continu- ، ally teaching Paul.' Is 'the continually teaching Paul laudable ?' Here the article is necessarily prefixed in the last member of the sentence; but it is said if THE is prefixed of must follow. Then must we fay • the continually teaching of Paul?' If we do the sense is entirely changed; of ceases to be a fign of the genitive case, and becomes a prepofition, and would be rendered in Latin by ' de Paulo,' concerning, about Paul. If the adverb CONTINUALLY is made an adjective, and we say' the continual teaching of Paul,' TEACHING will undoubtedly be a substantive, but Paul will be the teacher. Instead of • the soundly beating a man,' could we say the found beating of a • man? Or to take Dr. Lowth's own example, instead of by well • observing which,' could we say, ' by the good observing of which ?' for directly gaining wisdom,' could we say, • the direct gaining of • wisdom?' for ' easily supplying our wants,'' the easy supplying of our wants?' for ' quietly enjoying,'' the quiet enjoying?' It must be observed this is marked most strongly when WELL and Good are the examples, as in other cafes the adjective and adverb are sometimes confounded by incorrect speakers. I must however allow that the gerund, confidered merely as such, may sometimes be followed by a genitive case on the authority of the Latin, whose grammar in doubtful cases is generally allowed to be decifive as to our own. For example: ‘Aliquid fuit principium generandi ← animalium.' VARRO. • Fuit exemplorum legendi potestas.' CICERO. • Vestri adhortdi causa.' TACITUS. !.. • Generandi gloria mellis.' VIRGIL. NOTE

20.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-84 20.8

IN NAMES COMPOSED OF TWO WORDS WE NEVER CONCEIVE EITHER OF THE PARTS TAKEN SEPARATELY TO HAVE ANY MEANING.

THE same observation is just as to common nouns or names of things as well as persons if they are either of foreign or obsolete derivation [M]. And fometimes even if the words are compounded of terms in general use. This is well illustrated in Mr. Jackson's Letters. ، Perhaps,' (he says)' it may be imagined that those words which carry their fignification with them should be most expreffive, whether long or short; that is when they are compounded of known words which express that fignification. But this is not so; when we say " adieu," " farewell," we mean no more than a ceremony at parting. No one < confiders " adieu" as a recommendation to God, or "farewell" as a wish for happiness. Frequent use destroys all idea of derivation; • but if we speak a compound or self-fignificant word that is not common, we perceive the derivation of it. Thus if a Londoner says " butter-milk," he has an idea of something composed of " butter" " and " milk," but to an Irishman or Hollander it is as fimple an idea. as either of the words taken separately is to us.' LETTER III. [M] See for example what is said of Curfew, Note IV. Chap. XIV. NOTE

20.5. mvp-aristotle-comment-85 20.9

A CASE IS INCIDENT BOTH TO THE NOUN AND THE VERB.

AS much of the elegance and peculiarity of speech depends on the inflection of verbs, and as most languages in this respect deviate at times from what may be called the rules of universal grammar, I shall venture briefly to mention a few cursory observations that I have made on this point in the course of my reading. Dr. Lowth has mentioned the confufion frequently made even by good writers, of the participle and preterite of such verbs as form the participle in En, as 'wrote,' ' written,' ' rode,' ' ridden;' which has indeed been more carefully avoided, even in conversation by those who are tolerably accurate, since his admonition. But he has either overlooked, or neglected to mention the distinction custom has made as to the impropriety of using the preterite for the participle, in the different circumstance of its being connected with the auxiliary verb ' to have,' ' to be,' or being connected with a substantive as a verbal adjective. 'It is wrote' seems to convey a more ungrammatical found to the ear than ' I have ' wrote;' but no person whatever would say, ' wrote language' for • written language.' This appears even in cafes where the proper participle, as used with the auxiliary verbs, is nearly obsolete. It might favour a little of pedantry to say, in common conversation, ' I have beaten him,' ' I have • eaten it; but we always say 'weather-beaten,'' moth-eaten.' 3 G The

The two auxiliary verbs, ' shall' and 'will, which constitute the future tense in English, are perpetually confounded not only by foreigners, but by the Scotch and Irish. The proper fimple future is this, ' I shall,' 'Thou wilt,' or 'You will,' 'He will,' 'We shall,' 'You, or Ye ' will,'' They will.' Were I to say ' I will go,' or • You shall go,' it is no longer the simple future, but speaks determination in one instance, and command or compulfion in the other. What a difference between these expreffions, • I shall not succeed in this but you will,' and I will not fucceed in this but you shall.' The last part is nonsense, fince the verb 'fucceed' being accidental requires only the simple future; but for 'fucceed,' substitute ' attempt,' which is in the power of the agent, the fimple future will be the fame; but change the signs, say ' I will not attempt this, you shall ; and determination on one part, and command on the other are clearly expressed. On this principle it is that our neighbours often raise a laugh at their own expence, by telling us they will break their necks, and that their friends shall win a rubber at whift. It feems very wonderful that two languages so very different, and in all apparent circumstances fo entirely unconnected as the English and modern Greek, should unite in the fingular circumstance of using the verb ' I will' for a fign of the future tenfe, the latter ufing θέλω for this purpose. A fanciful writer might perhaps be tempted to impute this corruption of the Greek tongue to the conversation of the Barangi, a body of English guards, to whom the particular defence of the Grecian Emperor's person was entrusted, and who preferved the use of their native language to the last age of the empire [o]. [o] See a quotation from Codinus in Note 48, on Chap. LV. of Mr. Gibbon's History. Πολυχρονιζᾶσι ὁι Βάραγγοι καλὰ τῶν παλρίον γλῶσσαν ἀνθῶν, ἡτὸι Ιγκληνισὶ. There

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. There is a distinction in the passive voice of the ancient languages to which all the modern ones I have any knowledge of are strangers, I mean the perfect and imperfect present, AMATUS SUM and AMOR. This is observed by the later editor of Lilly's grammar; but AMO being the example it is not so clear, it not being very easy in that verb to mark the distinction, though by accurate investigation it may be traced. AMOR means simply, that at the present time I am beloved; AMATUS SUM has in this verb a kind of retrospect. It is the word Prior's Henry would have used to express his situation. • When industry and time, (the mighty two • That bring our wishes nearer to our view,) • Made him perceive that the inclining fair • Received his vows with no reluctant ear.'- The distinction is more obvious in DOCEOR, which means ' I am now learning,' or ' in the act of being taught; whereas DOCTUS SUM fignifies the completion of my purpose, ' I am instructed.' The same advantage that the Latin has over the English in the passive, the English in its turn has over the Latin in the active voice, from using the auxiliary, 'I am,' with the participle, ' I think, I am thinking.' In verbs deponent in Latin, the active voice has also the same advantage and from the same cause. There is an anomaly in the Italian verb substantive exactly resembling the Latin deponent. It is conjugated by itself, assuming, as an auxiliary, the power of TO HAVE, SONO STATO, 'I have been.' The cause appears to be this. The Latin verb sum having nothing like the 3G 2 paffive

paffive participle, its derivative the Italian borrowed one for the verb STARE; and SONO STATO literally means ' I AM PLACED.' There is a remarkable nicety in Spanish between SER and ESTAR, the first always fignifying only fimple essence; as for instance, SER QUATRO LUGARES DI LONDRA, would not signify being four leagues distant from London; but being actually the four leagues, the proper verb here iS ESTAR. In fome languages, the Hebrew for instance, the genders of the perfons are fignified by the termination of the verb itself. At first sight this may appear an advantage, but in fact it is a defect, for it often enforces difcrimination where difcrimination cannot be really made. What happens from this to the Hebrew in all its persons, happens to the French, Italian, and Spanish in the third person of both numbers, from the use of the pronoun. Here Greek and Latin have manifeftly the advantage, as where discrimination is necessary they can employ the pronoun or nominative cafe, or otherwise, omit them. In the fingular pronoun the English is in the fame cafe with the other modern languages; and we feel an inconvenience when we wish to mention a circumstance relating to a person, whose sex we either do not know or wish to conceal; and we must either use a periphrafis, or have recourse to the colloquial barbarism of substituting the third person plural, ' They.' CHAP.

21.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-86 21.2

DITHYRAMBIC POETS.

Μεγαλιώῶν. For my reason for rendering this inexplicable word as I have, the reader is referred to the note on the translation. Another conjectural emendation suggested by a learned friend, is to read Μεγαλε- σιῶν. The Megalesian Games at Rome were confecrated to Cybele, and first introduced there during the second Punic war; they are mentioned by Livy, Tully, Ovid and Juvenal. None of the Grecian festivals mentioned by Potter are of this name, but it is obviously of Greek derivation. Livy derives it from μεγάλης μηρός, ‘The great mother.' My friend, with great probability, supposes it compounded of μεγάλα. great,' and σεῖω ' to shake,' an etymology perfectly confonant with the noisy rites by which the mother of the gods was celebrated, and with which the works of the Dithyrambic poets, and their high founding expressions would be perfectly congenial [A]. The word in question, Hermocaicoxanthus, is evidently composed of the names of three rivers of Afia minor, the Hermus, the Caicus, and the Xanthus. [Α] Κορυβαντίασειν μοὶ δοκῶ περιβομβέμενος ὑφ᾽ ὧν καλεσκέδασάς μου᾿ ονομάτων. LEXIPHANES.. NOTE

21.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-87 21.4

NOUNS ARE EITHER PROPER OR FOREIGN, OR METAPHORICAL, OR ORNAMENTAL, OR INVENTED FOR THE PURPOSE, OR LENGTHENED, OR SHORTENED, OR CHANGED.

BY PROPER, Aristotle means words used in their common acceptation, as in plain conversation, in contradistinction to all the other modes he has mentioned, and not to the γλῶττα or foreign word only; though in his first example he opposes these to each other for the obvious reason he gives, of the saine word partaking of both qualities, though with respect to different persons. This fort of foreign words introduced into poetry, did not resemble the ridiculous practice of those travelled coxcombs who are continually larding their conversation with French and Italian phrafes; but, as is observed in the note on the tranflation, related only to the different dialects of Greece. We have nothing that resembles this so much as the introduction of such Scottish words as BOURN, EYNE, &c. which, to an English ear, has a very agreeable effect, and gives a kind of Doric fimplicity to the lower kind of paftoral poetry. But this to a Scotchman has the fame effect as our own provincial language would have to an Englishman. This however will in no case suit the higher walks of the drama and epopee. Had Scotland continued a separate kingdom the two dialects might have been distinct and of equal dignity, and have given our poets this source of variety. See BEATTIE ON LUDICROUS COMPOSITION, Chap. 11. near the end. The

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. The use of Metaphors is so frequent in common conversation as hardly to require explanation; such expreffions as a cool reasoner,' ' a warm debater,' are examples. Sometimes even a word is more common in its metaphorical than its proper sense, as for instance, to RUMINATE. By a fingular chance this word, though of no dignity in its figurative sense, acquires dignity in its proper sense, and is a perfect instance of the use of foreign words in elevating the style of poetry; as in Milton,

• Others fill'd with pasture gazing fat • Or bedward RUMINATING.' The example taken from Homer, of a ship to illustrate the transfer of a word from genus to species is sufficiently plain. We say commonly a ship lies at anchor from the quiet situation she is in when at anchor, which may be termed a species of lying still compared to the agitation of a voyage. The example of the change from species to genus (fee the tranflation) is equally clear and still in common use, though we usually employ the modefter term of a thousand; the Romans still more moderate, contented themselves with fix hundred. On the same principle the abfent lover counts his hours by centuries. As for the transfer from species to species, however comfortably obscure the Greek examples are, I think the sense of the precept is sufficiently clear; it means, I conceive, the transfer of a figurative expression usually connected with one word, to another word to which it is not usually applied, though the meaning of it is the fame. I esteem Castlevetro's example perfectly just; and agree with Mr. Twining in thinking any man who chuses MAY speak so, though I do not think it would be often advisable for him to avail himself of this liberty. I do not quote the Italian critic as our own learned countryman Martinus Scriblerius

Scriblerius has furnished us with examples in his account of the figure Catachrefis, a master of which he tells us will say, Mow the beard, Shave the field, Pin the plank, Nail my fleeve. In ludicrous composition this figure is of great use. The humour of low comedy and farce frequently depends on it. The failor applies his fea-terms to all the objects of common life, the gardener talks of the first row of a regiment, and the foldier of a front rank of French-beans. But this figure is not entirely banished from more serious compofition. The pensive poet wanders O'er the dry smooth-SHAVEN green,' and the hero of romance Mows down squadrons with his enchanted sword. This figure is sometimes used in common speech, as when we fay a warrior is PRODIGAL OF LIFE, or a spendthrift BLEEDS FREELY. It must be allowed this mode of arranging figures comes so near the next, and the examples seem so applicable to both, that I am not able well to diftinguish them. The particular inftance given by Aristotle of the transfer of metaphor by analogy is very clear. Calling Beauty the arms of Venus, and Arms the ornament of Mars, exhibits a more familiar example. In regard to calling a shield the cup of Mars, I must differ TOTO COELO from Piccolomini, who thinks the resemblance of the two things as to form,

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. form, can have any possible connection with the metaphor, and that it would be spoiled if lance were substituted for shield [B], because the form of the Greek φιάλη, or cup, bore some resemblance to a shield. This might have been the cafe with a poet who composed, as the Laputan philosopher proposed to converse, by things instead of words. But surely to one who uses the arbitrary symbols of things to express his thoughts instead of things themselves, resemblance of effect rather than resemblance of shape is the source of metaphor, and on this principle I should think the cup of Bacchus bore more analogy to an offenfive than a defenfive weapon. I never heard the metaphor in the second ode of Anacreon, where he makes female beauty serve both as a fword and a shield, blamed on this principle; but I never could fancy any resemblance, as to form, between a handsome woman and either of those instruments [c]. Calling a shield' the wineless cup of Mars' is termed by Harles [D], ' a most daring metaphor.' Perhaps it will hardly seem so, if we take a more common instance, and call love the bloodless war of Venus.. Of the ornamented word mentioned by Aristotle he takes no further notice. Metastasio supposes it explained in that paragraph of the Epistle. to the Pisos which begins, • Non ego inornata et dominantia verba folum,' &c. [B] See Twining, Note 185. [c] In some cases however too great a natural dissimilitude between the objects has a bad effect. See Note VII. Chap. xxi. [D] See Note on the translation.. 3 Η΄ But

But whoever reads that whole passage must be convinced, that if inornata there is opposed to κόσμος here, κόσμος must comprehend every other species of ornament of which language is capable; all of which he has here claffed with it, as being different modifications of exception to (κύρια), words in their proper and common form. Aristotle also at the end of the next chapter, again distinguishes κόσμος in this manner. He says such words are most calculated for Iambic verse as are most fit for common discourse of which it is an imitation, viz. the proper, the metaphorical, and the ornamented. Though from this we do not see what the critic meant by κόσμος, we fee clearly that he did not mean by it either an assemblage of all the other ornaments of language, or any elevation or change of style much over-topping the modesty of common difcourse. Invented words can never be supposed to fignify any arbitrary name that the poet may chuse to impose, but a name whose signification must, from derivation or fome other cause, be sufficiently expressive of the fense it is intended to convey. Such, for instance, as courser for horse. Of lengthened names the Italian has many; but [E] Metastasio observes they cannot be introduced into serious works: in English poetry they are not uncommon; we use ' devoid' for 'void,' ' distain' for ' stain;' and Milton puts ' eremite' for ' hermit,' adding one fyllable and lengthening a vowel. We also shorten words in verse, as 'morn,' ' eve,' ' mead.' Indeed all ellisions of vowels properly fall under this description. There are other figures of speech not mentioned by the critic here, but which modern critics are full of, and which seem indeed, in fact, to [B] Estrutto della Poetica, page 333be,

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. be, what Mr. [F] Spence calls, peccadillos against grammar; but which the blind admirers of the ancients first give Greek names to, and then call figures of rhetoric. On this principle all the errors against grammatical precision [G] which are pointed out even in our best writers, may be converted into beauties. Quintilian was however of a different opinion. (H) ‘Every form will • become a fault if it is not produced by choice but by accident, though it is often defended by authority, by time, and by custom.' [F] See Essay on the Odyssey, p. 117. [G] Masclef in his Hebrew Grammar, Chap. XXII. points out 102 instances of words of an anomalous form in the Hebrew Bible. Of these, from Dr. Kennicott's collation of Mss. 78 appear to be errors of the tranfcribers or printers. [H] Effet enim omne schema vitium fi non peteretur sed acciderit; verum auctoritate, ve tuftate, confuetudine, plerumque defenditur. 3 H 2 CHAP.

22.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-88 22.2

LANGUAGE WILL HAVE MORE DIGNITY AND BE FURTHER RE- MOVED FROM THE VULGAR IDIOM, BY THE USE OF UNCOM- MON WORDS.

THE truth of this, as applicable to the Italian language, is very well illustrated by M. Maffei, in his defence of his tragedy of Merope against the criticisms of Voltaire, in which he shews the poverty of the French language in this respect. Voltaire had objected to Maffei, that in his tragedy, Merope to poftpone the nuptials which were haftened by the tyrant, orders a servant to inform him, that the queen had had a fever all night.* Maffei adds, To shew how fuch passages would displease at Paris, he ⚫ translates this into French; and in truth so tranflated, they have not a good effect: but this mode of confronting the tragedies deserves to be • confidered. The Italian says, ، [A] "Tis useless to disguise the mournful truth, "A fcorching fever wars against her life." But the Frenchman says only, (B) " It is impossible to conceal from you that the queen has a fever." We may see here the difference between the verse of a nation which besides the language of prose pof- [A] ' Diffimulato in vano soffre di febro afsalto.' [B] ' On ne peut vous cacher que la reine a la fievre.' • seffes

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. • sesses also a poetical language. In ours even trivial and domeftic • circumstances may be mentioned with dignity and poetically, but turn ⚫ them into prose and they instantly become common. Your verse has • exactly the same force as if I faid in Italian, "The queen has a fever," ⚫ and a verse that began so would certainly occafion much laughter; but • when the sense is expressed as in the Italian, the transposition of the ⚫ words and the metaphor create poetry, and render the language noble to our ears, because it is very remote from vulgar speech and yet not extravagant; and by these means we are able to give ornament to every thing.' Our Shakespear has been criticized with exactly the same candour that Maffei complains of.

22.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-89 22.4

THE ELDER EUCLIDES.

MOST likely called so by Aristotle to distinguish him from a perfon of the fame name, who was a follower of Socrates and head of a fect of philosophers [c]. It is surprizing that the English translators should have rendered Ευκλείδης ὁ αρχᾶιος, Euclides ille antiquus, 'Old Euclid.' In the first place 'old,' applied to a man, signifies age, not antiquity; and without the article, as indeed is the fact with most adjectives except in the vocative cafe, conveys the idea of jocular familiarity. Who for the elder Brutus [c] See Fabricius. would

CHAP. XXIT. would fay, Old Brutus? Were we to express the father of the Horatii by the name of Old Horace, we should immediately think of the Roman poet. We know the French, from the partiality they have for their own language, mutilate all the harmonious names of antiquity, a practice which we at first adopted but have now totally laid aside. In consequence however of its having been once adopted by us, the most familiar of the Roman names, and some few of the Greek names, have among us this pronunciation. But these are confined to the perfons themselves, and not given to others of a fimilar name. We call none of the Horatii Horace but the poet, and none of the Tullii Tully except the orator. Aristotle and Euclid are two of the most early familiar Greek names, and in consequence of it retain this disgraceful distinction; and when we meet them thus mutilated we expect to find the fathers of logic and the mathematics. As all affectation is ridiculous, I should think it pedantic to call this work a translation of the Poetic of Ariftoteles; but in a tranflation of Pindar's fifth Pythian Ode, I would not translate the Αρισοζέλης mentioned there, by the Anglo-Greek name of Aristotle. There is something so completely merry-andrewish in the appellation we give to the celebrated triumvir, especially when mixed with Roman names, that were I writing history I should be induced to reftore him to the name of Marcus Antonius. In this work I have been obliged to retain those CHRISTIAN NAMES by which Shakespear and Dryden have mentioned him. NOTE

22.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-90 22.5

MAKING IAMBIC VERSE EVEN IN COMMON DISCOURSE.

I CANNOT think the word ἰαμβοποιήσας can by any means be twisted into the general sense of, ridiculing, which many of the translators give it. For the reason which induced me to render it as I have, I refer to the note on the tranflation. I however must confess the examples are, by a little vitiation of quantity, much more easily susceptible of the cadence of hexameters than of iambics. Indeed they very much resemble the barbarous attempts at heroic verse, by Commodianus at the decline Of Roman poetry, quoted by Mr. Harris in his Philological Enquiries, Part 11. Chap. 11. Tōt rěŭm criminibus părricīdūm quoque fŭtūrum Ex aŭctorītātē vēstrā contulīstis in illum. The profodical marks shew what Mr. Harris imagined to be the intended quantities. But I rather think the writer's ear was directed by the [D] accentual cadence without any regard to quantity at all. Perhaps Aristotle had no iambic examples to quote, and the others being familiar, the διον may imply, • as in these spurious hexameters.' [D] See Note II. Chap. xx. NOTE

22.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-91 22.6

AN ABSURD AND RIDICULOUS USE OF METAPHORS, FOREIGN WORDS, AND OTHER FORMS, WOULD HAVE THE SAME EFFECT.

THE obfervation of Aristotle as to the effect of all these ornamented expreffions, and how much the propriety of the most elevated style depends on a temperate use of them, is obviously just and perfectly capable of illustration from our own writers of every description. There is no part of elocution which requires greater skill in the poet than the proper management of figures, and to steer between too ornamented and too simple a style; chusing one that shall be perfpicuous without meanness, and elevated without being either turgid or obscure. Nor can any criterion be found for this, except the judgement and taste of the writer, fince what in one species of writing would be simple might be mean in another; and that dignity of expression which may be only adequate to one fubject might be truly ridiculous when applied to a different one [E]. It must be remembered that two sources of the burlesque arise from this impropriety carried to excess, either by making heroes and demi-gods talk in the language of common life, or making mean persons talk in the language of heroes and demi-gods. [E] The modern writers of Latin run strongly into this. If a phrase is classical they are apt to think it fufficient without at all regarding its application to the subject, and will criticise a grammatical passage in all the flowers of eloquence. A curious instance of this occurs in Leusden's Philologus Hebræo-Græcus. Speaking of the scarceness of the copies of the Hebrew New Testament, he says, Vix caressimo pretio comparari poffunt num plerumque in nuper incendio Londiniensi sunt Vulcano tradita.' To

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. To know whether a word is proper for an elevated style, I believe verfification the best criterion, and Aristotle seems to think so from the experiment he proposes. The expression quoted by [F] Dr. Beattie from our tranflation of the Bible, 'Sweeping with the besom of destruction,' would hardly bear this teft. It must be observed that in some cases, especially in scenes of horror, the effect is often heightened by chusing a common instead of an unusual word. In the following lines from Macbeth : • Who should against his murderer shut the door, ' Not bear the knife myself.' The effect, contrary to the rule of Aristotle, would I think be much inferior if afsassin could be substituted for murderer, and dagger for knife [G]. [F] Illustrations on Sublimity, p. 638. NOTE [G] Mr. Stevens, on the occasion of Shakespear's use of the words BARE BODKIN, is at some trouble to shew us that bodkin was an old word for dagger. It may be fo. But I think Shakespear did not use it here in this sense. His context seems to imply, Why should a man suffer misery here, when the most inconfiderable, and generally, harmless instrument, will set him free. What Shakespear observes here of misery he applies to guilt in K. John. 'Do but despair, • And if thou want'st a cord the smallest thread < That ever spider twisted from her womb • Will serve to strangle thee, a rush will be A beam to hang thee on; or would'st thou drown thyself, • Put but a little water in a spoon And it shall be as all the ocean Enough to stifle such a villain up.' And

22.5. mvp-aristotle-comment-92 22.11

BY PUTTING THE WORDS INTO VERSE.

I Do not fee any objection to the literal tranflation I have given of this passage, or why τὸ μέτρον may not retain the sense it seems obviously to have [H]. I have observed in the last note, that verfification is no bad touchstone of proper elevation of style. Ariftotle seems to be aware that it may be objected to him, that the language of poetry, verse, is sufficiently removed from common speech, to give it elevation without the afsistance of figures. In consequence of this, anticipating the objection, he answers. Even in heroic verse, whose cadence is much more elevated than iambic verse, you will find an essential difference from the change of figurative, for common language; and then referring the objector to his own experience, he defires him, to put the words into verse, previoufly to the experiment, that the alteration may be shewn to arise from the change of the words, and not from the structure of the verse. He then naturally enough returns to that kind of verse with which he is more immediately concerned, and shews an instance of the dignity of a dramatic line depending entirely on the change of a single word. And Cowley says afterwards in his Ode on Anacreon, ' In death's hand a grape-ftone proves • As strong as thunder does in Jove's.' This passage in Shakespear may perhaps remind the learned reader of the instrument Edipus employed to deprive himself of fight. [H] See Mr. Twining's note. NOTE

22.6. mvp-aristotle-comment-93 22.14

ARIPHRADES ALSO RIDICULES THE TRAGIC POETS FOR EMPLOY- ING FORMS OF LANGUAGE THAT ARE NOT USED IN COMMON CONVERSATION, AND INVERTING THE ORDER OF THE WORDS, THOUGH THEIR DIFFERING FROM COMMON USE IS THE VERY CIRCUMSTANCE THAT ELEVATES THE STYLE.

MUCH depends on the judgement of the poet in the proper regulation of this inversion of language. When judicioufly managed it poffefses in a high degree the requisite mentioned by Aristotle, of rendering the style elevated and yet perfpicuous, provided the perfpicuity is not injured by too bold a deviation from the usual forms of speech, which in the [1] modern languages, where the connection of the words in a fentence [1] For a comparison between the French and Italian in this respect, see the defence of Maffei quoted in Note 1. of this Chapter. Indeed the Italian is superior to all modern languages in this. For an instance in the translation of a passage in Horace by Metastasio, see Note v. Chap. xxvI. The arrangement of the words in the following stanza of Tasso cannot be imitated in any other modern European language. " Dio messagier mi manda; io ti rivelo " La sua mente in suo nome; ò quanta spene " Haver d'alta vittoria, ò quanto zelo "De l'hofte a te commessa hor ti conviene." Tacque, e sparito rivolò del cielo ' A le parti più eccelse, e più serene. • Resta Goffredo à i detti, à lo splendore ‹ D'occhi abbagliato, attonito di core.' GIERUS. DELIB. Canto I. Stanza XVII. depends

depends so much on juxta-position and where there is no distinction of case except in the pronouns, will often unavoidably create obscurity. Mr. Jackson of Exeter [K] objects to such transpositions as 'thunders 'the sky,' ' shakes the ground;' for 'the sky thunders,' ' the ground Thakes;' in these cases he says, ' we are inclined to refer to some antecedent nominative.' I think for this reason the impropriety or propriety of fuch expreffion is clearly marked by the examples produced. When, as in the first instance, the verb is strictly neuter the deviation can occafion no ambiguity and is therefore allowable; but in the second instance where the verb has also a transitive sense, the inconvenience and ambiguity mentioned by Mr. Jackson will certainly arife. In the use of this license, narrative poetry has a greater latitude than dramatic; but even there obfcurity and doubt should be avoided. The effect of this arrangement of words in a verfe may be seen in a line of Prior's Henry and Emma, where, without altering the essential cadence, the words may be placed in three different ways, two of which will have different meanings, and the third, which Prior has chosen, may be applied to either, and depends folely on the context and the stops [L] for precifion. The line in question is, ، For feldom, archers say, thy arrows err; remove the first comma and it may mean, • For archers seldom say, thy arrows err;' and may be applied rather to the partiality of his companions than his skill. But the following arrangement puts the meaning of the poet beyond the reach of doubt, [K] Letter III. [L] See Note Ix. Chap. xxv. For

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. • For archers say, thy arrows feldom err.' In dramatic poetry, and all other poetry that is recited, if juxtaposition is too much violated, though the sense will be sufficiently obvious, it will be impossible to mark it well by the voice. The following passage of Shakespear will defy the powers of elocution to give it proper force. • Foul deeds will rise, Tho' all the earth o'erwhelm them, to men's eyes.' For this reason Latin verse, however clear the whole fentence may be from the place of every word being clearly marked by the construction, can never be pronounced, by us at least, with energy; this occafions that monotony which the best reciters of it always fall into. How often does the whole force of a sentence depend on the connection of two words that relate to each other; but how can this be marked by the voice when they are in different parts of the sentence? as in this instance: • Pan etiam Arcadia mecum fi judice certet.' • Pan etiam Arcadia dicat se judice victum.' Here certainly the force of the boast which arises from the poet's challenging the god to a contest before judges the most partial in his favor, requires the connexion between ARCADIA and JUDICE to be particularly marked, which it is impossible for the voice to execute clearly, or to hinder the hearer of the last line from connecting se and JUDICE in his mind, till he has perfectly convinced himself the speaker had been correct in the last vowel of Arcadia.. Greek verse though poffeffing the same powers, by no means exerts them in the fame arbitrary manner. Virgil also, in the dramatic parts of

of his Æneid, has avoided this. In the speeches of Drances and Turnus all the emphatic epithets are closely connected with their substantives.

22.7. mvp-aristotle-comment-94 22.17

BUT THE GREATEST ART IS TO BE HAPPY IN FORMING META- PHORS, FOR THAT ALONE CANNOT BE ACQUIRED FROM OTHERS, BUT IS ITSELF A PROOF OF A GOOD NATURAL GENIUS.

THIS distinction of metaphor from the other forms is perfectly just. No particular praise will be given to the poet for the invention of any of the other modes of ornamenting language; it will be quite sufficient if he makes a judicious use of those already invented. But in regard to metaphors the same conduct will subject him to the imputation of plagiarifm. For there is nothing that distinguishes original genius so much as the use of new and just metaphors, as there is nothing that betrays a want of it more than trite and common ones [L]. Many instances have been produced by the critics of confused metaphors where the relation is not kept up compleatly, as in the line of Horace, where he talks of bringing ILL TURNED verses to the ANVIL again [M]. [L] See Mr. Twining's note. [M] Et male tornatos incudi reddere versus.' For other instances of this fort, see Elements of Criticism, Chap. xx. Sect. vi. Befides

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ، Befides this obvious fault there are many other improprieties that may follow from an injudicious use of this figure. The image may be ridiculous by being unfit for the subject. As in Addison's Essay on the Georgics, where while he is very justly praising the art of the poet in elevating his subject, he attempts, perhaps in imitation of Longinus, to copy the figurative style he is criticising, and fays • he breaks the clods, and tosses the dung about, with an air of gracefulness.' Now one of the most ridiculous of all poffible objects would be a man's really doing this. A metaphor pursued too far has also a very ridiculous effect; indeed this almost falls under the article of allegory, a species of writing which some people are very fond of, but which appears to me only a more laborious kind of riddle. Such is the allegorical description of the human body in the Timæus of Plato, drawn out to a length that is both tedious and disgusting: the hyperbolical praise of which by Longinus, and the imitation of it by Spenser, does no honor to the taste either of the [N] critic or the poet. Sometimes a metaphor is perfectly incongruous and absurd, as in Cowley's Davideis, L. 111. Goliah is described as large as the hill he is coming down. • Vast as the hill down which he march'd he appear'd.' This reminds one of the story in the Connoiffeur, of the citizen, who shewing a map of London to a stranger, to enhance the grandeur of the [N] See Longinus, Sect. xxxII. Fairy Queen, Book II. Canto IX.. metropolis,

metropolis, exclaims, • Don't you fee it is bigger than the map of England ?' < A metaphor also may be too near the truth, as in the line of Dryden. • Men are but children of a larger growth.' This falls under that figure which is now distinguished by the appellation of TRUEISM. A metaphor also may possess properties that tend to make it directly contrary to the sense in which it is meant to be taken, as when King James I. advising the country gentlemen to live on their estates said, 'that in the country they were like ships in a river, and seemed large things, but in town they were like ships at sea, and made no figure at all [o].' Now though in this one point the resemblance holds, in every other circumstance it is exactly the reverse. Mr. Locke observes, ' that as ، [P] wit is chiefly conversant in tracing resemblances, judgment is rather employed in finding differences.' I cannot say the truth of this Arikes me. It feems equally the province of genius to find differences in things generally alike, and likeness in things generally different, and that it is the office of judgment to correct the errors or misrepresentations of fancy in both cafes. [o] This is rather a fimile than a metaphor, but the propriety of each is derived from the fame principles. [P] Locke uses wit for genius here; in the subsequent quotation from Dr. Beattie it is taken in the more confined sense, which is now given it. If,

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. If, as Dr. Beattie says, 'Wit arises from the discovery of minute • relations and likenesses that had escaped the notice of others, and there- 'fore a talent for it implies a habit of minute attention to circumstances and words, whereas a fublime genius directs his view chiefly to the great and more important phenomena of art and nature.' According to the definition of Aristotle we may call a metaphor a fublime piece of wit.

22.8. mvp-aristotle-comment-95 22.18

COMPOUNDED WORDS SUIT BEST WITH DITHYRAMBIC, FOREIGN WORDS WITH HEROIC, AND METAPHORS WITH IAMBIC VERSE.

OF the almost exclusive claim that the lyric poet lays to compounded epithets, every English reader must be sufficiently apprized. The dithyrambic poets of Greece feem to have made an ample use of this privilege, which it appears they carried sometimes to a ridiculous excess [2]. Of the peculiar language of the epopee more will be said in the two next chapters. As for the language of the drama, the empaffioned parts of it will hardly admit of any other ornament but the metaphor. This figure is almost inseparable from expreffion of violent feeling. So Lear, in the frenzy of his rage cries out, ، 'Tremble thou wretch • That haft within thee undivulged crimes Unwhipp'd of justice; hide thee thou bloody hand, Close pent up guilt,

• Rive your concealing continents, and cry • These dreadful fummoners grace.' [Q] See Note 1. Chap. xxx. 3 K It

It would be endless to cite examples which every page of any good dramatic writer will afford us, as well as the natural language either of forrow or rage, especially among the common people, who are most likely to speak the genuine language of nature. What are such words as my little jewel,' ' you beaft, &c. but metaphors? Aristotle, in Chap. xxiv. objects to an ornamented style as injuring the effect of the empaffioned parts even of the epopee [R]; but in the less interesting parts he recommends a splendid language. In this the dramatic poet is more confined. In the uninteresting parts he may indeed polish his versification, but he must not give his diction too much ornament, for such parts are only the common discourse of the characters, but in the epopee they are confidered as the language of the poet, or if you will, of the muse. But though fimplicity of style, and precision of meaning, are peculiarly requifite to the dramatic muse, they are by no means to be neglected by her fisters. It is impossible that there can be any merit in writing or speaking so as not to be understood [s]. I do not make an exception even in favor of the lyric poet. The words of Pindar [T], [R] See Note VIII. Chap. xxiv. [9] 'To write obscurely requires no other talent or skill than to express one's meaning • imperfectly; or if that is not enough to write without any meaning at all.' ARMSTRONG. [1] Φωνᾶντα συνετοῖσιν, ἐς Δὲ τὸ πᾶν ἐρμηνέων Χατίζει. • Whose meaning to the wife alone reveal'd • Lie from the vulgar herd in mystic words conceal'd.' adopted

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. adopted as a motto to one of his odes by Gray, though I believe perfectly understood by him, have been in general mistaken by his readers; and the sense they have been supposed to convey has mifled many a modern Icarus who has tried to emulate the flight of the Theban fwan. But they cannot certainly allude to defective construction, or ambiguous phrafe, for who in that case would be the συνεται, the 'intelligent; to whom such a composition would be particularly clear ? Not the elegant and correct reader surely. Who is proverbially fo good an interpreter of an ungrammatical or an ill spelt letter as the person who writes in the same way himself? By those parts which speaking only to the intelligent escape the grosser sense of the ignorant and are not to be comprehended by the common herd of readers without explanation, the poet must mean the nice touches, sudden transitions, and frequent allufions to the various fables contained in the mythology and early history of Greece, that so frequently occur in the odes of Pindar, which however striking to the informed reader, must be totally incomprehensible to the ignorant and uninformed, and the dificulty that may at first attend the developement of these passages will excite that fort of pleasure arifing from a confciousness of acquiring a fort of knowledge, which Ariftotle mentions in his fourth chapter. Mr. Gray's incomparable Ode on the Destruction of the Welsh Bards will compleatly illustrate this to the English reader, and leave him neithet in this or any other cafe to regret his inability to confult his Grecian archetype. This composition, though full of allusions that relate to the annals of England only, Mr. Gray found so unintelligible to the many, so ' much caviare to the million,' that he was obliged to step forth as his own interpreter, and print it with explanatory notes; and yet as Dr. Beattie 3 K 2 obferves

observes [u], ' It is in the allufions only, and not in the words or ، ، images, (for these are most emphatical and picturesque) that the poem partakes of obfcurity, and even its allusions will hardly seem obfcure to those who are acquainted with the history of England. To mark more strongly what I mean by obfcurity of construction I will cite a passage from another, the most popular of Gray's works, his Elegy. Far from the madding crouds ignoble strife Their fober wishes never learn'd to stray.' The obvious conftruction of the words conveys a sense diametrically oppofite to that which, from the general tenor of the poem, and from that only, we difcover to be intended by the poet. The odes of Pindar must lose more than half their beauty even to the most accurate Greek scholar, for no modern can be so conversant with the numerous fables of Greece as not in many cafes to be one of the ἀσυνετὸι. [u] Effay on Poetry and Music, Part 11. Chap. 1. Sect. III. See also his Effay on Ima gination, page 167. A

CHAP.

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-11

Ritter, cap. 2 § 1

Quid sit ἕτερα μιμείσθat, quomodo singulae artes imitentur homines diversis moribus praeditos. ἐπεὶ δὲ μιμοῦνται οἱ μιμούμενοι πράττοντας: haec dicit de cuiusvis generis imitatione; quod incommune manifestum sit, idem valere in singulis artibus imitationem peragentibus paulo post (§. 2.) monet. ceterum non obliviscendum est πράττειν a Graecis diei non solum eos qui aliquid negotii peragant, sed eos etiam quorum mentis animive vires quocumque modo declarentur. σπουδαίους ἢ φαύλους: nomen σπουδαῖος h. Ι. significatione passiva accipiendum est; gravis est et honestus, proprie qui in magno pretio habetur, ὃν σπουδῆς ἄξιον οἴον. ται ἢ σπουδάζουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι. φαῦλος est nullius pretii ideoque pravus et abiectus. ἢ καὶ τοιούτους: aut eos qui vulgo reperiuntur; structura abrumpitur, quod incommodum corrector quidam removere studuit scribens ἢ καὶ τοιούτους ἀνάγκη μιμεῖσθαι. haec ex editione Aldina per subsequentes propagata sunt, ut iam a Victorio "in plurimis excusis," ut ait ille, invenirentur. sed additum illud ἀνάγκη μιμεῖσθαι deest AcBcNa et Mediceis omnibus et Burgesii codicibus; deerant quoque Victorianis: nam quod Buhlius ait Victorium ex tribus libris scriptis restituisse ἢ καὶ τοιούτους ἀνάγκη μιμεῖσθαι, id ille Victorii commentario negligenter inspecto scripsit. itaque in nullo cadice voces ἀνάγκη μιμεῖ σθαι videntur inesse, absunt certe ab optimis plurimisque. num forte abesse plane non possunt? immo possunt: nam illa orationis pars ἤτοι βελτίονας - τοιούτους non in apodosi collocata est, sed protasis accuratius per eam definitur. ipsa autem apodosis deest, si formam spectamus, sin sententiam, sequitur inde a §. 2. δῆλον δὲ ὅτι κτλ. conf. Comment. ad c. 7, 4. abruptam structuram posita lineola indicavi, hacc constructionis licentia multo magis placet quam scriptura ista sine ulla solertia interpolata, secundum quam post ἀνάγκη εἶναι continuo sequitur ἀνάγκη μιμεῖσθαι. Πολύγνωτος - εἴκαζεν: Polygnotus Thasius, arte sua eximius circa Olympiadem 80., in pingendis figuris ad speciem animo inhaerentem cum omnia referret, cas humanis celsiores delineavit, Dionysius naturam ducem et normam secutus est, Pauso humilia anquirens homines quam vulgo sunt deteriores pinxit. de Polygnote videndi suntpraecipue Pausanias X, 25-32, Plinius Nat. Hist. XXXV, 9, 35. Harpocratio s. v. Boettiger in Archaeolog. pictur. I. p. 274-369. Sillig in Catalogo artif. p. 372-378. Odofr. Müller in Historia art. §. 134. ed. secund, Pausonem Polygnoto aetate supparem fuisse nonnullis indiciis colligitur. Aristophanes enim in Acharnensihus (h. e. Olymp. 88, 4) v. 854. Pausonem exagitat τὸν παμπόνηρον, atque in eiusdem Thesmophoriazusis (h. e. Olymp. 92, 3) v. 949 (958.) idem Pauso celebrare Thesmophoria ciboque abstinere, scilicet ob paupertatem, dicitur, tandem Olymp. 97, 4. (vel potius 98, 1) in Pluto altero v. 602. pictori Aristophanes illusit, eo quod Paupertas expostulatur ad invocandum auxilium Pausonis τοῦ ξυσσίτου. ad eum locum scholiasta scribit ὁ Παύσων δὲ ἐπὶ πενίᾳ κωμῳδεῖται ζωγράφος ὧν. innotuit igitur et malis artibus et singulari pingendi ratione et domesticis difficultatibus circa Olympiadem 90., cum in vivis etiam tum Polygnotus esset. tabulis ab eo pictis adspiciendis corrumpi iuvenum mores, contra emendari Polygnotis Aristoteles pronuntiat in Politicis VIII, 5. p. 1340 a 36. δεῖ μὴ τὰ Παύσωνος Θεωρεῖν τοὺς νέους, ἀλλὰ τὰ Πολυγνώτου, κἂν εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν γραφέων ἢ τῶν ἀγαλματοποιῶν ἐστὶν ἠθικός. moralis pictor prae ceteris Polygnotus erat, cf. e. 6, 11. Themist. Or. XXXIV, 11. p. 456. ed. Dindorf. Dionysius Colophonius, Polygnoto fere aequalis, cum nonnisi hominum figuras quae vulgo agnoscuntur, exprimere posset aut vellet, a pingendis heroibus atque dis abstinuit et inde ἀνθρωπογράφος cognominatus est. Plin. N. H. XXXV, 10, 37. hic (Serapio) scenas optime pinxit, sed hominem pingere non potuit: contra Dionysius nihil aliud quam homines pinxit, ob id ἀνθρωπογράφος cognominatus. conf. Aelianus Var. Histor. IV, 3.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-12

Ritter, cap. 2 § 2

δῆλον δὲ-διαφοράς : μιμήσεις illae ante dictae (c. 1,4-6) sunt saltatio ( ὄρχησις) et musica ars ( αὔλησις καὶ κιθάρισις cet.) et epopoeia, h. e. tam ea pedestris orationis pars quae τὸ μιμητικὸν habet quam eae pocsis species quae sermonem numeris adstrictum probant, sed cantum et saltationem et musicam aspernantur, relicuas artis poeticae formas, drama et lyricum genus, mox (§. 4) respexit.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-13

Ritter, cap. 2 § 3

καὶ περὶ τοὺς λόγους δὲ καὶ τὴν ψιλο μετρίαν: quod paulo ante (c. 1, 6) nove ἐποποιίαν dixit, idem nunc λόγους καὶ ψιλομετρίαν appellat. λόγοι h. 1. sunt sermones pedestri oratione ( λογάδην) conscripti sed simul μι μητικῶς compositi, ut Sophronis mimi Xenarchique et dialogi Platonici: per ψιλομετρίαν alteram ἐποποιίας partem comprehendit, imitationem numeris quidem decurrentem sed musica et saltatione destitutam, quam c. 1, 6. per μέτρα signi ficavit, talis est epica poesis quae vulgo vocatur, praeterea elegiaca, denique parodiae iambique. aliter hunc locum intellexit Augustus Matthiae in diurnis Ienens. a. 1805. n. 222. p. 549. quippe καὶ τὴν ψιλομετρίαν explicationis gratia ad τοὺς λόγους ab Aristotele addita esse opinatur. hoc vero et per sese non verisimile videtur et ex repetito ante ψιλο μετρίαν articulo falsum esse liquet. quod dicit ille censor, exempla statim afferri nonnisi ex poesi sumpta, id cur factum sit prompte explicaveris. prosae enim imitationis exempla allata iam erant c. 1, 7., ubi imitationes numeris instructae et cantu carentes nonnisi universe et breviter significabantur per εἴ τις διὰ τριμέτρων ἢ ἐλεγείων ἢ τῶν ἄλλων τινῶν τῶν τοιούτων ποιοῖιο τὴν μίμησιν. lyrica quidem ars et ipsa imitatur, sed eam paulo post, ubi nomes et dithyrambos memorat, designavit ita ut duabus formis totum genus complecteretur. οἷον Ὅμηρος μὲν βελτίους : quos Homerus in medium produxit viros, ii superant homines qui vulgo sunt, praecipue corporis viribus et animi fortitudine, saepius etiam morum ingeniique praestantia. valentiores et fortiores a se describi ipse significavit Il. E, 302, ὁ δὲ χερμάδιον λάβε χειρὶ Τυδείδης, μέγα ἔργον ὃ οὐ δύο γ᾽ ἄνδρε φέρθιεν, οἷοι νῦν βροτοί εἰσ᾽· ὁ δέ μιν ῥέα πάλλε καὶ οἷος. similia protulit idem duobus aliis Iliadis locis, M. 383. Y. 287. Κλεοφῶν δὲ ὁμοίους: an hic poeta idem sit atque is cuius decem tragoedias Suidas et Eudocia enumerant, dubitari potest, sed hoc dubitari non posse videtur, non tragoedias Cleophontis sed aliud eius poema ab Aristotele intelligi, nam h. I. ψιλομετρίας exempla ponuntur, tragoedia comoediaque paulo post alio in genere nominantur. sed haud dubie hic homo non diversus est ab eo, quem aliis locis Aristoteles commemoravit. primum ille in Soph. Elench. c. 15. p. 174 b 27. Cleophontis Μανδρόβουλον citavit a Suida in tragoediis eius non relatum, tum eiusdem in Critiam reprehensionem ex Solonis elegis petitam exposuit in Rhetoricis I, 15. p. 1375 b 32. in codem opere (III, 7. p. 1408 a 15.) Cleaphontem epitheta ornantia vilibus nominibus adiunxisse tradit: μηδ' ἐπὶ τῷ εὐτε λεῖ ὀνόματι ἐπῇ κόσμος· εἰ δὲ μή, κωμῳδία φαίνεται, οἷον ποιεῖ Κλεοφῶν· ὁμοίως γὰρ ἔνια ἔλεγε καὶ εἰ εἴπειεν ἂν “ ὦ πότνια συκῆ.” eius humilem elocutionem notavit infra c. 22, 1. quae omnia cum considero, verisimile mihi videtur hune Cleophontem poema conscripsisse nomine Μανδροβού 20v, quod mediam quasi viam teneret inter epicae poesis dignitatem et parodiarum humilitatem. Ἡγήμων - πρῶτος: Aristoteles Hegemonem facit inventorem paesis parodicae, florentem illum ingenii laude tempore belli Peloponnesiaci (vid. Athen. IX. p. 407 A), alii autem eiusdem inventionis gloriam in Hipponactem circa Olympiadem 60. viventem contulerunt, ut Polemo apud Athenaeum XV. p. 698 Β. εὑρέτην τοῦ γένους ( παρῳδιῶν) Ἱππώνακτα φατέον τὸν ἰαμβοποιόν. nimirum Aristoteles parodias Hipponactis, quamvis herois versibus conscriptas, in iambis sive maledictis numeravit, τὴν ἰαμβικὴν ἰδέαν 1) potius respiciens quam Homerici sermonis similitudinem. ipsa Polemonis verba ostendunt Hipponactem pro parodiarum scriptore habitum non 1) Nobilem irrisorem etiam in parodiis more suo singulos perstringendi delectatum esse non solum per se probabile videtur, sed etiam insigni fragmento constat. vid. Athen. XV. p. 698. C.esse: scribit enim εὑρέτην - φατέον, neque ipse illa carmina παρῳδίας sed εξάμετρα designat: λέγει γὰρ οὗτος ἐν τοῖς ἑξαμέτροις κτλ. minus recte, ut mihi videtur, nonnulli * existimant Hegemonem ob eam causam parodiarum inventorem ab Aristotele perhiberi, quod ille parodiis ex scena recitatis de praemio certare coeperit, ut docet Athenaeus XV. p. 699 A. eam sententiam probaverunt Floegelius in Comicae poesis histor. I. p. 383., Tyrwhittus ad h. 1., Weland de Parodiarum Homer. scriptoribus apud Graecos p. 26. de Hegemone lege Athen. IX. p. 406 Е - 407 В. Νικοχάρης ὁ τὴν Δηλιάδα χείρους: Nicocharis Deliadem compositam fuisse ad irridendos Delios, quos propter vitam deliciis diffluentem famosos fuisse docuit Apollodorus apud Athenaeum IV. p. 172 F- 173 C., acute vidit Tyrwhittus, sed idem nomen χείρους non recte accepit, cum scripsit Deli incolas magnam partem χείρους fuisse, coquos scilicet et caupones. nam ipsos coquos et caupones aliquis et βελτίους et χείρους et ὁμοίους potest imitari. immo Nicochares Delios tales ostendit, ut aliquanto peiores ( χείρους) quam re vera essent apparerent. hunc Nicocharem comoediis docendis certasse cum Aristophane scimus. vid. Argumentum Pluti et Meinekii Quaest. scen. II. p. 58. sed hoc eius poema comoediam non fuisse vel inde liquet, quod in ψιλομετρίας exemplis refertur. parodiam fuisse vel parodiae similem speciem prae se tulisse suspicor. neque sane mirandum est ab eodem homine (nihil est cur hunc Aristotelium Nicocharem a poeta comico diversum fuisse statuamus) et comoedias et parodias editas esse, siquidem etiam Hermippus antiquae comoediae poeta parodias fecit, et rursus Hegemo parodiarum scriptor comoediam nomine Philinnae evulgavit. vid. Athen. XV. p. 699 A. ....

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-14

Ritter, cap. 2 § 4

ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τοὺς διθυράμβους καὶ τοὺς νόμους μιμήσαιτο ἄν τις: imitandi differentiam modo expositam exemplisque illustratam etiam in lyrico genere (pro ipso genere duas species ponit) adhiberi posse dicit, exempla tamen nulla producit, sive de-... erant sive hoc lam sponte liquere existimabat. sic omnia se satis bene habent: sed ecce, post τοὺς νόμους interturbant ὡς Πέρσας καὶ Κύκλωπας Τιμόθεος καὶ Φιλόξενος, in quibus Aristotelem ego agnoscere non possum. Πέρσας Timotheus inscripsit carmen quoddam ( νόμον, non διθύραμβον) ad celebrandam Graecorum de Persis victoriam a se ad citharam compositum. testis est Pausanias VIII, 50, 3. μετὰ δὲ οὐ πολὺ ἀγόντων Νέμεια ᾿Αργείων, ἔτυχε μὲν τῶν κιθαρῳδῶν τῷ ἀγῶνι ὁ Φιλοποίμην παρών. Πυλάδου τότε δὲ ᾄδοντος Τιμοθέου νόμον τοῦ Μιλησίου Πέρσας καὶ καταρξαμένου τῆς ᾠδῆς “ κλεινὸν ἐλευθερίας τεύχων μέγαν Ἑλλάδι κόσμον,” ἀπεῖδεν ἐς τὸν Φιλοποίμενα τὸ Ἑλληνικόν, καὶ ἐπε σημήναντο τὸ κρότῳ φέρειν εἰς ἐκεῖνον τὸ ᾄσμα, conf. Plutarch. Philopoет. с. 11. Cyclopis nomine Philoxenus nobilem dithyrambum conscripserat. vid. Athen. I. p. 6 F. - p. 7 A. XIII. p. 564 E. Aelian. V. H. XII, 44. Plutarch. Quaestion. conviv. I, 5. scholiastae ad Plutum Aristophanis v. 290. 298. ad Theocrit. VI, 7. XI, 1. Tzetzes Chiliad. X, 841. etiam Timothei Cyclops memoratur ab Athenaeo XI. p. 465 C. et ab Eustathio p. 1631, 61. iam quaero quid sibi velint verba illa interposita ? nimirum ut discant lectores quid sint nomi et dithyrambi, iis unum aliquem ex nomis et unum aliquem ex dithyrambis 2) in memoriam revocant, sed quid inde ad illustrandam lucramur triplicem illam imitandi differentiam? nihil, prorsus nihil. inepta sunt igitur et ab aliena manu inserta. sed quaeritur, num forte emendandi quodam periculo verba illa sustentari possint, eo magis quod ὡς Πέρα σας a codicibus non satis tutum videtur esse. ad hoc proxime accedit ὡς περγᾶς ut in Ac, paulo minus ὥσπερ γᾶς ut in Be et Na. quod ex Mediceis XIV et 14 ὡς περσᾶς affertur, id vitium typographi videtur esse pro ὡς περγᾶς. in libro Veneto et Guelpherbytano ὡς Πέρσας inesse Burgesius 2) Qui illa interposuit, is Timothei Cyclopem non respexisse vel omnino non cognitum videtur habuisse, sed ut Timothei nomen ad Πέρσας sic Philoxeni ad Κύκλωπας rettulit.apud Tyrwhittum p. 240. narrat, sed hunc falli de Guelpherbytano Buhlius testatur. Victorius Πέρσας se debere conie cturae Francisci Medices professus est. ceteri codices cum Bekkerianis illis consentiunt aut paululum ab iis discedunt. sed utcumque est, ὡς Πέρσας veram esse scripturam dubitare vix licet, sive codicum vestigia sive Pausaniae verba supra a nobis transcripta consideramus, certe Tyrwhitti coniectura multum posthabenda videatur. ille enim scribendum suasit ὥσπερ ᾿Αργᾶς Κύκλωπας καὶ Τιμόθεος καὶ Φιλόξενος, ut Argas Cyclopem deteriorem, Philoxenus parem, Timotheus celsiorem effinxisse dicantur. quae contra moneam haec habeo. 1. Argas quidem ab Athenaeo XIV. p. 638 B. (cf. IV. p. 131 B) et a Plutarcho in vita Demosthenis c. 4. poeta pravorum nomorum ( ποιητής μοχθηρῶν νόμων) nominatur, sed nemo veterum Cyclopem ab eo scriptum esse tradit. 2. cum Cyclops quem composuit Philoxenus et is quem Timotheus, dithyrambus fuerit, Argam quoque dithyramborum poetam fuisse ex hoc loco consequeretur: sed Argas erat νομοποιός, non διθυραμβοποιός. 3. qui imitatur peiores, eum pravos facere nomos nihil est quod cogat, immo in suo genere optimus esse poeta potest, ut Athenaei et Plutarchi verba nullum illi coniecturae praesidium praebeant. 4. Philoxenus Cyclopem suum non parem fecit sed infra mythi dignitatem quam maxime deiectum, quod partim ex fragmentis partim ex veterum testimoniis apparet: contra ex uno frustulo Cyclopis a Timotheo editi non liquet eum celsiorem et ad dignitatem carminis Homerici expressum fuisse, quod credidit statuitque Tyrwhittus. Hermannus coniecturam Tyrwhitti ita adoptavit ut ab illa transpositione particulae καὶ abstinens scriberet ὥσπερ ᾿Αργᾶς, καὶ Κύκλωπας Τιμόθεος καὶ Φιλόξενος. sic ex difficultatibus modo enumeratis prima et secunda removetur, sed ad duas relicuas nova accedit ex verborum constructione nimium impedita. postremo, ut redeam ad vulgatam, huc attendi velim, quam ex levi recordatione interpolator scripserit ὡς Πέρσας καὶ Κύκλωπας Τιμόθεος καὶ Φιλόξενος: scilicet quemadmodum Timotheus Persas devictos car-COMMEMTARIVS mine suo ( νόμῳ) cecinit, sic non item Philoxenus Cyclopum catervam sed unum Polyphemum dithyrambo suo descripsit. itaque non Κύκλωπας scribere debuit, sed Κύκλωπα. hoc ipsum qui reponere cum Reizio audebit, is insanabile ulcus in hunc locum non librarii oscitantia sed hominis male docti diligentia illatum lippis oculis paulum obscurabit, sed Aristoteli sua non restituet.

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.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-16

Ritter, cap. 3 § 2

et 3. πράττοντας - δρῶντας ἄμφω: expositis tribus illis quibus diversitates artium nituntur, iam post haec argumentum hactenus pertractatum apte concludit verbis illis (§. 4) περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν διαφορῶν, καὶ πόσαι καὶ τίνες τῆς μιμήσεως, εἰρήσθω ταῦτα. quae media inseruntur (§. 3), ea ab argumento adhuc explicato alienissima, per se levissima, ex parte absurda simul et falsa, damnanda et Aristoteli abiudicanda existimavi. videamus. primum ab eo loco qui modo pertractatus est aliena haec esse, ultro mihi concedent qui intellexerint afferri iam nihil nisi inutiles et inanes etymologias, quae a verbo δρῶντας profectae fuse proferuntur, ipsum autem Aristotelem inde ab operis initio usque ad c. 4, 12. non modo ab huiusmodi nugis sed etiam ab enarrandis rebus, qualis est ista Doriensium tragoediam comoediamque sibi vindicantium commemoratio, religiose abstinere adeoque in afferendis exemplis parcissimum esse. absurda sunt ὅθεν καὶ δράματα καλεῖσθαί τινες αὐτά φασιν, ὅτι μιμοῦνται δρῶντας. vide, auctor incertus haerebat an re vera δρᾶμα dictum sit a δρᾶν, et rem scilicet tam dubiam in medio relinquens aliorum hominum sententiam protulisse contentus est. quae absurda simul et falsa dixi, ea suntP ἐκεῖθεν γὰρ ἦν Ἐπίχαρμος ὁ ποιητής, πολλῷ πρότερος ὢν Χωνίδου καὶ Μάγνητος. primum inepta haec sunt, cum qui paulo ante δράματος nomine confisi sibi vindicare comoediam tragoediamque dicuntur, iidem statim argumenta ex historia sumpta proferunt quae, si vera essent, comoediae inventionem Siculis Doriensibus certissime vindicarent. scilicet Epicharmum, antiquissimum apud Dorienses comoediae hoc nomine dignae auctorem, multo prius vixisse quam Chonidem (Chionidem), antiquissimum apud Athenienses comoediarum scriptorem ¹), hic edocemur. sed de Chionide Suidas (cf. Eudocia p. 436) haec rettulit: Χιωνίδης ᾿Αθηναῖος, τῆς ἀρχαίας κωμῳδίας, ὃν καὶ λέγουσι πρωταγωνίστην γενέσθαι τῆς ἀρχαίας κωμῳδίας, διδάσκειν δὲ ἔτεσιν ὀκτὼ πρὸ τῶν Περσικῶν, hoc est Olympiad. 73, 1. idem Suidas accurate indicavit quando Epicharmus comoedias docere adgressus sit s. v. Ἐπίχαρμος : ἦν δὲ πρὸ τῶν Περσικῶν ἔτη ἕξ, διδάσκων ἐν Συρακούσαις· ἐν δὲ ᾿Αθήναις Εὐέτης καὶ Εὐξενίδης καὶ Μύλος ἐπεδείκνυντο, h. e. Olympiad. 73, 3. quae testimonia, quamvis ab auctore parum locuplete prolata, tantae sunt auctoritatis, quantae essent si apud fidissimum scriptorem legerentur. nam ipsa eorum condicio ac forma probat puro ex fonte (ex didascaliis ut videtur) profecta esse. neque illud quisquam infitiabitur, utriusque poetae, Chionidis et Epicharmi, primum certamen vel tempus quo fere coeperunt comoedias docere, illis in locis significari 2). quo tempore Epicharmus Syracusanos arte sua delectabat, tunc Athenis comoediis certabant Euetes et Euxenides et Mylus, et 1) Neque nos ipsi neque ignotus ille qui haec interposuit de antiqua illa comoedia lyrica hic loquimur, sed de fabula ad quendam perfectionis gradum perducta. illud quoque nemo infitiabitur, Epicharmum et Chionidem cum Magnete tamquam an- *tiquissimos verae comoediae auctores ab hoc scriptore perhiberi. 2) Scriptor de comoedia anonymus (ap. Kusterum p. XII) cum scribit γέγονε (Epicharmus) κατὰ τὴν οἱ Ὀλυμπιάδα, tempus quo ille comoedias docere Syracusis coepit designat planequecertabant quidem post 3) Chionidem, cum is πρωταγωνίστης τῆς ἀρχαίας perhibeatur 4). itaque semidoctus hic interpolator immane quantum decipit lectores magni nominis specie praefulgens, cum scribit Epicharmum fuisse multo ante Chionidem : nam illud πολλῷ πρότερος ὢν hoc vult significare, Epicharmum saltem quinquaginta amplius annis Chionide priorem vixisse. neque illud statuere tuto licet, Epicharmum, antequam Syracusas commigraret, Megaris in Sicilia ubi per aliquot temporis fuit comoedias spectandas praebuisse, propterea quod nemo veterum scriptorum id tradidit, immo omnes hanc eius gloriae sedem Syracusas agnoscunt. at vero hic ipse locus, sive Aristotelius sive ab interpolatore insertus, nonne ostendere videtur quod tu negas? non est ita, sed is nihil narrat nisi Epicharmum Megaris oriundum fuisse. novus hic est et turpis error Aristotele plane indignus. nam si Epicharmum Megarensem fuisse cum aliqua veri specie narrari potest et a nonnullis narratur, quod Megaris aliquamdiu versatus et fortasse in civium numerum receptus est, tamen nonnisi negligentissimus vel indoctus auctor scribere potest Megaris oriundum fuisse ( ἐκεῖθεν ἦν) eum, quem natum esse in insula Co et plurimum vitae tempus Syracusis degisse constet. conf. Müller Doriens. II. p. 352. Grysarius de Doriens. comoed. p. 87 sqq. si vera essent quae semidoctus interpolator effutivit, verae comoediae inven- Suidae consentit. ribus usum esse. eo minus dubium est utrumque bonis aucto- 3) Meinekius hisce falsi Aristotelis verbis a vero seductus Euetem et Euxenidem et Mylum s. Myllum Chionide priores aetate posuit in Quaestion. scen. specim. I. sub initium: non debebat. 4) Nihil moror quod vir eruditissimus, Grysarius de Doriensium comoedia p. 145 sqq., Odofredum Müllerum (Doriens. II. p. 352) secutus, ratione subducta coniecit, Epicharmum Syracusas venisse demum Olymp. 74, 2., cum Gelo Megarensium urbe deleta incolas transferret Syracusas: nam luculenta testimonia incerta ratione a nobis instituenda everti non possunt.tor Epicharmus celebrandus esset, sed Aristoteles ipse tantum abest ut Epicharmum pro inventore comoediae venditet, ut nonnisi mythica argumenta ( μύθους) ab illo primum adhibita esse rettulerit c. 5, 3. vitiis quae adhuc exposuimus cetera consimilia sunt. vide quaeso quomodo celeberrimus comoediarum scriptor designetur, Ἐπίχαρμος ὁ ποιητής, quasi alii Epicharmi tam illustres exstiterint, ut poeta ab iis distinguendus esset, aut ipse tam obscurus fuerit, ut poetam eum fuisse lectoribus in memoriam revocandum esset. ac si ille nimis dilucide Epicharmum designare voluit, cur scripsit ὁ ποιητής, non ὁ κωμωδιοποιός ? porro ne id quidem mirabimur, a tali scriptore Chionidem et Magnetem tamquam aequales proponi, quamquam Magnetem Epicharmo (magisque adeo Chionide) aliquanto iuniorem, Cratino autem priorem fuisse veteres testantur. vid. Suid. s. v. Μάγνης: ἐπιβάλ λει δ' Ἐπιχάρμῳ νέος πρεσβύτῃ. conf. Aristophanes Equit. 517 sqq. Meinekius Quaestion. scen. I. p. 9 sqq. postremo interpolator ne nomen quidem Chionidis, nisi codices h. 1. omnes peccarunt, recte scribere potuit: libri enim fluctuant inter Χωνίδου et Χωνύδου et Χονύδου, quod nomen unde deductum sit dici nequit. rectius haud dubie Suidae codices et Athenaei (III. p. 119 E. IV. p. 137 E. XIV. p. 638 D) et grammaticus ab Hermanno editus in libro de Emendanda ratione Gr. gr. p. 324. hunc poetam Χιωνίδην vel Χιονίδην appellant. conf. Meinekius 1. ind. p. 8. not. iam quaedam ad singulos paragraphi 3. locos adnotabimus. ὅθεν καὶ δράματα: vinculum quo prioribus haec adnectantur laxum sane est ac paene nullum. forte praecesserat μιμοῦνται δρῶντας: eo interpolator excitatus est ut doctrinam suam grammaticam ostentaret adiectis illis ὅθεν καὶ δράματα cet. neque vero memoratu indignum videatur quod et haec enuntiatio et quae paulo post subsequitur eodem fere modo adiungitur: ὅθεν καὶ δράματα καλεῖσθαι.. φασιν, et statim διὸ καὶ ἀντιποιοῦνται cet. nonne haec woher auch et daher auch mediocrem grammaticum et sua alienis importune inserentem coarguere videntur? scilicet interpolatorem fere semper pluribus vestigtis deprehendimus, quorum haec obscure relicta, illa solide expressa sunt. οἵ τε ἐνταῦθα ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς παρ' αὐτοῖς δημοκρατίας γενομένης: Megarenses qui hic, Graeciae sunt interioris Atticisque finitimi, quibus cognomentum οἱ Νυσαῖοι, de tempore, quo illa popularis dominatio apud Megarenses exstiterit, erudite disputavit Meinekius in Quaest. scen. I. p. 3 sq., etiam Grysarius de Doriensium comoed. I. p. 4 sqq. quippe Meinekius ex Plutarchi Quaest. Gr. 18. p. 295 D. et, 49. p. 304 E (vol II. p. I. pag 210 et 247 apud Wyttenb.) docuit brevi post expulsum Megaris Theagenem tyrannum, h. e. circa Olymp. 45 vel 46., effrenatam populi dominationem ibi exortam esse. illius temporis comoediam lyricam fuisse hic verbo monere sufficiat. de Susarione comico, qui Tripodisci Megarensium vico natus et sub Olymp. 50. Icariam Atticorum transgressus comoedias fecit egitque, hic noster nihil videtur inaudisse. de illo conferendus est Müller in Doriens. II. p. 350. Meinekius Quaest. scen. I. 3 sqq. καὶ τῆς τραγῳδίας ἔνιοι τῶν ἐν Πελοποννή σῳ: Sicyonii Epigenem tragicum Thespide sive sedecim sive duabus aetatibus priorem celebrabant. vid. Suidas s. v. Θέσπις. conf. Mülleri Dorienses II. p. 367. sed de Epigene hic noster certe non cogitavit: quippe statim narrat Peloponnesios ad dicta sua probanda nominibus uti. ὡς κωμῳδοὺς - ἐκ τοῦ ἄστεως : interpolator ipse magis inclinavit ut κωμῳδοὺς a verbo κωμάζειν dictos esse crederet: Dorienses contra a κώμαις nomen deduxisse tradit. neutra etymologia vera est. conf. nota ad c. 4, 12. illud quoque verum non est, pro κώμαις ab Atheniensibus dici δήμους: immo κῶμαι sunt vici (urbis partes), δῆμοι pagi (ruris partes), quamquam hoc discrimen non semper observatur. vid. Phot. v. κώμη et κωμήτης. Aristophan. Nub. 965. Lysistr. 5.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-17

Ritter, cap. 4 § 1

Quae causae genuisse poesin videantur, quaeque eandem in diversas formas sive species ( εἴδη) discreverint. orta est poesis ex conaminibus extemporalibus, cumque alii honestos imitarentur, alii pravos, partim encomia hymnique partim vituperationes exstiterunt, ex quibus initiis paulatim et poemata heroica et iambi prodierunt. interiecto deinde tempore cum ars poetica altius coleretur, pro iambis comoedia successit, pro epicis carminibus tragoedia. haec multas passa mutationes, quarum potissimae Aeschylo auctore et Sophocle invaluerunt, substitit, postquam suam naturam assecuta est. ἐοίκασι δὲ - φυσικαί: quoniam duae causae ubique ad poesin procreandam, h. e. ad opera artis poeticae excitanda, valuerunt, eas in hominum natura sitas esse ( φυ σικὰς εἶναι vel φύσει εἶναι) manifestum est.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-18

Ritter, cap. 4 § 2

τό τε γάρ μιμεῖσθαι-χαίρειν τοῖς μιμήμασι πάντας: duae illae causae sunt imitandi facultas humano generi innata et voluptas quam ex imitamentis omnes percipiunt. primaria enuntiationis membra duo sunt, prius τὸ τε γὰρ μιμεῖσθαι σύμφυτον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐκ παίδων ἐστί', alterum τὸ χαίρειν τοῖς μιμήμασι πάντας. quae parenthesis signo circumdata, ea ad pronuntiatum prius explicandum et adprobandum accesserunt. μιμήματα opera sunt imitatione quacumque expressa, quae imitamenta a Latinis argenteae aetatis scriptoribus aliquoties appellantur.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-19

Ritter, cap. 4 § 3

σημεῖον δὲ τούτου τὸ συμβαῖνον ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων: signum h. 1. memoratum eiusmodi est quo quid verisimile fiat, non unde antecedens pronuntiatum necessario consequatur. vid. Analyt. prior. II, 27. p. 70 a 7. σημεῖον δὲ βούλεται εἶναι πρότασις ἀποδεικτικὴλ ἀναγκαία ἢ ἔνδοξος. Rhetor. I, 2. p. 1357 b 1. τῶν δὲ σημείων τὸ μὲν οὕτως ἔχει ὡς τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστόν τι πρὸς τὸ καθόλου, τὸ δὲ ὡς τῶν καθόλου τι πρὸς τὸ κατὰ μέρος. τούτων δὲ τὸ μὲν ἀναγκαῖον τεκμήριον, τὸ δὲ μὴ ἀναγκαῖον ἀνώνυμόν ἐστι κατὰ τὴν διαφοράν. ἀναγκαῖα μὲν οὖν λέγω ἐξ ὧν γίνεται συλλογισμός. aliud σημεῖον eiusdem generis recurrit infra §. 14. cf. c. 13. §. 5 et 7. - ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων: ἔργα h. 1. vocantur opera imitatione effecta oculisque consideranda. etiam numeri quod efficiunt et concentus eo nomine designatur in Politicis VIII, 5. p. 1340 a 21 et b 7. δῆλον δὲ ἐκ τῶν ἔρ γων. – λαμβάνουσι γὰρ τὰ μαρτύρια τῶν λόγων ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων. quae hoc Poeticae loco ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων, eadem Plutarchus ἐπὶ τῶν θεαμάτων designavit. lege locum statim transcribendum. τούτων τὰς εἰκόνας-θεωροῦντες: similia Plutarchus protulit in Quaestion. conviv. V, 1. p. 674 A (vol. III. p. II. pag. 757 ed. Wyttenb.): καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν θεαμάτων ὅμοια πεπόνθαμεν· ἀνθρώπους μὲν γὰρ ἀποθνήσκοντας καὶ νοσοῦντας ἀνιαρῶς ὁρῶμεν, τὸν δὲ γεγραμμένον Φιλοκτήτην καὶ τὴν πεπλασμένην Ἰοκάστην... ἡδόμεθα καὶ θαυμάζομεν.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-20

Ritter, cap. 4 § 4

αἴτιον δὲ καὶ τούτου: causa autem huius ipsius rei ( τοῦ χαίρειν τοῖς μιμήμασι) est quod cet. postquam duas esse artis poeticae causas dixit, imitandi studium et delectationem ex imitamentis consecutam, pergit etiam huius delectationis causam explicare. particula xai indicat eius rei causam iam exponi, quae ipsa alius rei causa modo posita erat. hanc loci sententiam non intellexit qui scripturam a libris M 14 et 16 exhibitam αἴτιον δὲ καὶ τοῦτο dedit, quasi tertia poeticae artis causa succederet, quas duas esse paulo ante pronuntiatum est. conf. Augustus Matthiae in diurnis Ienens. a. 1805. n. 224. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ βραχύ κοινωνοῦσιν αὐτοῦ: sed breve tempus commercium eius (discendi) continuant. omnes quidem homines ducuntur cupiditate discendi et sciendi (vid. Metaphysica A. 1), sed longe plurimi vulgari contenti eruditione alia negotia gerenda suscipiunt, philosophi totam vitam in discendo consumunt. hac: : de re cum aliis locis Plato disputavit, tum in Gorgia p. 483- 486. conf. Cicer. Tuscul. II, 1.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-21

Ritter, cap. 4 § 5

ὅτι συμβαίνει θεωροῦντας μανθάνειν καὶ συλλογίζεσθαι τί ἕκαστον: uberius eandem sententiam prompsit in Rhetoricis I, 11. p. 1371 b 4. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ μανθάνειν τε ἡδὺ καὶ τὸ θαυμάζειν, καὶ τὰ τοιάδε ἀνάγκη ἡδέα εἶναι οἷον το τε μεμιμημένον, ὥσπερ γραφικὴ καὶ ἀνδριαντοποιία καὶ ποιητική, καὶ πᾶν ὃ ἂν εὖ μεμιμημένον ᾖ, κἂν ᾖ μὴ ἡδὺ αὐτό τε τὸ μεμιμημένον· οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ τούτῳ χαίρει, ἀλλὰ συλλογισμός ἐστιν ὅτι τοῦτο ἐκεῖνο, ὥστε μαν θάνειν τι συμβαίνει. neque tam bene neque tam accurate voluptatis ex imitamentis quae percipitur causam explicuit Plutarchus Quaestion. conviv. V, 1. p. 673 D (III. pag. 756 ap. Wyttenb.): ὅτι φύσει λογικοὶ καὶ φιλότεχνοι γεγονότες πρὸς τὸ λογικῶς καὶ τεχνικῶς πραττόμενον οἰκείως διακείμεθα καὶ θαυμάζομεν ἂν ἐπιτυγχάνηται. οὐχὶ μίμημα: haec est constans librorum scriptura quos inspexit Victorius et Bekkerus, eorum quoque quorum notitiam Burgesio (vid. Tyrwhitti ed. p. 241) debemus, neque ab his discedere codices Mediceos equidem quovis pignore contendam, quamquam Winstanleius οὐ διὰ μίμημα exhibendo et de suis codicibus tacendo Buhlio et Graefenhanio fidem fecit, hoc sumptum esse ex quattuor illis codicibus Mediceis. οὐ διὰ μίμημα in "quodam excuso" Victorius invenit idemque bene intellexit hoc ad correctorem referendum esse, quamquam et alii editores et ipse Bekkerus eo adquieverunt. sed ita locum legi non posse vel inde manifestum est quod verbum ποιήσει subiecto suo caret, cui etiamsi μιμητής vel aliud nomen ultro concedere cogitandoque supplere velis, Graecae tamen linguae ratio postulabit οὐ διὰ μίμησιν, ut recte monuit Hermannus. sed id quoque quod nititur librorum auctoritate, οὐχὶ μίμημα, ipsum non sufficit, propterea quod iam subsequentia illa ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν ἀπεργασίαν non habent quo referantur. huic quidem incommodo occurrit coniectura Hermanni ουχ, ᾗ μίμημα, non, quatenus imitamentum; sed vel sic frustra quaerimus quo ποιήσει referamus. quae cumreputo, crediderim post οὐχὶ μίμημα quoddam enuntiationis membrum intercidisse, ac locum sic supplere tentaverim : οὐχὶ μίμημα, ᾗ μίμημα, ποιήσει τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν ἀπεργασίαν, h. e. non imitamentum faciet delectationem, quatenus est imitamentum, sed per artificium cet.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-22

Ritter, cap. 4 § 6

κατὰ φύσιν δὲ ὄντος: quod modo σύμφυτον dixit, id iam κατὰ φύσιν ὂν designavit. quod enim natura insitum nobis, idem naturae nostrae consentaneum est. καὶ τῆς ἁρμονίας καὶ τοῦ ῥυθμοῦ: concentum numerumque hominibus natura insitum esse nondum quidem demonstravit, sed id tum a legentibus ultro sibi concedi sperare potuit, tum alius esse disputationis vidit. τὰ γὰρ μέτρα ὅτι μόρια τῶν ῥυθμῶν ἐστί, φανερόν: metra materiam numero suggerunt, quam dum ille moderatur certaeque legi subiungit, eius materiae partes (metra) numeri partes videntur, eaedemque procreari quasi a numero videntur, unde illud πατήρ μέτρου ῥυθμός. lege quae docte disputavit Boeckhius de Metris Pindari I, p. 5. 18 sqq. conf. Aristot. Rhetor. III, 8. p. 1408 b 28. ὁ δὲ τοῦ σχήματος τῆς λέξεως ἀριθμὸς ῥυθμός ἐστιν, ο ὗ καὶ τὰ μέτρα τμητά. ἐξ ἀρχῆς πεφυκότες - ἐκ τῶν αὐτοσχεδιασμά των: a principio aevum agentes et illa (imitandi studium et numerum atque concentum) potissimum promoventes pое- sin procreaverunt ex subitis conaminibus, h. e. imitandi illam facultatem numeroque et concentui obsequendi studium hominibus insitum cum nonnulli ex primis mortalibus prae ceteris sensim sensimque promoverent, poesis exorta et subitis conaminibus excitata est. ἐξ ἀρχῆς πεφυκότες sunt homines quidam qui inter primos mortales fuere, οἱ ἐξ ἀρχῆς πεφυκότες vel ἐξ ἀρχῆς οἱ πεφ. sunt primi mortales. articulus igitur recte abest a libris AcNa et M 14 XIV 21 et GLQ, neque nominatim ex ullo codice affertur. sed vide quo eventu recentior interpolator (Italus quidam) in hoc loco concinnando grassatus sit, ut editores tantum non omnes ¹) illum 1) Libenter memoramus et laudamus quod Graefenhanius unus ex novis editoribus ab interpolatore sibi h. 1. cavit.sequerentur, nonnulli alias emendandi vias circumspicerent. nam primum pro καὶ αὐτὰ (quod inest AcBcNa et M omnibus et GLPQ) edunt Aldinum exemplar secuti πρὸς αὐτὰ. hoc πρὸς cum illatum esset, πεφυκότες consistere per sese non potuit, cum iam non de incertis quibusdam hominibus, sed de certo hominum genere sermo esset; articulo igitur opus erat, ut tandem prodiret quod apud Aldum et plerosque editores legitur, οἱ πεφυκότες πρὸς αὐτὰ μάλιστα, h. e. qui ad illa instructi potissimum erant.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-23

Ritter, cap. 4 § 7

διεσπάσθη δὲ κατὰ τὰ οἰκεῖα ἤθη ἡ ποίησις: secundum proprios mores tam eorum qui imitabantur quam eorum qui imitando exprimerentur duo poesis genera nata sunt, quorum alterum maledicta in viles homines et improbos iecit, alterum laudibus honestos prosecutum est. haec a philosopho probabiliter disputari, non ab rerum scriptore ut rem in facto positam narrari, id ex iis quae continuo (§. 8) sequuntur apparet. πρῶτον ψόγους, ὥσπερ ἕτεροι ὕμνους καὶ ἐγκώμια: alii maledictis pravos homines insectabantur, alii laudibus celebrabant viros fortes ( ἐγκώμια) et deos deorumque prolem ( ὕμνους). sane notabile videtur et grave quod Aristoteles agnoscit poesin lyricae similem iam ante Homerum florentem, sed encomia illa antiquissima hymnosque epicae poesi cognata ab eodem cogitari liquet ex iis quae mox (§. 9) proferuntur, καὶ ἐγένοντο τῶν παλαιῶν οἱ μὲν ἡρωϊκῶν οἱ δὲ ἰάμβων ποιηταί. itaque secundum Aristotelis sententiam haec fuerunt Graecae poesis primordia et incrementa et vicissitudines: ex primis illis et priscis poetis alii maledicta iecerunt, alii laudes decantaverunt, utrique ex tempore; illi interiecto temporis spatio iambos, h. e. ma- Jedicta arte quadam composita nec ex tempore fusa, hi iusta carmina ad claros viros laudandos accommodata, h. e. epopoeias, facere adgressi sunt. tertia tandem artis poeticae immutatio paulo post (§. 10) describitur: quippe illi qui iambos ante confecerant, comoedias scribere, qui carmina epica condiderant, tragoedias docere coeperunt.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-24

Ritter, cap. 4 § 8

οἷον ἐκείνου ὁ Μαργίτης, καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐν οἷς καὶ τὸ ἁρμόττον ἰαμβεῖον ἦλθε μέ τρον: haec postrema ἐν οἷς – μέτρον non ad Homeri Margitam sed ad similia poemata illud subsequentia et vituperationes fundentia pertinent, quod ut facilius in oculos incurrat, comma post Μαργίτης positum est. nam etiamsi in eo Margita, de cuius versibus grammatici inde a saeculo post Christum altero (primus est Hephaestio) loquuntur, aliquot iambos hexametris immixtos fuisse certum videatur, hos ta men Aristoteles aut nondum vidit aut raro dispersos non curavit hoc loco, cum scripsit ἐν οἷς καὶ τὸ ἁρμόττον ἰαμβεῖον ἦλθε μέτρον, h. e. in quibus etiam metrum iambicum apte prodiit: nam haec non de versibus nonnullis interpositis sed de versuum genere in illis carminibus constanter admisso intelligenda sunt. ipsa verba ἐν οἷς καὶ τὸ ἁρμόττον ἦλθε östendunt novum illud versuum genus (iambos) post Homerum esse inventum: haec enim scripsit respiciens versus heroos Homeri proprios. dabo aliud quo idem adprobabitur. dicit Aristoteles iambicum metrum inde duxisse nomen, quod eo utentes maledictis sese in vicem proscinderent ( ὅτι ἐν τῷ μέτρῳ τούτῳ ἰάμβίζον ἀλλήλους): sed cum in Margita nulla inessent maledicta ( οὐ ψόγον ἀλλὰ τὸ γελοῖον δραματοποιήσας), ad hoc carmen non possunt pertinere illa ἐν οἷς καὶ τὸ ἁρμόττον ἰαμβεῖον ἦλθε μέτρον. itaque post Homerum versus iambicos prodisse Aristoteles existimavit. inde consequitur iambos illos, qui herois versibus immixti erant, ab Aristotele in suo Margitae exemplari aut non inventos aut pro interpolatis habitos esse. de versibus iambicis Margitae admixtis veterum testimonia haec ad nos pervenerunt. Hephaestio de Metris p. 112 ed. Gaisford. μετρικὰ δὲ ἄτακτα ὅσα ἐκ μέτρων μὲν ὁμολογουμένων συνέστηκε τάξιν δὲ καὶ ἀνακύκλησιν οὐκ ἔχει, οὔτε κατὰ στίχον οὔτε κατὰ συστήματα, οἷός ἐστιν ὁ Μαργίτης ὁ εἰς Ὅμηρον ἀναφερόμενος, ἐν ᾧ παρἐσπαρται τοῖς ἔπεσιν (hexametris) ἰαμβικά, καὶ ταῦτα οὐ κατ᾽ ἴσον σύστημα. idem p. 120. τοιοῦτός ἐστι ( ἐκ μέτρων ἀτάκτων) καὶ ὁ Μαργίτης Ὁμήρου· οὐ γὰρ τεταγμένῳ ἀριθ- μῷ ἐπῶν τὸ ἰαμβικὸν ἐπιφέρεται. ad haec scholiasta scripsit μετὰ γὰρ δέκα στίχους ἐπιφέρει ἴαμβον, καὶ πάλιν μετὰ πέντε καὶ ὀκτώ. Marius Victorinus p. 2572. ed. Putsch. hoc (iambico) genere versuum, ut supra (p. 2512) diximus, primus usus est Homerus in Margite suo, nec tamen totum carmen ita digestum perfecit: nam duobus pluribusve hexametris ante positis istum subiiciens copulavit. conf. idem p. 2524. et Atilius Fortunatianus p. 2692. exemplum eiusmodi copulationis ex Margita protulit Lindemannus in Lyra I. p. 82. sumptum ex grammatico quodam Latino bibliothecae Berolinensis ἦλθέ τις εἰς Κολοφῶνα γέρων καὶ θεῖος ἀοιδός, Μουσάων θεράπων καὶ ἑκηβόλου ᾿Απόλλωνος, φίλῃς ἔχων ἐν χερσὶν εὔφθογγον λύρην. cetera quae ex Margita afferuntur fragmenta versibus herois inclusa leguntur. Aristot. Ethic. Nicom. VI, 7. p. 1141 a 14. εἶναι δέ τινας σοφοὺς οἰόμεθα οὐ κατὰ μέρος οὐδ᾽ ἄλλο᾿ τι σοφούς, ὥσπερ Ὅμηρός φησιν ἐν τῷ Μαργίτῃ τὸν δ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἂρ σκαπτῆρα θεοὶ θέσαν οὔτ᾽ ἀροτῆρα οὔτ᾽ ἄλλως τε σοφόν, πάσης δ᾽ ἡμάρτανε τέχνης. secundi versus alterum hemistichium ab Aristotele non transcriptum cum ceteris servavit Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. I. pag. 281 A. ed. Sylb. (I. p. 329. ed. Potter). falsus Plato in Alcibiade altero p. 147 Β. οὐ γὰρ δήπου Ὅμηρον ἀγνοεῖν δοκεῖς ὅτι οὐχ οἷόντε ἦν ἐπίστασθαι κακῶς. ἐκεῖνος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ λέγων τὸν Μαργίτην πολλὰ μὲν ἐπίστασθαι, κακῶς δέ, φησι, πάντα ἠπίστατο. inde Buttmannus hunc versum elicuit πόλλ' ἠπίστατο ἔργα, κακῶς δ' ἠπίστατο πάντα. Iam pauca de recta loci scriptura dicenda restant. κατὰ τὸ ἁρμόττον inest AcBcNa et GLPQ, idemque inesse Mediceis, quamvis tacente Winstanleio et zai pro κατά exhibente, non est quod dubitemus. καὶ τὸ ἁρμόττον ab Aldo profectum recte dextreque correctum videtur. nam cum in lectione librorum scriptorum articulus ante ἰαμβεῖον μέτρον desideretur, aut καὶ τὸ ἁρμόττον aut κατὰ τὸ ἁρμόττον τὸpro κατὰ τὸ ἁρμόττον scribi potest. nitate praestat. prior ratio remedii le- ὅτι ἐν τῷ μέτρῳ τούτῳ ἰάμβιζον ἀλλήλους: a verbo ἰάπ - τειν (iac - ere) factum est nomen ἴαμβος, id quod iacitur, h. e. maledictum; inde rursus descendit verbum ἰαμβίζειν, maledictis incessere. cf. Marius Victorinus p. 2525. appellatur autem iambicum ἀπὸ τοῦ ἰαμβίζειν, quod Graece significat maledicere et carpere..

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-25

Ritter, cap. 4 § 9

μόνος γὰρ οὐχ ὅτι εὖ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι καὶ μιμήσεις δραματικὰς ἐποίησεν : cum in versu praecedente virtutis praestantiaeque Homeri mentio facta esset, ea hisce interiectis breviter vindicatur: quippe ille epicam imitationem non modo bene instituit, sed etiam dramaticam eius formam unus recte adhibuit, quatenus ipse perpauca exsequitur narrando sed alios enarrantes et loquentes inducit. accuratius hoc exposuit c. 24, 7. aptum vero erat eam Homeri virtutem h. 1. memorare, cum paulo post idem poeta tragoediae comoediaeque formam ostendisse dicatur. οὐ ψόγον ἀλλὰ τὸ γελοῖον δραματοποιήσας: duo sunt quae hic edocemur; eorum unum ad argumentum Margitae, alterum ad formam eiusdem pertinet. Margitam qui fecit, is non unum aliquem maledictis lacessivit, sed exemplar stulti hominis et multa inepte molientis proposuit; non τὸ καθ' ἕκαστον pangere voluit, sed missa singulos carpendi consuetudine ( ἀφέμενος τῆς ἰαμβικῆς ἰδέας) secutus est τὸ καθόλου 2). praeter hoc discimus Margitae non defuisse for- 2) Quam vere hoc ab Aristotele traditum sit, cum ex aliis veterum scriptorum locis tum ex Eustathii commentariis ad Odyss. K. p. 1669, 49. cognoscere licet: οὕτως ἔγνωμεν καὶ τὸν ἄφρονα Μαργίτην, τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ μαργαίνειν ὅ ἐστι μωραίνειν· ὃν ὁ ποιήσας τὸν ἐπιγραφόμενον Ὁμήρου Μαργίτην ὑποτίθεται εὐπόρων μὲν εἰς ὑπερβολὴν γονέων φῦναι· γήμαντα δὲ μὴ συμπεσεῖν τῇ νύμφῃ, ἕως ἀναπεισθεῖσα ἐκείνη τετραυματίσθαι τὰ κάτω ἐσκήψατο, φαρμακόν τε μηδὲν ὠφελήσειν ἔφη, πλὴν εἰ τὸ ἀνδρεῖον αἰδοῖον ἐκεῖ ἐφαρμοσθείη. καὶ οὕτως θεραπείαςmam illam dramaticam, qua Homeri Ilias et Odyssea tantopere excellunt. nimirum stultus iste et ineptus cum uxore et matre sua et patre aliisque hominibus colloquendo stultitiae documenta edidit. ceterum Margites pro Homeri carmine habetur a scriptoribus Graecis antiquis, non solum ab Aristotele et ignoto illo Alcibiadis secundi auctore sed etiam a Zenone Stoico. vid. Dio Chrysost. Orat. 53. tom. II. p. 275 ed. Reisk. γέγραφε δὲ καὶ Ζήνων ὁ φιλόσοφος εἴς τε τὴν Ἰλιάδα καὶ τὴν Ὀδυσσείαν καὶ περὶ τοῦ Μαργίτου. sed grammatici Alexandrini nonnisi duo magna illa poemata vel unam Iliadem Homero relinquentes cum ceteris Margitam quoque ei abiudicaverunt 3), unde factum ut scriptores posterioris aetatis ab illorum iudicio pendentes de huius poematis auctore dubitanter loquerentur, veluti scholiasta Aristophanis ad Aves v. 914. ἐπεπίστευτο δὲ καὶ ὁ Μαργίτης τοῦ Ὁμήρου εἶναι, Eustathius ad Odyss. K. ρ. 1669, 50. ὁ ποιήσας τὸν ἐπιγραφόμενον Ὁμήρου Μαργίτην, alii. Callimachus tamen Homerum carminis auctorem videtur existimasse, quod coniicere forsitan liceat ex iis quae refert Harpocratio s. V. Μαργίτης: ἐκάλουν δὲ τοὺς ἀνοήτους οὕτω διὰ τὸν εἰς Ὅμηρον ἀναφερόμενον Μαργίτην, ὅπερ ποίημα Καλλίχάριν ἐκεῖνος ἐπλησίασεν. conf. Dio Chrysost. Orat. 67. tom. II. p. 362. ed. Reisk. Suidas s. v. Μαργίτης. Tzetzes Chiliad. IV, 869-871. Histor. VI, 62. 595. ipso Μαργίτου nomine quoddam hominum genus denotari vix est cur moneamus. ex radice MP vel stirpe MAPI (ea motum quendam inaequabilem videtur significare) nomen μάργος et μάργης (insanus vel stultus) nascitur, item verbum μαργᾶν et μαργαίνειν (insanire) atque μαργοῦν (et insanum esse et insanum facere aliquem). a μάργος fit μαργίτης, ut ab ἁγνὸς ἁγνίτης, λευκός λευκίτης, μάκαρ μακαρίτης, πεζὸς πεζίτης, ψαφαρὸς ψαφαρίτης. μάργος insanus est, sed μαργίτης qui insanus vel stultus esse perseverat, h. e. qui omnibus factis dictisque insaniam ostendit. 3) Eustathius ad. II. p. 4, 30. εἰ δὲ καὶ ἕτερα ποιήματά εἰσιν Ὁμήρου, οἷον καὶ ὁ Μαργίτης καὶ ἡ τῶν μυῶν καὶ βατράχων μάχη, ἄλλοι καὶ αὐτὸ ἐξήτασαν πρὸς ἀκρίβειαν. μάχος θαυμάζειν ἔοικεν. ex ceteris illis grammaticis nonnulli Margitae auctorem in incerto reliquerunt, alii coniectura utique incerta eundem assequi voluerunt. horum fidem sequitur Suidas dum scribit Πίγρης: Κάρ, ἀπὸ ῾Αλικαρνασσοῦ, ἀδελφὸς ᾿Αρτεμισίας ... ὃς τῇ Ἰλιάδι παρενέβαλε κατὰ στίχον ἐλεγεῖον οὕτω γράψας μῆνιν ἄειδε θεά Πηληϊάδεω Αχιλῆος, Μοῦσα, σὺ γὰρ πάσης πείρατ' ἔχεις σοφίης. ἔγραψε καὶ τὸν εἰς Ὅμηρον φερόμενον Μαργίτην καὶ Βατραχομυομαχίαν. hanc illi coniecturam ita conceperunt, ut quem in Batrachomyomachia ridiculum tractasse argumentum cognossent, eidem Margitam humane concederent. vere igitur vir ingeniosus Fr. Welckerus huic opinioni nihil tribuendum esse putat in Cyclo epico p. 415., ubi aliam etiam illius coniecturae causam exponit sibi probatam ac Nitzschio in Histor. Hom. I. p. 106. scilicet cum critici illi Pigretem elegos Iliadi inseruisse cognitum haberent, eos propter iambos Margitae intextos huius carminis eundem auctorem esse statuisse. conferenda sunt quae Welckerus in eodem libro p. 184. perdocte, ut solet, de Margita exposuit. coniecturam valde incertam de hoc poemate protulit Wassenberghius ad Vitas Homeri p. 11 sqq..

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-26

Ritter, cap. 4 § 10

οἱ μὲν ἀντὶ τῶν ἰάμβων κωμῳδοποιοί ἐγένοντο, οἱ δὲ ἀντὶ τῶν ἐπῶν τραγῳδοδιδάσκαλοι : loquendi brevitatem ita excusare licet et explicare, ut Aristoteli, scribenti ἀντὶ τῶν ἰάμβων et ἀντὶ τῶν ἐπῶν, non tam ante animum obversaretur quod re vera posuit, κωμῳδοποιοί et τραγῳδοδιδάσκαλοι, quam ποιηταὶ κωμῳδιῶν et διδάσκαλοι τραγῳδιῶν. vid. ad c. 1, 7. 8, 3.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-27

Ritter, cap. 4 § 11

τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐπισκοπεῖν εἰ ἄρ᾽ ἔχει κτλ. paulo ante (§. 7-10) docuit tum quomodo nata sit et epica poesis et iambica, tum qua ratione pro his ipsis tragoedia invaluerit et comoedia. iam dicit hoc, quaerere utrum tragoedia omnino respondeat ( ἔχει ἱκανῶς) necne formis illis poeticis ( τοῖς εἴδεσιν), h. e. formis quae in poesi adhiberi possunt, ita ut tragoedia omnium poeticae artis generum sit perfectis-.: sima, an species poetica magis perfecta ab ullo mortalium possit excogitari, id alius esse disputationis. non ea est (hoc vulgo existimant) loci sententia, alius esse disputationis, num tragoedia, qua est tragoedia, satis culta sit an non sit: hoc enim certum fuisse Aristoteli ex §. 12. apparet: καὶ πολλὰς μεταβολὰς μεταβαλοῦσα ἡ τραγῳδία ἐπαύσατο, ἐπεὶ ἔσχε τὴν αὑτῆς φύσιν. declarat igitur se anquirere iam nolle an nova quadem poesis immutatione novisque εἴδεσι pro comoedia et tragoedia prolatis perfectius quidquam fieri et excogitari possit quam tragoedia, sed haec ipsa quomodo paulatim culta sit explicaturum se esse. αὐτό τε καθ' αὑτὸ κρινόμενον καὶ πρὸς τὰ θέατρα: ubi quaeritur utrum tragoedia cultissima sit et perfectissima ex omnibus quot esse possunt poesis genera an alia species magis instructa et perculta proferri possit, quid ibi theatra sibi velint vix intelligas. eiusmodi quaestio nonnisi ita explicari posse videtur, ut illud poesis genus per sese spectetur. frigere igitur illud additamentum videatur. accedit aliud: nam κρινόμενον ab Aldo propagatum adhuc in nullo codice repertum est, sed pro illo participio κρίνεται ἢ ναὶ inest in libris AcBc et Get M XIV, κρίνεται ἦναι Μ 21 et Parisiensi 2938, κρίνεται εἶναι Na et LQ et M 14 16. codicum vestigia κρίνεται ἢ ναὶ aperte commendant, quod quo casu ex κρινόμενον corrumpi potuerit assequi vix licet. donec igitur et iusta auctoritas pro forma κρινόμενον afferatur et apta huic loco explicatio promatur, hanc meam suspicionem producere locumque nove constituere non temerarium erit: τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐπισκοπεῖν εἰ ἄρ᾽ ἔχει ἤδη ἡ τραγωδία τοῖς εἴδεσιν ἱκανῶς ἢ οὔ [ αὐτό τε καθ' αὑτὸ κρίνεται; ἢ καὶ 4) πρὸς τὰ θέατρα;], ἄλλος λόγος. vides, mi lector, quo haec tendant. curiosus quidam quae in margine interrogavit, ea in verborum contextum recepta ac deinde ab Italo quodam interpolata videntur. sed dico videntur, ideoque in ipsis ver- 4) Istud vai ante καὶ per διττογραφίαν natum conieceris.bis nihil mutandum putavi, sed hanc meam coniecturam lectori expendendam commendo.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-28

Ritter, cap. 4 § 12

καὶ ἡ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐξαρχόντων τὸν διθύραμβον: antiquissimam tragoediae formam non diversam fuisse significat a prisco illo dithyramborum genere, cum chorus satyrorum circa Bacchi aram caprumque ei numini immolatum τραγωδίαν sive τραγικὴν ἀοιδὴν (Bocks - gesang) decantando saltaret. haec est enim nativa ac prima τραγῳδίας significatio. nimirum τραγωδίας nomen decompositum ( παρασύνθετον) est ex τραγωδός, unde etiam τραγῳδέω, plane ut κωμῳδέω et κωμῳδία ex κωμῳδός, ἀρνῳδέω et ἀρνῳδία ex ἀρνῳδός. τραγωδία est igitur id quod canit tragoedus ( ἀοιδὴ τοῦ τραγῳδοῦ): ipse tragoedus est ὃς τράγον ἀείδει. quamvis enim prisci illi tragoedi non ipsum caprum sed deum cui caper mactabatur canerent, ab hominibus tamen nomen eis inditum est ab ea re quae oculis potissimum exposita esset 4). ἐξάρχειν τὸν διθύραμβον hic dictum est de iis qui dithyramborum et canendorum et saltandorum auctores erant et magistri. quoniam αὐτοσχεδιαστικῶς dithyrambum 4) Varias nominis τραγωδίας etymologias collectas proposuit vir pereximius Fr. Welckerus in Appendice operis de trilogia Aeschylia editi p. 240. quam ipse ceteris praetulit ab Etymol. Magno acceptam τραγῳδία ὅτι τὰ πολλὰ οἱ χοροὶ ἐκ σατύρων συνίσταντο, οὓς ἐκάλουν τράγους –, ea mihi non probatur, propterea quod τραγωδία non est nomen compositum ( σύνθετον) ex τράγος et ᾠδή, sed decompositum ( παρασύνθετον) est ex τραγωδός. tertia eiusdem nominis explicandi ratio ὅτι τράγος τῇ ᾠδῇ ἄθλον ἐτίθετο —, ab antiquis auctoribus certatim tradita et magni Bentleii assensu (Opusc. p. 315 sqq.) comprobata, nuper merito repudiata est a Iacobo in Quaestionibus Sophocl. p. 85 et 104., a Welckero l. indic., aliis. id tamen dubitari vix poterit, quin dithyrambi cantores sacris illis peractis hoc laboris praemium tulerint, ut una cum sacerdotibus sacrificii ministris capri mactati carne vescerentur. forsitan inde orta sit fabula ista de hirco in praemium certaminis ( ὡς ἄθλον) proposito.inchoabant, eis neque γράφειν neque ποιεῖν neque συνιστάναι tribui potuit. ὁ ἐξάρχων et laudes dei et cantandi modos saltandique figuras ita inchoavit, ut ceteri praeeuntem circa Bacchi aram sequerentur. haec ad intellectum verborum Aristotelis dixisse sufficiat: rem illam ipsam ex omnibus quot ad nos venerunt testimoniis veterum scriptorum explicare alius est disputationis, quae nostra aetate acerrime et agitata est et agitatur. ἡ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ φαλλικά: ut φαλλός signum est potentiae genitalis masculi generis animantibus concessae, ita τὰ φαλλικά carmina sunt ad φαλλόν in pompa decantata eademque ad Bacchum hanc vim iuvantem celebrandum accommodata. a priscis illis dithyrambis ita diversa fuerunt, ut primum vim genitricem praedicarent, tum ut in pompa, non circa aram, recitarentur. haec comissantium turba (cui nomen κῶμος) habebat quem τὰ φαλλικά ex tempore canere atque saltare incipientem ( ἐξάρχοντα) sequeretur. duci ceterisque cantoribus nomen erat κωμῳδοί, h. e. τοῦ κώμου ἀοιδοί, Sänger des (schwärmenden) Aufzuges. inde per παρασύνθεσιν factum est verbum κωμῳδέω et nomen κωμῳδία. grassari in tali comissantium turba est κωμάζειν. – ἃ ἔτι καὶ νῦν - νομιζόμενα: hos serioris aetatis φαλλοφόρους vel ἰθυφάλλους descripsit Semus Delius apud Athenaeum XIV. p. 622 C. κατὰ μικρὸν ηυξήθη ὅσον ἐγίγνετο φανερὸν αὐτῆς : Thespin aliosque ante Aeschylum tragoediarum scriptores significat. accuratius haec quae ad historiam artis poeticae pertinerent in opere περὶ ποιητῶν exsecutus videtur.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-29

Ritter, cap. 4 § 13

ex multis tragicae artis vicissitudinibus et incrementis quinque commemorasse contentus est, quorum tria Aeschylo inventori, duo Sophocli debentur. primum et alterum, dico numerum actorum usque ad duos auctum et partes chori imminutas, arcte inter se cohaerent alterumque ex priore pendet. nam cum in tragoedia Thespidis unus actor esset, is nonnisi cum choro colloqui aut sua choro narrare poterat: sed cum alterum Aeschylus actorem produxisset,iam unus cum altero sermones conferre atque ambo inter se agere coeperunt; iam aptum et necessarium visum est tragicis poetis, ut quod alteri parti accessisset alteri detraherent, h. e. ut chori carmina partesque paulum contraherent. tertium Aeschyli inventum est illud καὶ τὸν λόγον πρωταγωνιστὴν παρεσκεύασεν : per nomen abstractum quod vocamus actorem primarum partium designavit 5). ex duabus personis in scena agentibus cum una adeo excelleret ut ad eam actio potissimum referretur, unitas actionis sustineri facilius potuit. itaque etiam huius rei inventio gravissima erat. τρεῖς δὲ καὶ σκηνογραφίαν Σοφοκλῆς: tertium actorem in eadem ἐπεισοδίου parte cum duobus aliis colloquentem agentemque a Sophocle inventum esse consentientes Aristoteli tradunt et Dicaearchus in Auctario vitae Aeschyliae Robortelliano laudatus et Diogenes Laertius III, 34. et auctor vitae Sophocliae et Suidas s. ν. Σοφοκλῆς. Aeschylo huius inventionis laudem tribuit scriptor incertus Auctarii illius a Robortello editi, facta tamen Dicaearchi dissentientis mentione. ex levi sane recordatione Themistius (in Orat. XXVI. p. 382. ed. Dindorf.) haec scripsit : ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ σεμνή τραγωδία μετὰ πάσης ὁμοῦ τῆς σκευῆς καὶ τοῦ χοροῦ καὶ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν παρελήλυθεν εἰς τὸ θέατρον; καὶ οὐ προσέχομεν ᾿Αριστοτέλει ὅτι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ὁ χορὸς εἰσιὼν 6) ᾔδεν εἰς τοὺς θεούς, Θέσπις δὲ πρόλογόν τε καὶ ῥῆσιν ἐξεῦρεν, Αἰσχύλος δὲ τρίτον ὑποκριτὴν καὶ ὀκρίβαντας, τὰ δὲ 5) Similiter iustus orator, quem Aristophanes in Nubibus v. 887. producit, in libro illo optimo Ravennate δίκαιος λόγος appellatur, et iniustus iusto quaerenti quis sit respondet sese λό yov esse. 6) Ad εἰσιών ex praecedentibus εἰς τὸ θέατρον intellectu trahendum est. vide ut orator antiquissimae illi τραγῳδίᾳ theatrum largiatur, in quod chorus ingressus deos (debuit Bacchum) се- cinerit; vide ut alterum actorem Thespidi concedat, cum post huius commemorationem ad Aeschylum transgressus narret tertium ab hoc actorem adhibitum esse. πλείω τούτων Σοφοκλέους ἀπελαύσαμεν καὶ Εὐριπίδου; hic homo tertium actorem ad Aeschylum refert, Aristoteles ad Sophoclem, hic duos actores in Thespidis fabula deprehendit, Aristoteles secundum actorem ab Aeschylo inventum tradit, hic plura etiam ab Euripide reperta agnoscit, Aristoteles de Euripidis inventis nihil inaudivit. tam incredibilia et iis quae in Poetica legimus contraria Aristoteles aliis in libris enarrare non potuit: immo hic quarti post Christum saeculi scriptor ex hoc nostro loco sapientiam suam omnem videtur hausisse. hoc certum est, illum leviter scripsisse et dormitantem. itaque non maiorem eius verbis fidem tribuerim, quam iis quae nostra aetate quendam memini effutire: die Gymnasien sind, was sie bei den Griechen und Römern schon waren, Anstalten für höhere wissenschaftliche Bildung 7). unus igitur qui laude illa Sophoclem privare voluit restat scriptor qui in Auctario a Robortello evulgato pronuntiat αὐτὸς ( Αἰσχύλος) τὸν τρίτον ὑποκριτὴν ἐξεῦρεν. nimirum ille sive eius auctores (si quos habuit) tertium actorem in nonnullis Aeschyli fabulis, ut in Eumenidibus et Choephoris, invenientes atque eam rem non satis pensitantes, contra unice id spectantes, Aeschylum natu maiorem esse Sophocle, illi continuo inventionis gloriam concesserunt. vide quae de hac re disputavit Lessingius in Vita Sophoclia p. 104 sqq. tom. 10. ed. Berolin. Welckerus in Trilogia Aeschylia p. 515. Schultzius de Vita Sophoclis p. 70 sqq. Alterum Sophoclis inventum ad colendam tragicae demonstrationis magnificentiam aptum σκηνογραφία fuit, h. e. ea pingendi ratio qua imagines ex longinquo visae perfectam quandam et pulchram formam praebent. bene Passovius in Lexico interpretatur perspectivische Mah- 7) Dum haec scribo, liber novus in oculos incidit in quo viris doctis offeruntur haece: Wenn es eine richtige Bemerkung ist, dass Socrates die Ethik in die Philosophie eingeführt habe, wie Sophocles die zweite Person in den dramatischen Dialog, cet.lerey. hanc Sophocles ad scenam exornandam primus adhibuit, cum solita illa pingendi ars haud dubie iam ante ipsum circa scenas versata esset. aliud est de quo loquitur Vitruvius in praefatione libri VII.

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-30

Ritter, cap. 4 § 14

ἔτι δὲ τὸ μέγεθος ἐκ μικρῶν μύθων καὶ λέξεως γελοίας - ὀψὲ ἀπεσεμνύνθη: ἀποσεμνύνειν est ea magnificentiae specie circumdare, ut quidquid contrarium est amoveatur. sero id factum vere dicit Aristoteles, cum etiam in fabulis Aeschyli et Sophoclis nonnulla ridiculae dictionis vestigia compareant. plura haud dubie apud Thespin (eum enim potissimum hic videtur respicere) supererant, sed illud noli colligere ex his verbis, totam Thespidis dictionem ridiculam sive γελοίαν fuisse et omnes eius tragoedias ex fabulis perexiguis compositas esse. componitur enim h. 1. tragoedia plane exculta ( ἡ ἀποσεμνυνθεῖσα) et perfecta cum ea quae ex satyrorum ludicris mutaverat 8), et parvae fabulae ( μικροὶ μῦθοι) prae complexionibus rerum, quales in perfectis exhibentur tragoediis, dicuntur. haec igitur si de Thespide eiusque aequalibus intelligenda sunt, quod negari vix poterit, verba illa interiecta διὰ τὸ ἐκ σατυρικοῦ μεταβαλεῖν magni momenti sunt ad artis tragicae apud Athenienses primordia et incrementa accuratius definienda. inde enim cum appareat Thespidis fabulam ex satyrico genere ( ἐκ τοῦ σατυρικοῦ) iam mutasse ( μεταβαλεῖν), indidem censequitur ab eodem poeta satyrorum chorum ex tragoedia amandatum aliumque novo tragoediae generi magis convenientem substitutum esse, id quod aliis indiciis egregie confirmatur. conf. quae docte disputata sunt a Welckero in Appendice ad trilog. Aeschyl. p. 257-273. τό τε μέτρον ἐκ τετραμέτρου ἰαμβεῖον ἐγένετο: pergit tragoediam dramaticam inventore Thespide recens natam componere cum ea quam Aeschylus et Sophocles a se mire cultam praestiterunt. nimirum cum Thespis et qui 8) Id ipsum Thespide auctore factum esse ex aliis veterum locis colligitur. mutare οὐδετέρως positum esse neminem fugiet.aetate suppares plerumque in partibus cantu carentibus tetrametro trochaico uterentur, inde ab Aeschyli invento in eius locum senarius plerumque successit. si quis ex his verbis concludere vellet Thespidis aequaliumque tragoediis senarium omnino defuisse, is non minus erraret quam si quis hoc loco fretus diceret Aeschylum et Sophoclem tetrametrum e dialogo omnino removisse. neque vero id dicere vult philosophus, antiquissimam illam τραγικὴν ἀοιδὴν actore carentem tetrametris inclusam fuisse, a Thespidis autem aetate senarium successisse : nam si prisca τραγικὴ ἀοιδὴ tetrametris constaret et pro iis senarii succederent, ecce aderat tragoedia meris senariis composita, qualem nunquam exstitisse certum est. inde manifestum est non componi h. 1. tragoediam istam dithyrambicam et eam quam Thespis invenit, sed eam quae iam non tota canendo et saltando sed colloquiis etiam peragebatur (Thespidis), cum ea quae ad summum culturae gradum pervenerat. hoc ita se habere certius etiam collato ex Rhetoricis loco III, 1. pag. 1404 a 29. intelligitur: οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ τὰς τραγῳδίας 9) ποιοῦντες ἔτι χρῶνται τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ καὶ ἐκ τῶν τετραμέτρων εἰς τὸ ἰαμβεῖον μετέβησαν διὰ τὸ τῷ λόγῳ τοῦτο τῶν μέτρων ὁμοιότατον εἶναι, οὕτω καὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἀφείκασιν ὅσα παρὰ τὴν διάλεκτόν ἐστιν. quae igitur ab uno Thespidis actore in narrationibus et in colloquiis cum choro habitis plerumque tetrametris adstricta pronuntiabantur, ea ab Aeschyli aetate duo illi actores versibus iambicis inclusa loquebantur, 9) Οἱ τὰς τραγῳδίας ποιοῦντες sunt earum tragoediarum scriptores quae vulgo vocantur, ut et tota sententia et ipsum verbum ποιεῖν monstrat. non recte me iudice Welckerus in Appendice ad trilog. Aeschyl. p. 239. statuit dithyrambum et iustam tragoediam uno τραγῳδίας nomine ab Aristotele comprehensam esse. locum ex Rhetoricis allatum cum ego aliter ac Welckerus intelligendum et pro certo duce habendum existimem, iis quoque quae idem vir ingeniosus in libro laudato p. 262 et 263. de hoc Poeticae loco exposuit, omni ex parte assentiri non possum.ita tamen ut hoc paulatim in consuetudinem converteretur : nam et in Aeschyli Persis (ea omnium quas etiamnum legimus tragoediarum antiquissima est) tetrametri sat multi in colloquiis admissi leguntur (vid. 155-245.703-758), neque a ceteris principum tragoediae scriptorum fabulis prorsus relegati sunt. verba igitur το τε μέτρον ἐκ τετραμέτρου ἰαμβεῖον ἐγένετο, item quae subsequuntur λέξεως δὲ γενομένης αὐτὴ ἡ φύσις τὸ οἰκεῖον μέτρον εὗρεν, non de mutatione subito facta accipere licet, sed de ea quae sensim sensimque et longo temporis intervallo invaluit. nam τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον τετραμέτρῳ ἐχρῶντο - τὴν ποίησιν: haec usque ad λεκτικῆς ἁρμονίας per parenthesin inseruntur, quod cum non vidissent priores editores, illi in subsequentibus ἔτι δὲ ἐπεισοδίων πλήθη verbum unde haec pendeant frustra circumspexerunt. dum scribit Aristoteles τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον - ποίησιν, non respicit priscam illam τραγικὴν ἀοιδὴν ex tempore fusam, cuius numerum fortasse ne ipse quidem satis cognitum habuit, sed eam dramaticae tragoediae formam quae non multo ante Aeschylum fuit. si totius loci habitum diligenter consideramus, hoc intelligimus, inde a §. 13. nonnisi de tragoedia dramatica (non etiam de lyrica ἀοιδῇ τραγικῇ quae fuit ante Thespin) loqui Aristotelem apparet, ita ut eam formam quae erat ante Aeschylum componat cum ea quae Aeschylo auctore et Sophocle effloruit. sed rursus cavendum ne illis διὰ τὸ σατυρικὴν εἶναι τὴν ποίησιν tantum tribuamus ut, aliis locis indiciisque quamvis repugnantibus, Thespidi et Choerilo Phrynichoque satyrorum chorum tribuamus: nam σατυρικὴν (motoriam levemque) quomodo intelligi velit adiecto καὶ ὀρχηστικωτέραν satis declaravit. de numero trochaico levioribus argumentis et saltatoriae poesi apto Aristoteles in Rhetoricis III, 8. p. 1408 b 36. haec exponit: ὁ δὲ τροχαῖος κορδακικώτερος· δηλοῖ δὲ τὰ τετράμετρα· ἔστι γὰρ τροχερός ῥυθμὸς τὰ τετράμετρα. λέξεως δὲ γενομένης: quamquam Thespidis tragoediae aliqua λέξις denegari nequit, unus tamen eius actor quasipro supplemento chori canentis saltantisque accipi potuit. id Aristoteles videtur fecisse, cum λέξιν eo nomine dignam Aeschyliae demum tragoediae duos actores inter sese colloquentes producenti concesserit. sed si quis λέξεως δὲ γενομένης de ipso Thespide dictum existimet, ego quidem non vehementer refragabor, sed vel sic non sequetur Thespidem illum esse qui tetrametris senarios substituerit: nam illa αὐτὴ ἡ φύσις τὸ οἰκεῖον μέτρον εὗρεν non ita intelligi necesse est, ut statim post λέξιν inductam numerus iambicus successerit, sed de hoc numero sensim sensimque in prisci locum recepto accipi possunt. - μάλιστα γὰρ λεκτικὸν -τὸ ἰαμβεῖόν ἐστιν: conf. Rhetor. III, 8. p. 1408 b 33. ὁ δὲ ἴαμβος αὐτὴ ἐστιν ἡ λέξις τῶν πολλῶν· διὸ μάλιστα πάντων τῶν μέτρων ἰαμβεῖα φθέγγονται λέγοντες. – καὶ ἐκβαίνοντες τῆς λεκτικῆς ἁρμονίας: nove sed apte communis sermonis habitum λεκτικὴν ἁρμονίαν appellavit. his repugnantia tradere videtur in Rhetoricis III, 8. p. 1408 b 32. ὁ μὲν ἠρῷος ( ῥυθμός) σεμνὸς καὶ λεκτικὸς καὶ ἁρμονίας δεόμενος, sed videtur tantum. nam eo loco ἁρμovía concentus est instrumentorum musicorum, quo carere hexameter ideoque nudo sermoni convenire ( λεκτικός) recte dicitur. itaque coniectura a Tyrwhitto ad Poeticam p. 136. proposita ( καὶ λεκτικῆς ἁρμονίας δεόμενος) et sane solerter excogitata carere poterimus. ἔτι δὲ ἐπεισοδίων πλήθη καὶ τὰ ἄλλα: verbum ἐγένετο ex initio §. 14. vel aliud cognatae significationis assumptum intelligendum est.

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-31

Ritter, cap. 4 § 15

περί μὲν οὖν τούτων τοσαῦτα desunt AcBcNa et Mediceis omnibus et GQ; in P (Parisiensi 2040) adscripta margini reperiuntur, et Vallae Pacciique versiones Latinae itemque exemplar Aldinum eadem agnoscunt. omissa videntur a correctore qui ἔτι δὲ ἐπεισοδίων πλήθη quo referret cum non inveniret, deletis nonnullis scripsit ἔτι δὲ ἐπεισοδίων πλήθη καὶ τὰ ἄλλα, ὡς ἕκαστα κοσμηθῆναι λέγεται, ἔστω ἡμῖν εἰρημένα. iam structuram iste sustentavit, sententiam pessum dedit: nihil enim eiusmodi adhuc dictum est.5. §. 1. 121

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-32

Ritter, cap. 5 § 1

De fine comoediae proposito. initia comoediae in obscuro versantur. epopoeia tragoediam ita secuta est ut graves imitari pergeret, differt ab eadem eo quod narratio est, etiam metro et temporis spatio. partes aliae eaedem, aliae tragoediae peculiares. Tragoediae initiis et incrementis breviter expositis, accedit ad comoediam, non eo consilio ut ipsius naturam accurate definiat (id alii huius operis loco exsequendum reservavit), sed ut proposita comicae poesis a tragoedia diversitate atque explicata tragoediae et epopoeiae partim similitudine partim differentia dilucidetur, quomodo poesis in varias species diffusa sit, quasque immutationes earum quaeque subierit. ἡ δὲ κωμῳδία-τὸ γελοῖον μόριον: tragoediam imitari quam vulgo reperiantur meliores, comoediam autem peiores, id dictum erat cap. 2, 4. iam accuratius definitur quatenus peiores comoedia imitetur. comoedia enim non pingit homines omni pravitatis genere corruptos, sed qui ea dedecoris specie qua continetur ridiculum turpes compareant, paulo licentius post οὐ μέντοι κατὰ πᾶσαν κακίαν posuit quod contrarium ἀλλὰ τοῦ αἰσχροῦ ἐστὶ τὸ γελοῖον μόριον. scilicet haec scripsit ita, ut ridiculum ( τὸ γελοῖον) a comicis poetis exprimi notum certumque esse legentibus acciperet praesumeretque. plenius ac planius dixisset ἀλλὰ τῶν γε λοίων οἱ κοινωνοῦσι τοῦ αἰσχροῦ. ceterum haec scripsisse Aristotelem respicientem potissimum antiquam Graecorum comoediam, cui τὸ αἰσχρὸν raro deerat, verbo monuisse sufficiat. conf. Ethic. Nicom. IV, 14 med. τὸ γὰρ γελοῖόν ἐστιν ἁμάρτημά τι κα καὶ αἶσχος ἀνώδυνον καὶ οὐ φθαρτικόν : qui aliquid negotii agunt, ii risum excitant ubi ratione perperam inita a fine proposito aberrant ( ἁμαρτάνουσιν). quod initae rationi non respondet eventus, ridiculum est, si ex ea aberratione neque dolor neque pernicies sed nonnisi turpe quoddam nascitur. exemplum quod subsequitur, sumptum a comica persona, co non totam suam τοῦ γελοίου definitionem voluit illustrare, sed id unum declarare quo intellectu posuerit ἀνώδυνον καὶ οὐ φθαρτικόν. comoediae ingenio externus agentium habitus et figura convenire debet. Quod de natura τοῦ γελοίου accuratius in Poetica se dixisse eiusque genera pertractasse profitetur in Rhetoricis I, 11. p. 1372 a 1. et III, 18. p. 1419 b5., id haud dubie fecit in operis parte nobis perdita, ubi separatim de comoedia exposuit. conf. Praefatio.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-33

Ritter, cap. 5 § 2

χορόν κωμῳδῶν ὀψέ ποτε ὁ ἄρχων ἔδωκεν: primo non magni aestimatam esse comoediam inde docet, quod archon ad chorum comicum et conducendum et omni apparatu ornandum poetis comoedias in certamen commissuris sero demum choragum impensas praebentem ex civibus ditissimis 1) assignaverit. hoc est χορὸν διδόναι, poeta ipse χορὸν λαβεῖν dicitur, si fabula eius archonti probata in certamen admittitur, atque chorus ad eam docendam decernitur. vid. Aristophanes Ran. 94. Hesychius (correctus a Bergkio in Commentat. de reliquiis comoediae Atticae p. 30.) πῦρ πυρὶ ἔγχει· Κρατῖνος ἀπὸ διθυράμβου ἐν Βουκόλοις ἀρξάμενος, ἐπειδὴ χορὸν οὐκ ἔλαβε παρὰ τοῦ ἄρχοντος, παρ' οὗ ᾐτήκει. qui fabulam docendam archonti offert αἰτεῖν χορὸν dicitur. lege Cratini fragmentum ex Βουκόλοις servatum ab Athenaeo XIV. p. 638 F. ὃς οὐκ ἔδωκ᾽ αὐτοῦντι Σοφοκλέει χορόν, κτλ. Aristophan. Equit. 513. ἀλλ' ἐθελονταὶ ἦσαν: comoediarum scriptores aut ipsi aut eorum amici sumptus ad chorum docendum et instruendum diu fecerunt: publice sero tandem choragis datis adiuti sunt. Cra- 1) De choragia choragique officiis diligenter et accurate expositum est a Boeckhio in Oeconomia Atheniensium t. I. p. 487 sqq. conf. Schoemanni Antiquitates iuris publici Graecorum p. 324.tinus primus videtur fuisse qui fere chorum ab archonte acciperet, quamquam etiam huic interdum denegatum esse comperimus ex Hesychii verbis modo allatis. illa ipsa Βουκόλων comoedia cum daretur, κωμῳδοὺς ἐθελοντὰς fuisse iudico dissentiens hac in re a Bergkio 1. 1., qui Cratinum putat proximis Dionysiis, cum non multo ante repulsam tulisset, chorum impetravisse et hac opportunitate usum esse, ut omne irae virus in priorem istum archontem evomeret. ceterum nomen ἐθελονταi hoc loco propter praegressum χορὸν κωμῳδῶν non de ipsis poetis sed de κωμῳδοῖς sive χορευταῖς dictum intelligi debet, quamquam et ipsi poetae qui suis impensis chorum exornabant eo nomine designabantur. conf. Aelius Dionysius apud Eustathium p. 800, 30 (locum Tyrwhittus attulit) : ἐθελοντής ὁ αὐθαιρέτως τι ποιῶν. ἐκαλοῦντο δὲ καὶ ἐθελονταὶ διδάσκαλοι δραμάτων δηλαδή, ὅτε τις μὴ λαβών χορὸν μηδὲ χορηγητὴν ἔχων ἑαυτῷ τὰ πάντα παρεῖχε. οἱ λεγόμενοι αὐτῆς ποιηταί, h. e. qui a comoedia nomen invenerunt sive o ἱ κωμῳδοποιοί. pro rudibus prisci temporis comoedis iam comoediarum poetae exstiterunt. ipsum nomen κωμῳδοποιός ς. κωμωδιοποιός artem indicat.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-34

Ritter, cap. 5 § 3

τίς δὲ πρόσωπα ἀπέδωκεν ἢ λόγους ἢ πλήθη ὑποκριτῶν: personarum inventio magni sane momenti erat, propterea quod et ridiculum ( τὸ γελοῖον) per eas facilius provocabatur et eorum qui notabantur vultus exprimi quodammodo poterant. porro quod codices offerunt προλόγους, id haud dubie corruptum est. una enim eius nominis explicatio, quae quidem cum aliqua probabilitatis specie proferri potest et prolata est (ex cap. 12, 2), – μέρος ὅλον τραγῳδίας τὸ πρὸ χοροῦ παρόδου -, ea, ut alia quae contra moneri possunt omittam 2), omni auctoritate destituta 2) Cordatissimus quisque quaerere necessario cogitur, cur prologorum potius inventionem quam exodorum vel episodiorum posuerit.est, cum ista tragici prologi definitio ab interpolatore profecta sit. cuius igitur nominis notio toto opere non explicatur neque commemoratur, id quomodo sine obscuritatis vitio tam nude poni h. 1. potuit? accedit quod et πρόσωπα et πλήθη ὑποκριτῶν ad externum comoediae habitum pertinent, πρόλογος autem ipsam partem comoediae efficit: cur is igitur medius intercedit? quae cum ita sint, ego non dubitavi λόγους ab Hermanno gratus accipere, sed idem ego in explicando eo nomine a viro ingenioso in alia discedo. ipse λόγους argumenta intelligit, sed contra hanc interpretationem potest moneri quod modo ad προλόγους exturbandos protulimus, inter notas externas medium interponi quod ad internam artem comicam pertineat. ego igitur λόγους intelligo sermones, puta illa quae unus actor coram choro de scena aut narrando aut cum choreutis colloquendo itemque ea quae non multo post plures actores inter sese loquentes exsecuti sunt, ut λόγοι ὑποκριτῶν opponantur ᾄσμασι κωμῳδῶν sive χορευτῶν. iam omnes res quae commemorantur externae sunt, personae et colloquia et numeri histrionum; deinde hic locus in comoedia respondet iis quae c. 4, 13. de tragoedia narrantur. πλήθη ὑποκριτῶν est numerus duorum et numerus trium histrionum; denique πλήθη ὑποκριτῶν apte post λόγους succedunt: actores enim λόγους exsequuntur. τὸ δὲ μύθους ποιεῖν Ἐπίχαρμος καὶ Φόρμις: ex praegresso ἀπέδωκεν verbum ad μύθους ποιεῖν aptum cogitatione supplendum est, quod quo facilius fiat, semicolon pro puncto posui post ἠγνόηται. Itali interpolatores mancum esse sermonem opinantes post Φόρμις addiderunt ἦρξαν, idque a nullo codice oblatum in Aldinum exemplar receptum et inde late propagatum est; quo cum soloeca facta esset oratio, Reizius interpolatam scripturam iterum interpolando dedit τοῦ δὲ μύθους - Φόρμις ἦρξαν. μύθους ποιεῖν est fabulas ex historia mythica petitas comoediis subiicere, quod persaepe ab Epicharmo factum esse et multa comoediarum eius nomina et ipsa fragmenta ostendunt. in nomine μύθους, a vulgari loquendi usu hic quidem discessisse Aristotelem,tantum abest ut quidquam indicet, ut certum subsequatur indicium, id illum non fecisse, dico quae de Cratete Epicharmi imitatore subsequuntur, τῶν δὲ ᾿Αθήνησιν Κράτης ήρξε και θόλου ποιεῖν λόγους καὶ μύθους, de quibus mox disputabimus. novo significatu nomen μύθος positum est c. 6, 6., ubi tragoediae partes definiuntur, sed auctor ipse significavit a vulgari dicendi usu ibi sese recedere: λέγω γὰρ μύθον τοῦτον τὴν σύνθεσιν τῶν πραγμάτων. a vero igitur aberrat Grysarius (de Doriensium comoedia quaest. p. 75), cum illo altero Aristotelis loco (c. 6, 6) fretus pronuntiat in hoc nostro (5,3) μύθους ποιεῖν esse fabulam argumento serere, i. e. iustam comoediam facere. haec explicatio si vera esset, ex Aristotelis iudicio Cratini nobilissimi comici fabulis argumenta sive συστάσεις πραγμάτων defuissent: nam ex Atheniensibus Crates primus Epicharmi consuetudinem secutus est. de Epicharmo et Phormide diligenter disseruit Grysarius in libro quem inscripsit de Doriensium comoedia quaestiones. - τῶν δὲ ᾿Αθήνησιν Κράτης- λόγους καὶ μύθους. Cratetem Cratino natu minorem sed Aristophane paulo maiorem fuisse veterum scriptorum testimoniis constat docuitque Meinekius in Quaestionum scen. specim. I. p. 25 sqq. Crates a singulorum hominum irrisione abstinuit ( ἀφέμενος τῆς ἰαμβικῆς ἰδέας) et generales morum notationes rerumque descriptiones proposuit, quarum alias ex mythorum cyclo ( μύθους, Fabeln), alias ex vita communi vel ex libris τῶν λογοποιῶν ( λόγους, Erzählungen) petivit. hanc explicationem praeivit Meinekiuş in libro laudato p. 26., nisi quod λόγους ille paulo aliter accipere videtur, et ex aliqua parte Victorius in Commentariis p. 51.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-35

Ritter, cap. 5 § 4

ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐποποιία τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ μίμη - σις εἶναι σπουδαίων ἠκολούθησεν: epopoeia iuxta tragoediam ita incessit aequo gradu ( ἠκολούθησεν) ut hominum gravium imitatio esse permaneret. utrumque poesis genus temporis intervallo plures mutationes ( μεταβολάς) subiit, sed ita alteri alterum simile esse accidit, ut utrumque graves imitaretur. quibus rebus discrepet epopoeia a tragoediacontinuo explicatur. sed quid fiet de illis μέχρι μόνου μέτρου μεγάλου ? scilicet differre a tragoedia epopociam nonnisi versibus longis 3) edocemur. falsissimum esse et pugnare cum ceteris Aristotelis verbis primo adspectu in oculos incurrit: ipse enim non unum quoddam sed tria continuo affert, quibus epopoeia diversa sit a tragoedia. ineptissimum sane emblema non usque ad hunc diem tolerassent editores, nisi pro omnium codicum scriptura μεγάλου novi interpolatores (aut Aldus ipse aut qui eius codicem correxerant) substituissent μετὰ λόγου, quod idem valere ac καὶ λόγου 4) videntur credidisse. sed et repugnat usus Graeci sermonis neque, si addiceret, vel sic sana sententia prodiret: sermone enim differre utrumque genus tam universe ac simpliciter pronuntiari nequit. sed sic ut μετὰ λόγου post μέρχι μόνου μέτρου additum legitur, id vix aliud potest esse nisi cum ratione, quod alienissimum est. inepto hoc additamento inepto auctori restituto, facilis est loci explanandi ratio. nam primum affertur qua in re tragoedia et epopoeia consentiant, deinde epopoeiam et metro differre et enarrandi ratione et temporis ambitu recte monetur. a narrando poesis τῷ μήκει, h. e. μέτρον ἁπλοῦν est quam compositionem κατὰ στίχον grammatici appellant. - καὶ ἀπαγγελίαν εἶναι : duae ἀπαγγελίας species c. 3, 1. definiuntur, una quae simpliciter narrat, altera quae inducit narrantes. epica διηγηματική vocatur c. 23, 1. teraporis spatio quo res gestae a poeta sive epico sive tragico propositae comprehenduntur. μάλιστα πειρᾶται: hoc dicit, quoniam plures tragicorum poetarum hanc legem egressos esse non ignorabat. - ἡ δὲ ἐποποιία ἀόρι- 3) Quaesitum est num voci μέχρι insit vis excludendi. non inest praepositioni potestas excludendi, sed inest nomini negativo μόνου. 4) Hermannus cum καὶ λόγου scriberet pro μετὰ λόγου, Graecitati sermonis opem tulit, sed non cogitavit se interpolare scripturam iam interpolatam. στος τῷ χρόνῳ: dicit temporis ambitum epopoeiae convenientem definiri certo dierum vel annorum numero non posse. noli credere hoc Aristotelem docere, poetae epico licere vel longissimi temporis res gestas enarrare: veriora enim ipse docuit c. 8 et praecipue c. 23.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-36

Ritter, cap. 6 § 1

De tragoediae forma et fine. partes eius esse sex et gravissimam quidem fabulam sive τὸν μύθον. Poeticae causas postquam universe declaravit et praecipuas eius formas demonstravit, genera poesis singillatim pertractare eorumque formam et vim explicare pergit. incipit a tragoedia, deinceps descendit ad epopoeiam, denique ad comoediam pervenit, sed in operis parte nobis deperdita. rectius ille haud dubie poesin epicam primo loco expediendam sibi sumpsisset: ea enim non solum simplicissima est ex omnibus generibus et antiquissima, sed etiam ita subiecta tragoediae, ut haec ipsa tamquam filia pulchrior ex decora matre in luminis auras prodierit, sed quia tragoedia magis culta et perfecta ei videbatur, ab hac disputationis initium capere maluit, ut de epopoeia brevius posset absolvere, via interim ad illam disputationem praemunita. vid. c. 5 extr. sed si opus integrum ad nos pervenisset, maius videremus, credo, incommodum huic poeticae artis explicationi inde accidisse, quod non utramque dramatici generis speciem, tragoediam dico comoediamque, deinceps tractavit, sed alteram a priore illata epopoeiae explicatione discrevit. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἐν ἑξαμέτροις μιμητικῆς - ἐροῦμεν : quam vulgo ἐποποιίαν vocant, eam h. 1. τὴν ἐν ἑξαμέτροις μιμητικὴν appellavit. infra (c. 23, 1) epopoeiam quam vulgo intelligunt, nomen ipsum evitaturus,nam designavit τὴν διηγηματικὴν καὶ ἐν μέτρῳ μιμητικήν. cum ἐποποιίας nomine in operis principio (c. 1, 6) nove usus esset, telam pertexens modo ad vulgarem dicendi usum revolvitur modo ab ipso nomine abstinere voluit. ἀπολαβόντες αὐτῆς - ὅρον τῆς οὐσίας: tragoediae forma et habitus in antecedentibus iam exposita, originesque et incrementa breviter enarrata erant. inde igitur sumi ( ἀπολαμβάνεσθαι) poterat definitio ( ὅρος), ita tamen ut finis tragoediae nunc demum indicetur. dictum enim ante erat (c. 2 et 3) tragoediam esse eam agentium imitationem ut agentes ipsi producerentur narratioque excluderetur, esse porro imitationem meliorum ( βελτιόνων) hominum graviumque ( σπουδαίων); dictum erat praeterea c. 5, 4. eandem certo temporis ambitu fere includi, nec saltationem cantumque et dictionem coniuncta in illa reperiri (c. 1, 10). ea iam in unum collecta ita augentur, ut simul quem finem tragoedia propositum habeat declaretur.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-37

Ritter, cap. 6 § 2

πράξεως σπουδαίας καὶ τελείας: σπουδαίαν intelligit actionem cui magnus quidam finis propositus est, ad quem consequendum omnes eorum qui agunt vires ita intenduntur, ut ipsi aut concidant. aut post varios casus voti compotes fiant. τελεία est actio cui nihil deest, cuius est principium et medium et finis. conf. c. 7, 3. eandem aliis in locis modo τελείαν καὶ ὅλην (c. 7,2) modo simpliciter ὅλην (c. 8, 4) vocavit. μέγεθος ἔχουσης: ut tragoediae vim et finem spectatores percipiant, actio tragica ambitum quendam rerumque complexionem habeat oportet, accuratius non multo post (c. 7, 2) dixit τι μέγεθος: non enim quaevis magnitudo intelligitur, sed quae vulgo vocatur. χωρὶς ἑκάστου τῶν εἰδῶν ἐν τοῖς μορίοις: ita ut non quaeque formarum in partibus (tragoediae) assit. haec breviter significavit c. 1 extr., ubi dithyrambos nomosque et tragoediam comoediamque consentire dixit quod numero (saltatione) uterentur et cantu et metro, differre quod dithyrambi nomique illis coniunctis ( ἅμα πᾶσιν), comoediatragoediaque eisdem separatis ( κατά μέρος) imitationem peragerent. quae si contulerimus iis quae de eadem re paulo post dicuntur, - §. 3. τὸ δὲ χωρὶς τοῖς εἶδεσι τὸ διὰ μέτρων ἔνια μόνον περαίνεσθαι καὶ πάλιν ἕτερα διὰ μέλους-, a vera huius loci interpretatione non aberrabimus. εἴδη sive imitandi formae (Darstellungsweisen) tres sunt in tragoedia, dictio numero adstricta ( τὰ μέτρα), cantus ( μέλος), saltatio ( ὄρχησις). hae formae non omnes in singulis partibus tragoediae coniunctae reperiuntur, sed ubi metrica est oratio, ibi non etiam cantica 1) et saltatio: nam nonnulla (§. 3) solis metris absolvuntur et rursus alia per cantum. alii aliter explicant, quos neque reprehendere neque laudare attinet: sed unum moneo, non licere immutata codicum scriptura in eiusmodi locis verae certaeque interpretationi fundamenta subtrahere. μόρια quae h. 1. memorantur, non sunt eae tragoediae partes quae mox enumerantur, sed indefinite partes tragoediae deinceps positas intellexit. δρώντων καὶ οὐ δι' ἀπαγγελίας: tragoedia agentes ipsos producit, epopoeia quamvis δραματικῶς composita aut ipsa narrat aut nonnisi quasi agentes introducit, ut proprium eius negotium sit ἀπαγγελία. conf. c. 5, 4. caute hic noster scripsit δρώντων καὶ οὐ δι᾽ ἀπαγγελίας, non δρώντων καὶ οὐκ ἀπαγγελλόντων, propterea quod etiam in tragoediis ῥήσεις ἀγγελικαὶ inveniuntur, sed ipsae eiusmodi narrationes agentes nuntios ( δρῶντας) requirunt. tragoedia igitur dum ἀπαγγελίαν (epicam narrationem) excludit, ἀπαγγέλ λοντας tamen admittit. post ἀπαγγελίας particulam ἀλλὰ ! Aldo auctore plerique editores, praecipue antiquiores, infarserunt, sed vocula inepta a nullo codice agnosci videtur: abest saltem ab AcBcNa (id ex Bekkeri silentio aliisque indiciis certe consequitur), a Mediceis omnibus et a G.Q. mire 1) Dixerit aliquis "nonne canticis choricis subiecta est metrica oratio?" est sane; sed Aristoteles τὰ μέτρα appellat quae cantu destituta sunt, μέλος et μελοποιίαν lyricam tragoediae partem.illa torsit cum alios tum Lessingium. vid. Dramaturg. Hamb. c. 74. δι' ἐλέου καὶ φόβου περαίνουσα τὴν τῶν τομ ούτων παθημάτων κάθαρσιν : quid tragoedia efficiat vel efficere debeat, nondum significatum est; hoc igitur novum in definitione accedit neque ex antegressis colligitur. de sententia his verbis subiecta copiose disputavit Lessingius in libro laudato t. II. c. 74-78. conf. Raumerus de Aristotelis Poetica in Commentationibus academiae regiae Berolinensis a. 1828 (Berolini 1831) p. 125 sqq. illud recte Lessingius probe tenendum praecepit c. 75., tam έλεον quam φόβον communis notionis vinculo contineri, quatenus quod in aliis hominibus miseratione nos afficit, idem ne nobis accidat timemus. miseratio enim metusque in nobis oriuntur, ubi calamitatem aliis ex propinquo incumbentem vel impendentem videmus, et miseratio quidem excitatur, si miseram condicionem eorum qui eam non commeruerunt spectamus, metus, si eandem calamitatem nobis accidere posse credimus, hoc est illud quod τὰ φοβερὰ καὶ τὰ ἐλεεινὰ δι' ἄλληλα esse c. 9, 11. pronuntiatur. utramque animi perturbationem Aristoteles accurate definivit in Rhetoricis II, 5 init. et 8 init. illic de metu haec afferuntur: ἔστω δὴ φόβος λύπη τις ἢ ταραχή ἐκ φαντασίας μέλλοντος κακοῦ φθαρτικοῦ ἢ λυπηροῦ· οὐ γὰρ πάντα τὰ κακὰ φοβοῦνται, οἷον εἰ ἔσται ἄδικος ἢ βραδύς, ἀλλ' ὅσα λύπας μεγάλας ἢ φθοράς δύναται, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐὰν μὴ πόρρω ἀλλὰ σύνεγγυς φαίνηται ὥστε μέλλειν. altero loco miseratio sic definitur: ἔστω δὴ ἔλεος λύπη τις ἐπὶ φαινομένῳ κακῷ φθαρτικῷ καὶ λυπηρῷ τοῦ ἀναξίου τυγχάνειν, ὃ κἂν αὐτὸς προσδοκήσειεν ἂν παθεῖν ἢ τῶν αὐτοῦ τινά, καὶ τοῦτο, ὅταν πλησίον φαίνηται. iam tragoediae eum finem propositum esse audimus, ut ea per miserationem et metum tales animi perturbationes purget. sed quae sunt illae tales perturbationes ( τοιαῦτα παθήματα)? num ipsa miseratio metusque? et nego et aio. nego, quia non τοιούτων scriptum oportuit sed τούτων, si miseratio et metus simpliciter denotarentur, nego quia non quamcumque miserationém neque quemcumque metum πάθημα esse scio: sed idem aio per τοιούτων παθημάτων affectiones miserationis et metus significari, quia scriptum lego διὰ ἐλέου καὶ φύ βου περαίνουσα τὴν κάθαρσιν τῶν τοιούτων παθημάτων, sed eas intelligo affectiones quae sua vi hominis mentem turbant et animum commotum quam maxime reddunt, eas quarum purgationem in rebus utilissimis referri decet. itaque philosophus ne potuit quidem τούτων scribere sed τοιούτων debuit, cum nollet hoc pronuntiari, per tragoediam purgari quamcumque miserationem metumque, sed illam miserationem metumque, quorum vi animus et mens perturbarentur, h. e. miserationis metusque affectiones ita vehementes, ut in numero παθημάτων reponendae sint 2). deinceps dicendum est quomodo tragoedia eas perturbationes purget. id ut efficere possit, necesse videtur esse, ut miserationem et metum excitet: nam per haec illa miserationis et metus παθήματα purgari dicuntur. excitantur ergo in spectatoribus miseratio et timor, dum tragoedia insignem calamitatem magnosque labo- 'res aut uni dramatis personae aut pluribus etiam incumbentem vel impendentem ostendit oculisque sive spectantium sive legentium quasi explicatam subiicit. nam dum ipsi agunt illi quibus mala accidunt, haec ex propinquo et imminent et 2) Lessingius in Dramaturgia Hamburg. c. 77. dicit Aristotelem τοιούτων eo consilio scripsisse, ut metum misericordiamque et omnes similes affectiones, v. c. τὸ φιλάνθρωπον, purgari per tragoediam significaret. sed illud φιλάνθρωπον (conf c. 13,2) neque πάθημα est neque purgatione eget. verba viri peracuti haec respicio: "Er sagt aber τοιούτων und nicht τούτων; er sagt dieser und dergleichen, und nicht bloss dieser: um anzuzeigen, dass er unter dem Mitleid nicht bloss das eigentlich sogenannte Mitleid, sondern überhaupt alle philanthropische Empfindungen, so wie unter der Furcht nicht bloss die Unlust über ein uns bevorstehendes Uebel, sondern auch jede damit verwandte Unlust verstehe.” πάθημα est perturbatio, Leidenschaft, πάθος quamcumque animi affectionem denotat.incumbunt. etiam illud a poeta tragico, si quid deceat haud ignorat, prospicitur, ut calamitas non tam flagitio vel scelere adducatur quam errore quodam vel leviore peccato paretur. vid. c. 13. §. 2 et 3. etenim ad miserationem requiritur ut calamitatem quam quis perpetitur non omnino commeruerit is cuius miseremur. itaque actio tragica omnia continet quibus opus est ad miserationem in nobis excitandam. porro si homines in tragoediis qui producuntur propter peccata non admodum gravia et propter humanae infirmitatis errores acerbis adversae fortunae plagis affligi videmus, dumque recordamur et nos homines esse humanique generis vitiis et erroribus obnoxios, tum ne nobis idem quod oculis expositum est vel simile quoddam infortunium accidat, timere incipimus. itaque tragicam actionem spectantes et ob nostri et totius humani generis sortem metu quodam tangimur. adhuc diximus quomodo per tragoediam miseratio et metus excitetur: explicandum restat, qua ratione eiusmodi perturbationes purgentur. primum quaeritur quid sit κάθαρσις παθημάτων, non esse eandem ac καθαίρεσιν vel ἀναίρεσιν per se patet: immo κάθαρσις est ea affectuum animi conformatio, ut omne nimium et omne quod perturbat animum mentemque humanam inde removeatur. hanc esse veram nominis significationem et huius loci ratio et alius in Aristotelis Politicis (VIII, 7. p. 1342 a 11 et 14) ostendit. itaque non id agit tragoedia, ut miseratio et metus ex animis nostris tollantur, sed ut nimia perturbantis cuiusdam miserationis metusque vis et impetus frangatur 3). id quomodo a tragoedia perficiatur videamus. si talis est miseratio nostra metusque, ut propter calamitatem immerito alicui accidentem nonnisi gravem et acerbum dolorem sentiamus simulque humiliter et vehementer metuamus ne nobis 3) Bene Raumerus 1. 1. pag. 134.: "Die Reinigung ist keineswegs, wie einige gedeutet haben, eine Vernichtung der Leidenschaften, sondern ..eine Hinführung auf das Mittlere, mit Ausschliessung des zu viel und zu wenig.idem accidat, eiusmodi affectus animi nos deprimit et diffundit ( ποιεῖ κατακωχίμους. v. Aristoteles loco ex Politicis indicato); contrahit idem animi magnitudinem ( τὸ σεμνὸν συστέλλει) atque omnino intelligendi facultatem minuit et ratiocinandi considerandique negotium impedit; quid multa? ita integra et animi et mentis sanitas corrumpitur. iam si tragoedia hanc vim haberet, ut eiusmodi perturbationes excitaret et libere soluteque grassari sineret, ea sane legibus quam severissimis interdicenda et ex omnibus civitatibus bene constitutis expellenda esset. sed inde demum divina tragoediae vis se ostendit, quod miserationis et metus nimias affectiones purgat. purgat vero duobus modis. 1. qui insigni calamitate conflictatur in tragoedia, is contra necessitatem 4) summa virium contentione nititur et post varios casus aut concidit nobili leto aut superior discedit laeto eventu. ea consideratio, quantae sint hominum vires, spectatorem evehit eique virium humano generi concessarum scientiam largitur. ita et miseratio et metus iustis finibus continentur, ut omne nimium vel perturbatorium eis ademptum videatur. pro vehementibus animi motibus quieta cogitatio, pro perturbationibus sana rerum humanarum consideratio invalescit. 2. tragoedia miserationem metumque purgat, dum illum qui gravia perpetitur saltem ex aliqua parte ipsum suae calamitatis auctorem fuisse ostendit. vera enim tragoedia quamvis obscure monstrare non negligit, quomodo miseriis sese qui premitur subtrahere potuisset, si is ab initio iustoque etiam tempore omnes animi nervos intendisset totamque mentis considerationem adhibuisset. eiusmodi autem consideratione miseratio metusque rursus purgantur, et conscientia intellectusque praestantiae humanae excitatur. duobus hisce modis rudes illae et deprimentes sive contrahentes affectiones animi cohibentur et ad sanae mentis considerationem relatae castigantur, ut inde 4) Necessitatem dico eam rerum humanarum implicationem quae ipsis hominum erroribus vitiisque paratur.amoveatur quidquid nocere possit. quod ut fieri possit facilius, Graeca tragoedia chori sive recta suadentis et praecipientis sive prava et vitiosa severe diiudicantis interventu curavit. sed iam uberrimae disputationis, quae sane de xa- θάρσει a choro Graecorum tragicorum effecta institui posset, occasionem praecido,. ne ab ipsa interpretatione verborum Aristoteliorum deficiam: ipsos Graecos quid sit chori officium docuit summus tragicorum poetarum in disputatione de choro a se edita, vid. Suid. s. v. Σοφοκλῆς.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-38

Ritter, cap. 6 § 3

λέγω δὲ ἡδυσμένον μὲν λόγον τὸν ἔχον τα ῥυθμὸν καὶ ἁρμονίαν καὶ μέλος: λόγος ὁ ἔχων ῥυθμὸν est λόγος ἔμμετρος : numero enim condiri sive suavem reddi sermonem liquet ; numerumque metri patrem esse veteres dicere solebant. conf. ad c. 4, 6. quod c. 1, 10. ῥυθ μός pro saltatione ponitur, id nihil impedit quo minus hunc ῥυθμὸν pro numero sermonis accipiamus: numerus enim non magis sermoni quam saltationi competit. saltationem vero h. 1. intelligere non possumus, quoniam haec tragoediae quidem, sed non sermonis, est condimentum. ἁρμονίαν καὶ μέλος est ἁρμονικὸν μέλος, cantum harmoniae legibus aс- commodatum, quemadmodum λόγοι καὶ μιμήσεις sunt λόγοι μιμητικοὶ in fragmento operis περὶ Ποιητῶν, quod transcripsimus pag. 84. quod Victorius μέτρον pro μέλος ex coniectura sua scripsit, id loci ratione non satis perspecta fecit. διὰ μέτρων ἔνια μόνον περαίνεσθαι – διὰ μέλους: nonnulla metrica tantum oratione ( διὰ μέτρων) alia cantu absolvuntur sive peraguntur. saltationem non memoravit, quia saltatio non sine canticis, cantica autem multa sine saltatione peraguntur. de significatione μέτρων diximus ad c. 1,6.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-39

Ritter, cap. 6 § 4

ὁ τῆς ὄψεως κόσμος: quia personae agentes ipsae producuntur, et quidem homines gravitate conspicui ac fere claris natalibus orti, non solum scena opus est, sed co etiam apparatu quo viri graves et illustres instructi solent itaque non solum ὄψις sed ὄψεως κόσμος requiritur. etiam illud notandum est, ipsi Aristoteli ὄψιν vel ὄψεως κόσμον esse.videri necessariam tragoediae partem ( ἐξ ἀνάγκης τι μόριον τραγωδίας). aliter iudicavit huius operis interpolator infra §. 19 et c. 26, 3. vide quae ad illos locos monentur et ad c. 14, 1. εἶτα μελοποιία καὶ λέξις: postquam agentes in conspectum spectatorum venerunt, eos aut loqui aut canere oportet: eo enim imitationem peragunt. λέγω δὲ λέξιν μὲν αὐτὴν τὴν τῶν μέτρων σύνθεσιν: λέξις vulgo quamcumque dictionem denotat, sed hoc loco Aristoteles orationem modis musicis cantuque carentem sed numeris tamen adstrictam λέξιν nove vocavit. discrepat quod infra (§. 18) scripsit auctor personatus λέγω δέ, ὥσπερ πρότερον εἴρηται, λέξιν εἶναι τὴν διὰ τῆς ὀνομασίας ἑρμηνείαν. – μελοποιίαν δὲ ὃ τὴν δύναμιν φανερὰν ἔχει πᾶσαν: vocis μελοποιίας in aperto esse omnem potestatem sive significationem dicit: λέξιν enim modo posuit discedens a vulgari loquendi usu, μελοποιίαν autem intelligit eam quam vulgo dicere solent. πᾶσιν, non πᾶσαν, legendum esse Madius putavit.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-40

Ritter, cap. 6 § 5

καὶ κατὰ ταύτας καὶ τυγχάνουσι καὶ ἀποτυγχάνουσι πάντες: omnes qui agunt finem propositum pro moribus suis et sentiendi ratione feliciter consequuntur aut inceptis suis excidunt. sapiens enim et temperatus nonnisi ea sectatur quae assequi potest : immoderatus contra et stultus nimis alta et iniqua et incredibilia cupere solet, ut a fine fere aberret.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-41

Ritter, cap. 6 § 6

ἔστι δὲ τῆς μὲν πράξεως ὁ μῦθος ἡ μίμησις : multi editores codicibus invitis articulum ante μί μησις expungunt, sed frustra: hoc enim Aristoteles dicere vult, actionis imitationem de qua modo (§. 5) locutus erat contineri fabula ( τῷ μύθῳ) tragoediae subiecta. ipsum μῦθον hisce definire non intendit, sed eius definitionem statim subiunxit. λέγω γὰρ μῦθον τοῦτον τὴν σύνθεσιν τῶν πραγμάτων: dicit μῦθον τοῦτον eum quem modo cogitabat, cum tragicae actionis imitationem contineri τῷ μύθῳ pronuntiabat, h. e. nove et aliter ac vulgo μύθου nomine h. 1.usus est. hoc si bene tenuerimus, errores nonnullos ab aliis viris doctis commissos cavere poterimus. vid. Comment. ad c. 5, 3 et c. 17, 3. ubi μύθον ponit pro parte tragoediae vel epopoeiae, ibi hic novus et technicus vocis significatus valet: alioqui etiam in hoc libro μύθοι sunt fabulae (h. e. fabulosae narrationes). · τὰ δὲ ἤθη, καθ' ἃ ποιούς τινας εἶναί φαμεν: recte scripsit ποιούς τινας εἶναί φαμεν, non ποιοί τινες εἰσί: nam etiam secundum διάνοιαν sunt ποιοί τινες, sed si ποιό τητος hominum mentionem facimus, mores fere respicimus.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-42

Ritter, cap. 6 § 7

καθ' ἃ ποιά τις ἐστὶν ἡ τραγῳδία : partes illae formam tragoediae et qualitatem efficiunt. infra eaedem (c. 24, 1) nullo additamento μέρη vocantur. interpolator huius operis μέρη οἷς ὡς εἴδεσι χρῆται ἡ τραγωδία c. 12, 1. has partes designavit, idemque alteras tragoediae partes quantitatis habita ratione ( μέρη κατὰ τὸ ποσόν) constituit c. 12, 1., easque c. 18, 2. μέρη simpliciter appellavit. οἷς μὲν γὰρ μιμοῦνται, δύο μέρη ἐστίν: sunt λέξις et μελοποιία. vid. §. 4. ὡς δὲ μιμοῦνται, ἓν : est ὄψις. v. §. 4. ἃ δὲ μιμοῦνται, τρία: sunt μῦθος et ἤθη et διάνοια.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-43

Ritter, cap. 6 § 8

τούτοις μὲν οὖν - ὡσαύτως: vide possisne vel minimum ingenii Aristotelii vestigium in his agnoscere: ego non potui. cuivis tragoediae inesse sex illas partes dicit auctor personatus: verus autem (§. 11) pronuntiat non solum fieri posse tragoediam moribus carentem sed etiam a novis poetis fere ` ἀήθεις τραγῳδίας fieri. porro ne sibimet ipsa quidem haec consentiunt. nam si οὐκ ὀλίγοι αὐτῶν νίχ aliter atque de poetis tragicis accipi potest, primo non paucos eorum illis partibus (iste εἶδεσι, non μορίοις, posuit) usos esse et statim omnes isdem usos esse audimus. vel sic οὐκ ὀλίγοι αὐτῶν mire et obscure dictum est. tertium interpolationis signum est quod eadem sex nomina frigide et inepte, h. e. sine ullo consilio, recurrunt. accedunt tria indicia secundaria quibus idem probatur. corum primum est mira illa tragicorum poetarum vel generatim poetarum designatio, οὐκ ὀλίγοι αὐτῶν. alterum est πᾶν nude positum, quod quo referatur non habet: interpolator πᾶν δρᾶμα dicere videtur voluisse. tertium est additum ὡς εἰπεῖν, quod homo iste dormitans sine ratione et consilio chartae illevit. quartum adeo accedit. codices enim a Bekkero et Burgesio et aliis collati aut ὄψεις aut ὄψις exhibent, ubi ὄψις a librariis leviter a vero detortum est. quod Victorius in uno vetustissimo exemplari ὄψιν invenit, id correctori vitium ὄψις emendare temere festinanti tribuendum est, eo magis quod Madius ὄψιν in margine trium librorum ab alia manu scriptum repperit. itaque ὄψεις haud dubie vera scriptura est. sed Aristoteles ubi ὄψιν pro parte tragoediae ponit, ibi constanter et recte singularem admisit, non pluralem. vid. c. 6, 4 et 7. c. 24, 1. interpolator igitur nomen ὄψιν a se modo lectum ne repetere quidem recte potuit. conf. Comment. ad c. 6, 19.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-44

Ritter, cap. 6 § 9

ἡ γὰρ τραγῳδία μίμησίς ἐστιν οὐκ ἀνθρώπων: tragoedia non ipsos homines, h. e. totam eorum qualitatem exprimit, sed singula quaedam eorum facinora imitatur. qualitatem ita tantum pingit, quatenus ea ex actis intelligitur. ἀλλὰ πράξεως [ καὶ βίου- οὐ ποιότης]: sic exhibemus hunc locum restitutum ex librorum scriptorum fide et purgatum additamentis, quae sive Aldus sive alii correctores Itali intulerunt. tragoediam esse imitationem vitae cuiusdam ( βίου) et felicitatis ( εὐδαιμονίας) pronuntiari utique nequit, ne de illis quidem tragoediis quae laeto eventu concluduntur. quid igitur fecerunt Itali ad hoc incommodum sublevandum vel tollendum? post εὐδαιμονίας continuo inseruerunt καὶ κακοδαιμονίας, ut iam tragoedia dicatur esse imitatio felicitatis et infelicitatis. restant alia. statim enim codices praebent καὶ ἡ κακοδαιμονία ἐν πράξει ἐστι. haec cum vel correctis illis καὶ εὐδαιμονίας καὶ κακοδαιμονίας male convenirent, iidem Itali scripserunt καὶ γὰρ ἡ εὐδαιμονία ἐν πράξει ἐστι. antiqua igitur scriptura ex scriptis libris restituta, videamus quid ea faciendum sit. interpolator aliquis antiquus apud Aristotelem paulo post cum legeret εἰσὶ.. κατὰ δὲ τὰς πράξεις εὐδαίμονες ἢ τουναντίον, inde sumpsit primum illud suum καὶ βίου καὶ εὐδαιμονίας, et hoc post πράξεως inseruit; tum propter illud τούναντίον adiecit explicationis gratia καὶ ἡ κακοδαιμονία ἐν πράξει ἐστί. porro cum legeret εἰσὶ δὲ κατὰ μὲν τὰ ἤθη ποιοί τινες, et paulo post ὥστε τὰ πράγματα καὶ ὁ μῦθος τέλος τῆς τραγωδίας, iste iam hic posuit καὶ τὸ τέλος πρᾶξίς τις ἐστίν, οὐ ποιότης. sed finem esse actionem, non qualitatem, monere h. 1. nihil attinebat. finis enim ( τὸ τέλος) per sese est quod homines omnibus factis suis consequi student (v. Ethica Nicom. 1, 5. Magna Mor. I, 4. Eudem. II, 1), tragoediae autem finis singulari quadam actione continetur. de fine igitur generatim dici quidquam h. 1. non aptum erat. quid, quod tragoediae finem esse τὸν μῦθον (h. e. πρᾶξιν sive πράγματα) non multo post ex praecedentibus demum colligitur? sic: ὥστε τὰ πράγματα καὶ ὁ μῦθος τέλος τῆς τραγῳδίας. itaque falsus scriptor verum praecurrens fini generatim vindicat 4) quae ille de tragoediae fine praedicat. insiticiis eiectis, Aristotelis ratiocinatio bene procedit, id quod manifestissimum est interpolationis indicium. propositio maior est ἡ γὰρ τραγῳδία μίμησίς ἐστιν οὐκ ἀνθρώπων (h. e. ποιότητος ἀνθρώπων) ἀλλὰ πράξεως. sequitur minor εἰσὶ δὲ (h. e. atqui sunt cet.) κατὰ μὲν τὰ ἤθη ποιοί τινες, κατὰ δὲ τὰς πράξεις εὐδαίμονες ἢ τουναντίον. inde hoc consectatarium est, οὔκουν (non igitur) ὅπως τὰ ἤθη (sive τὴν ποιότητα) μιμήσωνται πράττουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἤθη συμπεριλαμβάνουσι διὰ τὰς πράξεις. ex his tribus pronuntiatis consequitur iam altera et primaria conclusio ὥστε τὰ πράγματα καὶ ὁ μῦθος τέλος τῆς τραγῳδίας, cui cum successisset τὸ δὲ τέλος μέγιστον ἁπάντων, nunc ostensum est quod demon- 4) Quae interpolator de fine ( τῷ τέλει) profert, ea Aristotelis doctrinae alibi expositae non quidem repugnant, sed Aristoteles ipse placita sua neque loco non apto neque nisi aliis libris allegatis afferre solet.13) strandum ante proposuerat (§.9 init.), dico μέγιστον δὲ τούτων ἐστὶν ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων σύστασις. ex illo enim additamento τὸ δὲ τέλος μέγιστον ἁπάντων apparet fabulam non solum potiorem esse moribus sed potiorem etiam ceteris tragoediae partibus.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-45

Ritter, cap. 6 § 11

post absolutam illam ratiocinationem (§. 9-10) hinc iam sequuntur quattuor σημεῖα, quibus quae ante demonstrata sunt firmari auctor voluit. primum est, sine moribus fieri tragoediam posse, sine fabula non posse. a

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-46

Ritter, cap. 6 § 12

ἔτι ἐάν τις ἐφεξῆς – καὶ σύστασιν πραγμάτων: est alterum σημεῖον. particulam negantem ante ποιήσει ex Aldina recepi cum ceteris editoribus. codicibus omittitur, et quidem ab omnibus ut videtur; Buhlius certe ex Winstanleii silentio nimis festinanter collegit οὐ inesse libris Mediceis. etiamsi concedere ultro velis, eum quoque qui deinceqs ponet sermones moratos et locutiones sententiasque bene factas, quodammodo facere quod sit tragici poetae officium, tum saltem scribi oportuit ποιήσει μὲν ὅ ἐστι τῆς τραγῳδίας ἔργον. ut nunc est, particula negante carere non possumus.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-47

Ritter, cap. 6 § 13

tertium signum ad fabulae praestantiam et dignitatem declarandam ex partibus eius ducitur: nam cum eae valde graves sint, totum non minus grave esse sequitur. ceterum partes illae, περιπέτεια et ἀναγνώρισις, non in omnibus fabulis reperiuntur sed in unis implexis. haec igitur minus accurate scripta sunt.

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-48

Ritter, cap. 6 § 14

ἔτι σημεῖον κτλ. accedit quartum σημεῖον ad obtinendam sententiam §. 9. pronuntiatam. - οἷον καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι ποιηταὶ σχεδὸν ἅπαντες : non solum tragoediarum scriptores qui certare primum incipiunt in operis summa solent deficere, sed ceteri quoque poetae fere omnes, cum carmina pangere primum adgrediuntur.

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-49

Ritter, cap. 6 § 15

-19. quae iam sequuntur ab aliena manu Aristotelis operi inserta esse dico, et inserta quidem ab antiquo interpolatore qui hanc disputationem mancam esse ratus, cum unius fabulae dignitatis explicatio ei sufficere non videretur,ceterarum etiam partium ordinem et gradus exponendos sibi sumpsit, sed efficere quod operae pretium esset tamen non potuit, ut haec pro insiticiis habeam, quinque mihi suadent argumenta. 1. ordo singulis sententiis et nexus deest. 2. quae iam dicta sunt inepte repetuntur. 3. definitiones partim falsae partim inanes proponuntur. 4. nonnulla prioribus repugnant. 5. exposita fabulae prae ceteris partibus praestantia, post §. 14. apte pergere Aristoteles potest ut pergit capitis 7. initio. mores autem post fabulam gravissimam tragoediae partem esse, hoc sibi a legentibus concedi sperare ille poterat. singula ordine persequar. · παραπλήσιον - εἰκόνα: rerum complexionem primum tragoediae negotium esse, proximum autem descriptionem morum, id pessime hoc exemplo illustrari amantissimus quisque veritatis libenter mihi concesserit. scilicet φάρμακα pulcherrima et fuse illita comparavit iste cum moribus, imaginem albam delineatam cum fabula. utrisque delectari homines statuit, sed coloribus istis fuse illitis non aeque ( οὐχ ὁμοίως) atque imagine alba delineata. itaque (sic ille ratiocinatus est) fabula magis delectat quam mores, ideoque mores post fabulam collocandi sunt. hem hominem acutum. praeterea ἐναλείφειν τοῖς καλλίστοις φαρμάκοις est illinere pulcherrimis coloribus, ubi deest quid coloribus inducatur : quippe debuit ἐναλείψειε τὰ κάλλιστα φάρμακα. sed quaeritur possitne vitari offensio, si hic locus in fine §. 12. post ἔχουσα δὲ μῦθον καὶ σύστασιν πραγμάτων inseratur, id quod fecerunt et Buhlius et Hermannus. ego non sequar; primum quia transpositio ipsa violentum est remedium, tum quia non esse Aristotelis scio in re manifesta post minimum intervallum ex eadem arte exemplum petere, quod fit si haec post §. 12. inseruntur, deinde quod comparatio vel sic male instituta est: nam tum colores nullo ordine ( χύδην) illiti conferuntur moralibus sermonibus deinceps positis, cet. aliud indicium, quo transpositionem perperam fieri liquet, ex sequentibus (§. 15 extr.) se offert: nam transpositione facta, iam illa ἔστι τε μίμησις πράξεως, καὶ διὰ ταύτην μάλιστα τῶν πραττόντων sic legi non possunt, sed pro τε cum Hermanno γὰρ substituendum est. sed quis tandem pro γὰρ ponere τε animum induxisset, si id ab initio fuisset? immo τε non mutandum: interpolator enim iam alterum affert σημεῖον, unde mores post fabulam proximum locum occupare iste prò- bare intendit, idque imperite adnectit ἔστι τε μίμησις κτλ., imperite quidem sed tam bene quam ab isto exspectari potest. ipsam suam sapientiam hausit ex Aristoteliis illis (§. 10) οὔκουν ὅπως τὰ ἤθη μιμήσωνται πράττουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἤθη συμπεριλαμβάνουσι διὰ τὰς πράξεις. cum scribit τῶν πραττόντων, cogitavit iste τῆς ποιότητος (vel ἤθων) τῶν πραττόντων. fortasse respexit etiam illa (§. 9) ἡ γὰρ τραγῳδία μίμησίς ἐστιν οὐκ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὰ πράξεως.

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-50

Ritter, cap. 6 § 16

τρίτον δὲ διάνοια. τοῦτο κτλ. διάνοιαν Aristoteles definivit §. 6., interpolator definitionem h. 1. promit ab Aristotelia multum diversam et paulo post (§. 17) aliam etiam cum Aristotelia convenientem. num haec Aristostoteli tribuemus ? num Aristolelem eodem capite ter ad idem revolvi putabimus? sed vide mihi priorem hanc interpolatoris definitionem διανοίας: esse facultatem dicendi ( τὸ λέγειν δύνασθαι) quae in re sint quaeque apta sint. nimirum Aristoteles διάνοιαν partem tragoediae intelligit (den Gedankengehalt), interpolator eandem pro facultate humana accipit (die Fähigkeit das Richtige und Passende zu sagen.) - ὅπερ ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων κτλ. technicus noster digreditur ad orationes. conf. Commentar. ad c. 25,3. quod sequitur οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀρχαῖοι πολιτικῶς ἐποίουν λέγοντας, οἱ δὲ νῦν ῥητορικῶς, perperam de poetis tragicis antiquis et novis dictum esse multi crediderunt: immo tota illa digressio ὅπερ ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων - ῥητορικῶς aperte oratores spectat, non poetas. distinguit interpolator inter oratores politicos, h. e. qui de veris causis dicebant, et scholasticos qui fictas componebant.

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-51

Ritter, cap. 6 § 17

ὃ δηλοῖ τὴν προαίρεσιν ὁποία τις: haec hausta sunt ex Rhetoricis III, 16. p. 1417 a 15. statim autem discurrit iterum ad orationes, διόπερ οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἦθος τῶν λόγων ἐν οἷς cet., et mire scribit τῶν λόγων ἐν οἷς cet. pro τῶν λόγων ὅσοις μηδ' ὅλως ἔνεστι, quam insolentiam in Latina interpretatione servavi. iam tertium revolvitur homo inconstantissimus ad διάνοιαν, et nunc quidem eius definitionem promit Aristoteli consentientem, sed suae modo prolatae repugnantem.

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-52

Ritter, cap. 6 § 18

τέταρτον - δύναμιν: haec omnia inania sunt et inepta et Aristoteliis male convenientia. Aristoteles enim λέξιν partem tragoediae constituit, et quidem eam partem quae numeris inclusa est sed cantu et saltatione caret, senarios, etiam tetrametros et anapaestos plerosque, hic homo orationum elocutionem intelligit et paulo post non recte Aristotelis definitione percepta addit λέξιν esse τὴν διὰ τῆς ὀνομασίας ἑρμηνείαν. scilicet interpolator explicat quam λέξιν vulgo intelligant homines, Aristoteles eodem nomine nove usus est ad designandam tragoediae partem. ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων: in orationibus prosa sermone conscriptis.

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-53

Ritter, cap. 6 § 19

quae a §. 15 usque ad hunc locum tractavi, ea non esse Aristotelis in posterum omnes credituros esse spero : sed quae iam sequuntur fortasse defendi possunt, si quis in fine §. 14. verba δεύτερον δὲ τὰ ἤθη a me Aristoteli relicta etiam interpolatori tribuat, ut finis §. 14. et initium §. 19. in hunc modum connectantur ἀρχὴ μὲν οὖν καὶ οἷον ψυχὴ ὁ μύθος τῆς τραγῳδίας· τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν πέντε ἡ μελοποιία μέγιστον τῶν ἡδυσμάτων. sed haec quoque defensio consistere nequit. nam cum adhuc, ex medio sublatis illis §. 15-18., de duobus (de moribus et fabula) dictum esset, pergere debuit τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν τεττάρων, non πέντε. neque ratio est, cur διάνοιαν et λέξιν silentio transmitti, ὄψιν autem et μελοποιίαν rursus memorari vellet. accedunt alia quae statim afferentur. τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν πέντε: quomodo quinque partes supersunt, cum post quattuor ante commemoratas duae restent, μελοποιία et ὄψις ? dixerit aliquis, postremo disputatum esse de dictione ( λέξει), quam respiciens Aristoteles scripserit τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν πέντε. sed haec vana sunt. sic enim )haec prodit sententia, μελοποιίαν excepta dictione ( λέξει) omnium partium summum esse condimentorum tragoediae, sed quis λέξιν condimentum tragoediae appellaverit? immo tragoediae ne sunt quidem condimenta, sed sunt dictionis ( λέξεως), numeri videlicet et cantus. vid. c. 6, 3. hoc πέντε igitur dormitanti homini tribuendum erit. ἡ δὲ ὄψις-ποιητικῆς: haec per se non falsa videntur, sed vix conciliari poterunt cum illa Aristotelis sententia (§. 4) quae ὄψιν necessariam tragoediae partem constituit. neque id verum omnino videtur, ὄψιν esse ἀτεχνότατον καὶ ἥκιστα οἰκεῖον τῆς ποιητικῆς: immo in excogitandis rerum et casuum formis in scena repraesentandis magna poе- tae solertia versari potest. interpolator de rebus quibusdam externis cogitasse videtur. id apparet ex additis ἡ γὰρ τῆς τραγῳδίας δύναμις καὶ ἄνευ ἀγῶνος καὶ ὑποκριτῶν ἐστίν. est sane, sed tamen sine ὄψει tragoedia consistere non potest: nam si legitur tantum, ὄψις illa suppleri a legentibus vel audientibus debet, ut ne sic quidem deesse possit. - ἔτι δὲ κυριωτέρα- τῶν ποιητῶν ἐστίν: etiam haec argumento sunt, interpolatorem quid ὄψιν Aristoteles intellexerit non satis percepisse. numerum pluralem apud verum Aristotelem in hoc opere non invenio. vid. c. 6, 8., ubi ὄψεις in loco ab aliena manuinserta. numeri insolentiam tenui in Latina interpretatione.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-54

Ritter, cap. 7 § 1

Actio tragoediae subiecta tota sit oportet. eius quod est totum definitio. iusta actionis tragicae mensura. Postquam tragoediae definitionem proposuit et partes enumeravit, fabulamque sive rerum complexionem esse sum- *mum et primum tragoediae negotium monstravit, iam ad hanc partem accuratius declarandam accedit, idque argumentumpertractavit. c. 7-11 et c. 13-14. quae inter utrumque locum interposita sunt (c. 12), ea pro falsis habenda esse ostendere suo loco conabor. διωρισμένων- τῆς τραγῳδίας ἐστίν: haec perbene succedunt post illa c. 6, 14., quae insertis falsis ab hisce seiuncta et divulsa sunt. particula ἐπειδὴ (quandoquidem) certis argumentis id niti significat quod h. 1. enuntiatur.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-55

Ritter, cap. 7 § 2

κεῖται δ᾽ ἡμῖν: quod certum est nullis moveri vel ferri dubitationis fluctibus cogitatur sed eodem loco permanere et iacere. contrarium, est κινεῖσθαι et ἀμφισβητεῖσθαι. de quibus inter omnes convenit, ea τὰ κείμενα sunt in Metaphysicis O. 4. p. 1047 b 10. ἔστι γὰρ ὅλον καὶ μηδὲν ἔχον μέγεθος: haec fortasse ex glossa nata sunt. admonitio enim supervacanea est et inutilis. incipit eodem fere modo atque subsequens τοῦ ὅλου definitio: ἔστι γὰρ ὅλον cet. et ὅλον δ' ἐστὶ cet.; itemque structura καὶ μηδὲν ἔχον μέγεθος statim redit τὸ ἔχον ἀρχὴν cet.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-56

Ritter, cap. 7 § 3

ὅλον δ' ἐστὶ - τελευτήν: totum esse cuius sit principium et finis et medium cum definitur, haec definitio tum erit manifesta, si quid sit principium et finis et medium non ignoraveris. tres igitur definitionis notiones statim explanantur. ἀρχὴ δ' ἐστὶν κτλ. quot modis ἀρχὴ diceretur, in Metaphysicis 1. 1. explicatur, huc pertinet quarta illa ratio: ἡ δὲ ὅθεν πρῶτον ἡ κίνησις πέφυκεν ἄρχεσθαι καὶ μεταβολή. ἢ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἢ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ: aut necessario aut probabiliter. ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ idem est atque κατὰ τὸ εἰκός. vid. infra §. 7. κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον. c. 10, 3. ἢ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἢ κατὰ τὸ εἰκός. nimirum quod plerumque fit, id probabiliter fieri dicimus, quod semper, necessario id fieri colligimus. finis ex principio et medio ita procedere potest, ut aut praeter hunc alius esse non possit, aut talis consequatur qualis plerumque ex illo principio et medio nascitur. μήθ' ὁπόθεν ἔτυχεν ἄρχεσθαι μήθ' ὅπου ἔτυχε τελευτᾶν: tragoediae fabula ita constituenda est, ut actionis principium non desit, h. e. ut actio tragica ex aliaextra tragoediam sita non necessario consequatur. non negligendum est quod in definitione τῆς ἀρχῆς additur μετ' ἀνάγκης. nam quo minus quidquam praecesserit quo actio in tragoedia magnopere afficiatur, nihil est quod impediat, dummodo ne tale quid praegressum sit, unde nihil nisi actio illa tragica posset oriri: ita enim fabula principio suo orbata erit. idem dici de fine potest. ea enim fabula vere finita est, cuius actio ita exit, ut nova actio inde necessario consequi non videatur. mirum sane est, quod h. 1. nihil de trilogiis tragoediarum expositum invenimus. sane hic locus erat, si de illa compositione tragoediarum quidquam dicere voluisset.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-57

Ritter, cap. 7 § 4

τὸ γὰρ καλόν ἐν μεγέθει καὶ τάξει ἐστί: pulchrum ( τὸ καλόν) oritur, ubi varium quoddam forma vel idea comprehenditur et in unum collectum a nobis percipitur. conf. Polit. VII, 4. p. 1326 a 32. θείας γὰρ δὴ τοῦτο δυνάμεως ἔργον, ἥτις καὶ τόδε συνέχει τὸ πᾶν, ἐπεὶ τό γε καλὸν ἐν πλήθει καὶ μεγέθει εἴωθε γίνεσθαι. de pulchri definitione ab Aristotele passim significata potius quam explicata disputavit Eduardus Müller in Historia doctrinae artis apud veteres vol. II. p. 95 sqq. ceterum structura verborum, coepta ab illis (§. 4 init.) ἔτι δ᾽ ἐπεὶ τὸ καλὸν cet., interiecta hac sententia τὸ γὰρ καλὸν ἐν μεγέθει cet. abrumpitur et demum §. 5. iterum inchoatur. quae secum comparantur haec sunt: ἔτι δ' ἐπεὶ τὸ καλὸν καὶ ζῷον καὶ ἅπαν πρᾶγμα ὃ συνέστηκεν ἔκ τίνων, οὐ μόνον ταῦτα τεταγμένα δεῖ ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ μέγεθος ὑπάρχειν μὴ τὸ τυχόν ..., οὕτω (§. 5) καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν μύθων ἔχειν μὲν μῆκος, τοῦτο δ᾽ εὐμνημόνευτον εἶναι. conf. Comment. ad c. 2, 1. ... διὸ οὔτε πάμμικρον ἄν τι γένοιτο καλόκ ζῷον .. οὔτε παμμέγεθες: hisce similia exposita legimus in Politicis VII, 4. – συγχεῖται γὰρ ἡ θεωρία κτλ. ubi contemplatio confunditur, unum illud ac varium simul percipere ideoque ipsum pulchrum agnoscere non pot- οἷον εἰ μυρίων σταδίων εἴη ζῷον: similiter sed minus ὑπερβολικῶς loquitur in Politicis VII, 4. p. 1326 a est.40. οἷον πλοῖον σπιθαμιαῖον μὲν οὐκ ἔσται πλοῖον ὅλως, οὐδὲ δυοῖν σταδίοιν. ::

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-58

Ritter, cap. 7 § 6

ὥσπερ ποτὲ καὶ ἄλλοτε φασίν: quid sibi velit hoc inane additamentum, nemo demonstrare potuit. si explicamus quomodo olim et alias factum esse dicunt, primum additur quod non inest in Graecis (factum esse), tum ἄλλοτε inepte post ποτέ et frigide adiungitur. nam si ποτέ et ἄλλοτε sibi respondent, varia tempora indicantur ¹). quapropter eae voces per xa ὶ connecti non possunt, non magis quam Latinis modo et modo dicere licet pro modo - modo. :

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-59

Ritter, cap. 8 § 1

Fabulam tragoediae unam esse oportet. unitas fabulae quomodo concilietur, una est, si unius actionis eiusque totius imitatio est. : μύθος δ᾽ ἐστὶν εἷς, οὐχ ὥσπερ τινὲς οἴ ονται, ἐὰν περὶ ἕνα ᾖ : primum refellit falsam aliorum opinionem de fabulae unitate conceptam, sed respi. cere haec reprehensio videtur non tam eos qui ante se de arte poetica disputaverant, quam illos poetas qui editis carminibus prodiderant se de unitate fabulae falsam imbibisse sententiam. scribit enim οὐχ ὥσπερ τινὲς οἴονται, non οὐχ ὥσπερ τινὲς λέγουσιν, ac continuo addit διὸ πάντες ἐοίκασιν ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅσοι τῶν ποιητῶν Ἡρακληΐδα καὶ Θησηΐδα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ποιήματα πεποιήκασιν· οἴονται γὰρ ἕνα καὶ τὸν μῦθον εἶναι προσήκειν. ... πολλὰ γὰρ καὶ ἄπειρα τῷ γένει συμβαίνει κτλ. multa et infinita genere contingunt, quorum nonnulla unitate carent. ἄπειρα τῷ γένει dictum est ut τῷ γένει ἕτερα 1) Conf. Sophoclis Antig. 367. sive editionis Herm. 364. ποτὲ μὲν κακόν, ἄλλοτ᾽ ἐπ᾿ ἐσθλὸν ἕρπει.c. 1, 3. genitivus ἐνίων pendet a praepositione, sed pronominis relativi ( ὧν) casus ab ἐνίων aptus est. multa et ges nere diversa inter homines contingunt, sive ab ipsis hominibus sive alia vi efficiuntur, quorum nonnulla ita comparata sunt ut unum in illis non reperiatur. Victorius γ' ἑνὶ pro γένει a se inventum commendavit et pluribus editoribus adprobavit. tum oritur inanis oppositio inter ea quae accidunt ( ἃ συμβαίνει) uni alicui et inter actiones ( τὰς πράξεις) unius, sed utrumque nomen non contraria significatione sed eadem h. 1. positum esse apparet ex §. 3., ubi simulata Ulixis insania in iis refertur, ὅσα αὐτῷ συνέβη. itaque nonnisi variationis gratia statim scribit οὕτω δὲ καὶ πράξεις ἑνὸς πολ λαί εἰσιν pro οὕτω δὲ καὶ συμβαίνει ἑνὶ πολλά, ex una igitur parte quae contingunt vel fiunt generatim ponuntur, ex altera casus et facta ( αἱ πράξεις utraque denotant) unius memorantur. in lectione a Victorio excogitata particula illa πανακής ( γ') tolerari nequit.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-60

Ritter, cap. 8 § 2

διὸ πάντες ἐοίκασιν ἁμαρτάνειν-τὴν Ἰλιάδα: mirari subeat cur Aristoteles tragicis poetis missis ad epicos evagetur, sed hoc ille rationis habuit: nimirum violatae unitatis insigne exemplum et ad hanc disputationem prae ceteris accommodatum illi poetae suggerebant qui unius viri facta carmine illustraverant. iam cum ex poetis epicis vitiosae compositionis exempla dedisset, ex eisdem bonum exemplum et imitandum proposuit Homerum. ὅσοι τῶν ποιητῶν Ἡρακληΐδα καὶ Θησηΐδα κτλ. notat Pisandrum et Panyasin Herculeidum auctores satis notos incertumque Theseidos scriptorem a Plutarcho Thes. c. 28. memoratum. conf. de hoc postremo Welckeri Cyclus epicus p. 321. praeterea Diogenes Laertius Pythostratum Theseidos auctorem satis recentem et ipso Aristotele fortasse aetate minorem nominat II, 59. γεγόνασι δὲ Ξενοφῶντες ἑπτά· πρῶτος αὐτὸς οὗτος· δεύτερος ᾿Αθηναῖος, ἀδελφὸς Πυθοστράτου 1) τοῦ τὴν Θη- 1) Scriptura Νικοστράτου minus a codicibus commendatur. σηΐδα πεποιηκότος, γεγραφὼς ἄλλα τε καὶ βίον Ἐπαμινώνδου καὶ Πελοπίδου. Diphili Theseis commemorata a scholiasta Pindari ad Olymp. X (XI), 83. an fuerit unquam et an epо- poeia fuerit ego vehementer dubito. hanc certe Aristoteles respicere non potuit 2). - καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ποιήματα: poetarum cyclicorum poemata praecipue designat. conf. c. 23, 3.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-61

Ritter, cap. 8 § 3

Ὀδύσσειαν γὰρ ποιῶν: nomen Ὀδύσσειαν h. 1. posuit pro Ὀδυσσέως ποίημα, ein Odysseus-Gedicht. hoc tenendum est, primum ut cur articulus absit intelligamus, qui paulo post non deest ante Ὀδύσσειαν et Ἰλιάδα, tum ut mirum ne videatur post Ὀδύσσειαν ποιῶν sequi αὐτῷ, ad quod Ulixis nomen subintelligendum est. conf. Comment. ad c. 4,10. - οἷον πληγῆναι μὲν ἐν τῷ Παρνάσσῳ, μανῆναι δὲ προσποιήσασθαι ἐν τῷ ἀγερμῷ: quemadmodum Homerus a violanda unitatis lege sibi caverit ut exemplo monstraretur, duo quae ex Ulixis vita memorari poterant selecta, sed ea et tempore discreta et nullo causae effectusque vinculo connexa, Aristoteles composuit, quorum prius ab Homero episodii loco narratur (Od. T. 430 sqq.), alterum silentio ab eodem transmittitur. nimirum talia qui coniuncta refert, is in rebus succedentibus neque probabilitatem neque necessitatem consectatur. nam post vulnus in Parnasso acceptum consequi fictam Ulixis insaniam, dum Graecorum exercitus repetendae a Troianis Helenae causa colligitur ( ἐν τῷ ἀγερμῷ), id neque probabile videtur neque necessario postulatur. qui haec iungit, τὰ γενόμενα narrat, non οἷα ἂν γένοιτο. nihil quidem refert, quod earum rerum 2) Theseis Diphili, unde duos versiculos metro Hipponacteo scriptos servavit Pindari scholiasta, huius hominis errori deberi videtur. nimirum Diphilus novae comoediae scriptor comoediam Θησέα, non epopoeiam Θησηΐδα, fecit. vid. Athen. VI. p. 262 A. X. p. 451 B et C. antiquam Θησηΐδα Pindari scholiasta sine nomine auctoris designavit ad Ol. ΙΙΙ, 52. ὁ γὰρ Θησηΐδα γράψας τοιαύτην ( χρυσόκερων) αὐτὴν (h. e. τὴν θήλειαν ἔλαφον) λέγει καὶ Πείσανδρος ὁ Καμειρεὺς καὶ Φερεκύδης.quae h. 1. commemorantur, una ab Homero proposita altera praetermissa est, sed tamen prudenter hoc fecisse Aristoteles videtur, ut magis illarum rerum discrepantia intelligeretur, cum idem poeta qui unam occasione data exposuit, alteram ne in episodio quidem admittendam putaret. copiose acuteque de hoc loco disputavit Gr. Guil. Nitzsch de Historia Homeri Meletem. fasc. II. pag. 4-6. περὶ μίαν πρᾶξιν, οἵαν λέγομεν: ne perperam acciperentur quae de una actione dicuntur, additum est οἷαν λέγομεν, qualem dicimus (was wir darunter verstehen). quippe intelligit πρᾶξιν ex pluribus quidem πράγμασιν constantem sed in unum collectam, eo quod singulae actionis partes secundum legem necessitatis vel probabilitatis sese excipientes totum quoddam conficiunt. hoc unum in Odyssea est reditus Ulixis, in Iliade ira Achillis.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-62

Ritter, cap. 8 § 4

χρὴ οὖν - ταύτης ὅλης: exemplis rectae factorum compositionis ac vitiosae propositis, norma iam et lex unitatis constituitur. quemadmodum in aliis imitandi generibus una imitatio unum quoddam exprimit imitando, sic fabula, cui actio ad imitandum destinata est, hoc suum obiectum unum totumque exprimere debet. – διαφέρεσθαι καὶ κινεῖσθαι τὸ ὅλον: si singulae actionis partes per sese constant, una vel altera moveri potest ex toto, et hoc nihilo minus remanet: sin omnes artissimo vinculo cohaerent, sublata una totum dissipatur ( διαφέρεται), ceteraeque loco suo moventur ( κινοῦνται).

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-63

Ritter, cap. 9 § 1

Quid sit discriminis inter poetam et historiae scriptorem. quomodo materia ex historia petita uti poetam deceat, quid in argumentis mere fabulosis cavendum sit. tragoedia imitari timenda et miseranda ita debet, ut in his causae effectusque successio agnoscatur. Quae de fabula sive argumento tragoediae adhuc exposita sunt (c. 7 et 8), inde nonnulla colliguntur, quibus non solum tragicae poesis indoles sed simul totius poeticae artis ratio et natura illustratur ac definitur. nam ut poetae opus pulchritudine splendeat, unitatem ille consectari debet (c.7). unitas autem turbatur ac tollitur multitudine partium iusto vinculo carentium. sed illud vinculum subest actionis cuiusdam partibus, si unum eius actionis momentum ex altero consequitur. itaque non quae facta sunt poeta imitari debet, sed quae fieri possunt, quamquam nihil obstat quo minus materia ab historia oblata utatur, dummodo hanc apte eligere ac probe disponere et pertractare sciat. rursus non est satis, si tragoediae argumentum ex fabularum cyclo sumptum tractatur: immo eiusmodi argumenta pessima sunt, si ex partibus non cohaerentibus conserta proponuntur. Lessingius partem huius disputationis in patriam linguam convertit et Aristotelis sententiam tum vere tum falso explicuit in Dramaturgia Hamburgensi tom. II. c. 89-91. او : · §. 1. φανερὸν δὲ ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων - ἀλλ' οἷα ἂν γένοιτο : quae dicta sunt de unitate partiumque actionis nexu, inde consequitur a poeta non quae facta sunt, sed quae fieri possunt, imitando exprimi: nam quae in hominum vita accidunt, ea plerumque varia sunt ac nullo vinculo continentur. οἷα ἂν γένοιτο sive τὰ δυνατὰ dum scribit, unum respexit contrarium id quod re vera contigit ( τὰ γενόμενα), ut ex una parte τὰ γενόμενα, ex altera οἷα ἂν γένοιτο sive τὰ δυνατά ponantur. haec δυνατά sive οἷα ἂν γένοιτο in duas species dividuntur, in δυνατὰ κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς et δυνατὰ κατὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον. itaque quod fieri potest, id aut ita comparatum est ut nihil nisi hoc ipsum fieri possit ( τὰ δυνατὰ κατὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον), aut ita ut hoc fieri nemo miretur ( τὰ δυνατὰ κατὰ τὸ εἰκός). exemplo rem planam faciam. cum Agamemno Achillem offendit, hunc pro moribus vehementer irasci iramque ostendere facto quodam necesse est, idque est δυνατὸν κατὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον. sed quod ille ab Achivis plane discedit oculosque clade eorum pavet eoque irae suae gratificatur, id est δυνα- τὸν κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς. conf. c. 15, 6. Madii et Buhlii de hoc loco dubitationes dextre discussit Hermannus.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-64

Ritter, cap. 9 § 2

μετά μέτρου ἢ ἄνευ μέτρων: cum scribit μετὰ μέτρου, cogitat de uno aliquo metri genere, cui Herodoti historias includere quis posset, cum ἄνευ μέτρων, quodcumque genus metrorum ab illis abesse significat.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-65

Ritter, cap. 9 § 3

διὸ καὶ φιλοσοφώτερον - ἐστίν: poesis cogitandi facultatem et rationem hominis exercet, eo quod a singulis abstinens universa ( τὰ καθόλου) consectatur. qui circa singula versatur, eius adspiciendi et singulas imagines rerum considerandi facultas praecipue occupatur, id quod omnibus hominibus et quovis tempore facile potest contingere. sed singula mittere et sequi universa philosophi est. praeterea quae fieri verisimile est aut necesse, causas eorum anquirere mens humana compellitur. sed causas rerum invenire et cognoscere, id rursus praecipuum philosophiae negotium est. σπουδαιότερον est σπουδῆς ἀξιώτερον, h. e. dignius sive gravius.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-66

Ritter, cap. 9 § 4

ἔστι δὲ καθόλου μὲν: subintellige λέγειν, universe dicere est proferre quae genus quoddam hominum dicere aut facere consentaneum est. quae generi contingunt, non singulis generis hominibus, ea sibi constant et aeterna durant, non subiecta mutationis vicibus. vid. Metaph. 4. 9. p. 1017 b 35. τὰ γὰρ καθόλου καθ᾽ αὑτὰ ὑπάρχει, τὰ δὲ συμβε βηκότα οὐ καθ' αὑτὰ ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστα ἁπλῶς λέγεται. conf. Ζ. 13. p. 1039 a 1. ( τὸ καθόλου οὐ σημαίνει) τόδε τι ἀλλὰ τοιόνδε. τὰ δὲ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον κτλ. singularia sunt quae huic illive acciderunt, v. c. quae Alcibiades egit aut passus est. οὗ στοχάζεται ἡ ποίησις ὀνόματα ἐπιτιθεμένη: excellit totius capitis huiusce explicatio praeclara perspicuitate et luculenta rerum expositarum veritate, neque alia huius libri pars tantis et tam iustis laudibus excepta est. sed quid dicemus de his verbis, quae non solum explanationis iustum ordinem subito impediunt, sed etiam obscuram quandam et falsam sententiam pronuntiant? impediri ordinem disputationis unusquisque et viderit et concesserit: definitur enim quid sit dicere τὰ καθόλου et τὰ καθ'᾿ ἕκαστον, quorum prius illud ab altero istis illatis male disiungitur. sed id fortasse quocumque tandem modo excusaveris; id gravius est, falsa esse quae inserta legimus: falso enim affirmatur nominibus imponendis τὰ καθόλου sectari poesin, h. e. omnia poesis genera. sed continuo Aristoteles vere hoc dicit, comoediam qualis iam sit adhibere nomina communia, tragoediam fere singulorum hominum nomina a maioribus tradita tenere. itaque interpolator illud, quod de sui temporis comoedia apte recteque observavit sapientissimus auctorum, sinistre falsoque ad totam poesin putavit pertinere. Lessingius in libro laudato c. 89. multa molitus est ut sanam sententiam his verbis subesse monstraret, sed facile agnoscas ab homine acutissimo desperatam causam defendi.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-67

Ritter, cap. 9 § 5

ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς κωμῳδίας ἤδη τοῦτο δῆλον γέγονεν: comoedia usque ad aetatem Aristotelis duas praecipue formas assumpserat, quarum priorem antiquam ( τὴν παλαιάν), alteram mediam ( τὴν μέσην) grammaticorum veterum exemplo appellamus. tertia, quam novam ( τὴν νέαν) Graeci grammatici vocant, nondum orta erat, cum Aristoteles haec scriberet, sed sub mortem eius in eo erat ut Philemonis et Menandri opera oreretur. nova comoedia tam nominibus quam argumentis τὰ καθόλου semper secuta est, media plerumque idem fecit. antiqua quae fere singulos homines notavit, eatenus τὰ καθ' ἕκαστον probasse dici potest, quamquam argumenta eius et ipsa τὰ καθόλου sectata sunt. ex antiquis comoediae scriptoribus Crates primus ἰαμβικὴν ἰδέαν omisit et fabulas δι' εἰκότων composuit. vid. c. 5, 3. eandem viam ingressus est Pherecrates Aristophanis aequalis et sub finem vitae (01. 97, 4) ipse Aristophanes editis Pluto altero et Aeolosicone et Cocalo. Aristoteles igitur eam comoediam h. 1. intelligere videtur quae inde ab Olympiade 97 usque ad suam aetatem obtinuit. conf. Ethic. Nicom. IV, 14 med. ἴδοι δ᾽ ἄν τις καὶ ἐκ τῶν κωμῳδιῶν τῶν παλαιῶν καὶ τῶν καινῶν (per καινὰς h. 1. mediae comoediae quam grammatici statuunt fabulae significantur)· τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἦν γελοῖον ἡ αἰσχρολογία, τοῖς δὲ μᾶλλον ἡ ὑπόνοια. τὰ τυχόντα ὀνόματα ὑποτιθέασι: τὰ τυχόντα ὀνόματα ea sunt nomina quae pro arbitrio personis suis poeta subiicit: opponuntur enim nominibus ab historia sive vera sive fabulosa traditis, quae non sunt τυχόντα sed traditione definita ¹). sunt eiusmodi nomina Pamphilus, Charinus, Chremes, Chaerea, Phaedria, - Traso, Artotrogus, Gnatho, - Parmeno, Dromo, - Philumena, Glycerium cet. haec nomina comoediarum scriptores personis suis ita adplicant sive subiciunt, ut nomina moribus respondeant. nomen morale simul est generale: denotat enim non τόδε ἀλλὰ τοιόνδε, eiusmodi nomina in nova comoedia (h. e. in ea quam Aristoteles respicere nondum potuit) erant omnia, in media pleraque, in antiqua non pauca.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-68

Ritter, cap. 9 § 6

τῶν γενομένων ὀνομάτων ἀντέχονται: ὀνόματα γενόμενα sunt singulorum hominum nomina a maioribus tradita, nomina τῶν γενομένων ἀνθρώπων.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-69

Ritter, cap. 9 § 7

οἷον ἐν τῷ ᾿Αγάθωνος ῎Ανθει: Agathonis aetatem definivit Ritschelius in Commentationis de Agathonis vita, arte et tragoediarum reliquiis particula, edita Halis anno 1829. Aristoteles saepius eius meminit. vid. c. 15, 8. 18, 6-7. Rhetor. II, 19. p. 1392b 7. II, 24. p. 1402 a 9.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-70

Ritter, cap. 9 § 8

ὥστ᾽ οὐ πάντως – ἀντέχεσθαι: dicta haec videntur contra eos qui ante Aristotelem editis libris contrariam sententiam pronuntiaverant: hanc enim opinionem diligenter et copiose et paene dixerim acerbe refutavit. conf. Comment. ad c. 13, 4. ἐπεὶ καὶ τὰ γνώριμα ὀλίγοις κτλ. quamquam notae illae fabulae et a maioribus traditae paucis spectantium vel legentium notae sunt, tamen omnes pariter iis delectantur. inde patet, illas non eo quod 1) Lessingius 1. c. τὰ τυχόντα ὀνόματα interpretatur die etwaigen Namen, h. e. quibus poeta in hac vel illa comoedia utatur. sed id Graece dicendum erat τὰ ἀεὶ ὀνόματα.notae sunt delectationem afferre, sed eo quod probabilia aut necessaria sectantur. :

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-71

Ritter, cap. 9 § 9

κἂν ἄρα συμβῇ γενόμενα ποιεῖν, οὐθὲν ἧττον ποιητής ἐστιν: quae ab historia praebentur argumenta, haec poeta ita tractare debet et conformare, ut ab co quasi procreata videantur. nomen ποιητής et hoc loco et paulo post premitur et nativa sua significatione (Schöpfer, Hervorbringer) positum est. argumentum historicum Aeschylus pertractavit in Persis etiamnum superstitibus, et ante Aeschylum Phrynichus in Mileti expugnatione, de qua conferenda sunt quae Herodotus narrat VI, 21. Choerilus Samius bellum Persicum Xerxe auctore Graeciae illatum carmine epico felice cum successu canendum suscepit. vid. Choerili Samii quae supersunt. collegit et illustravit A. F. Naekius. Lipsiae 1817. - quae sequuntur τῶν γὰρ γενο μένων ἔνια - ποιητής ἐστιν, definiunt quae argumenta historica ποιητικῶς pertractari possint. nimirum ubi illa ita comparata sunt, ut unum factorum momentum ex altero consequi videatur, ubi hoc per poeticam conformationem veris rebus conciliari potest, ibi nihil obstat quo minus materia ex historia petatur.

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-72

Ritter, cap. 9 § 10

τῶν δὲ ἁπλῶν μυθων καὶ πράξεων αἱ ἐπεισοδιώδεις εἰσὶ χείρισται: si merae fabulae actionesque fabulosae pluribus episodiis non apte connexis constant, causae effectusque successio tollitur et praecipuum poetae officium violatur, quod in fabulis magis etiam reprehensione dignum est quam in argumentis historicis, propterea quod fabulae et sua sponte magis τὰ καθόλου sequuntur et facilius inflecti possunt. οἱ ἁπλοῖ μύθοι h. 1. sunt merae fabulae et opponuntur argumentis ex historia petitis et a poeta recte conformatis. haec enim duobus quasi elementis constant, historico uno, altero poetico. iis igitur ubi opponuntur argumenta ex fabularum cyclo sumpta, ea ipsa appellari possunt simplices fabulae. cf. Comment. ad. c. 6, 6. ἁπλοῖ μῦθοι καὶ πράξεις dictum est pro πράξεις ἁπλῶς μυθικαί. sed haec quomodo cum antecedentibus cohaerent?sic: quemadmodum in argumentis historicis cum laude versari poeta possit modo expositum est: iam igitur explicari quid potissimum cavendum sit in argumentis mere fabulosis, id vel maxime consentaneum videri debet, itaque si illud probe tenuerimus, ἁπλοῦς μύθους non eo dici significatu, quo c. 10. μῦθος ἁπλοῦς τῷ πεπλεγμένῳ opponitur, evanescent dubitationes criticorum ad hunc locum expromptae, quas ex Buhlii 2) verbis in nota inferiore relatis lectoribus recognoscendas relinquo. Hermannus hunc locum sequenti capiti attexuit. λέγω δ᾽ ἐπεισοδιώδη - ἀνάγκη εἶναι: ubi singulae actionis partes nullo causae effectusque nexu continentur, ibi actionis momenta non ex sese prodire sed iuxta se posita videntur. deest τὸ ἓν et τὸ καλόν. unumquodque ἐπεισόδιον per se constat, et inde totus μῦθος est ἐπεισοδιώδης. ὑπὸ μὲν τῶν φαύλων ποιητῶν δι' αὐτούς: δι' αὐτοὺς est sua ipsorum culpa: mali enim poetae propter .... 2) "Valde exercuit etiam hic locus interpretum ingenia. arbitrati sunt omnes, Aristotelem locutum esse de fabulis simplicibus, quatenus implexis opponuntur, et fabularum simplicium ἐπει σοδιώδεις pessimas pronuntiasse. iam exoriebatur difficultas, quomodo 1) fabula simplex esse possit ἐπεισοδιώδης; 2) cur non nisi fabularum simplicium ἐπεισοδιώδεις pessimae sint, cum nihil impediat, quo minus fabulae etiam implexae episodia habeant, immo his episodia cum sint maxime peculiaria? Castelvetro (p. 218) coniicit, verba textus aut suo loco mota esse ., aut legendum ἁπλῶς δὲ τῶν μύθων. temere sic emendari ait Winstanleius (not. p. 287). nihil autem affert ipse quo sensui medeatur. Tyrwhitti coniectura, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων μύθων, nihil efficitur. quinam sunt enim hi alii μῦθοι; omnino non ante fuerat Aristoteli de mythis sermo. magis ad rem emendavit Twiningius (Notes p. 278) τῶν δὲ ἁπάντων μύθων. sed vix Aristoteles scripserit τῶν δὲ ἁπάντων· potius ἁπάντων δὲ τῶν μύθων. quod si ita legeris, recedit coniectura nimis a codd. scriptura, quam ut ei fidem habeas. idem in Castelvetri coniectura reprehendere licet. equidem vocem ἁπλῶν omnino delendam puto."ingenli tarditatem causae effectusque cohaerentiam in actione neque ipsi perspiciunt neque spectatoribus vel lectoribus exhibere recte possunt. ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀγαθῶν διὰ τοὺς ᾿ ὑποκριτάς: in tragoedia secundum artis legem facta fere nonnisi unus actor admodum potest excellere. si igitur tragoediae scriptor pluribus actoribus ostentandae artis occasionem offerre intendit, tum saepe admittit episodia cum fabulae summa male cohaerentia. παρὰ τὴν δύναμιν παρατείναντες μῦθον: verba παρὰ τὴν δύναμιν non ad poetas bonos sed ad subsequentem μύθον referenda sunt, contra quam patitur natura fabulae. - διαστρέφειν ἀναγκάζονται τὸ ἐφεξῆς: τὸ ἐφεξῆς est iusta causae effectusque successio, quae si tollitur, unitas et pulchritudo tragoediae sublata est.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-73

Ritter, cap. 9 § 11

ἐπεὶ δὲ οὐ μόνον-γίνεται δι' ἄλληλα: sed quoniam non solum perfectae actionis est imitatio sed etiam metuendorum et miserandorum, haec autem propter se in vicem accidunt, ***. deest tota apodosis. sed cum rursus assint, quae abesse sane velis, fortasse nunquam inveniri poterit, quod omnibus lectoribus probabile videatur. nihilo minus meam qualemcumque sententiam de hoc loco conceptam non celabo. quae philosophus adhuc docuisse se existimat (c. 6. 7. 9), imitari tragicum poetam perfectam ( τελείαν) actionem, imitari miseranda et timenda, imitationemque ita instituere ut causarum effectorumque nexus agnoscatur, ea omnia hic loci sub unum conspectum collecta ponit, ut novum quoddam de admirabili ( τῷ θαυμαστῷ) in tragoedia repraesentando inde colligere possit. illud fortasse hoc fuit, admirabile quoque non temere oportet evenire, καὶ τὸ θαυμαστὸν οὐκ εἰκῇ δεῖ γίνεσθαι, vel sic, καὶ τὸ θανμαστὸν δεῖ γίνεσθαι ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συστάσεως τοῦ μύθου 3). de admirabili in apodosi aliquid collegisse Aristotelem subsequens ostendit disputatio, quae neque cohaeret neque con- 3) Ipsis verbis non multum tribuo, sed elapsam sententiam unice respicio.stat nisi hoc statuerimus. sed restant ista omnium pessima, καὶ μάλιστα καὶ μᾶλλον, ὅταν γένηται παρὰ τὴν δόξαν, quae sic ab omnibus codicibus exhibentur, ab editoribus varie mutata praebentur. scilicet timenda et miseranda et maxime et magis fieri propter semet ipsa, si contra exspectationem fiant, id pronuntiatum est et falso et inepte. falso, quia ad successionem causarum effectorumque nihil valet, utrum secundum an contra exspectationem fiant quae fiunt, inepte, quia καὶ μάλιστα καὶ μᾶλλον pleonasmus est plane intolerabilis. iam quaeritur qua ratione hoc additamentum natum sit. statim scribit Aristoteles τὸ γὰρ θαυμαστὸν οὕτως ἕξει μάλλον. adversus haec nugator aliquis in margine scripsit καὶ μάλιστα καὶ μᾶλλον, ὅταν γένηται παρὰ τὴν δύξαν, ipsum Aristotelem et correcturus et irrisionis causa eius voce ( μᾶλλον) abusurus. hinc ea admonitio in operis contextum invasit eademque, credo, meliorem sententiam, quam elapsam esse vidimus, de sua sede deiecit.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-74

Ritter, cap. 9 § 12

τὸ γὰρ θαυμαστόν οὕτως ἕξει μᾶλλον: οὕτως respicit apodosin deperditam. subiectum quo verbum ἕξει refertur aut ἡ μίμησις est aut idem in apodosi delituit. ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν κτλ. per hoc σημεῖον probare voluit philosophus, admirabiliora esse ea quorum causa non obscura, quam quae sponte et casu fiant. nimirum quae re vera fortuita sunt, ea tum maxime admirabilia videntur, cum causa quadam intercedente videntur accidisse. οἷον ὡς ὁ ἀνδριὰς ὁ τοῦ Μίτυος κτλ. hinc sumpta sunt quae in Mirabilium auscultationum farragine, quam alius ex Aristotelis operibus confecit, numero 156. afferuntur. sed operae pretium est videre illius hominis stultitiam. scribit enim q ασὶν ὡς ἀνδριὰς ὁ τοῦ Βίτυος . . . ἐν ῎Αργει ἀπεκτεῖνε τὸν. αἴτιον τοῦ θανάτου τῷ Βίτυϊ, θεωροῦντι ἐμπεσών, ἔοικε οὖν οὐκ εἰκῇ τὰ τοιαῦτα γίγνεσθαι. haec postrema illo loco plane inepta sunt, sed qui excerpsit, omittere religioni sibi duxit. homo ille qui Argis a sicario interfectus erat, utrum Mitys an Bitys appellaretur incertum est. Mityn nomen scribunt codices et Poeticae et orationiscontra Neaeram pag. 1356 ed Reisk., Βίτων Mirabil. auscult., Μίτιον Plutarchi exemplaria de sera numinis vindicta c. 8. p. 553 D (vol. III. p. 1. pag. 233 apud Wyttenb.): Μιτίου τοῦ ᾿Αργείου κατὰ στάσιν ἀναιρεθέντος ἀνδριάντα χαλκοῦν ἐν ἀγορᾷ, θεᾶς οὔσης, ἐμπεσεῖν τῷ κτεί ναντι τὸν Μίτιον καὶ ἀνελεῖν. conf. Callimachi epigr. VII. ὥστε ἀνάγκη τοὺς τοιούτους εἶναι καλλίους μύθους: si ex rebus fortuitis eae, quae non sine causa ( οὐκ εἰκῇ) videntur evenisse, magis homines alliciunt quam quae causa destitutae videntur, inde patet gratum esse hominibus causas rerum cognoscere. quae igitur fabulae hoc iuvant, eas pulchriores esse oportet.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-75

Ritter, cap. 10 § 1

Fabulae aut simplices sunt aut implexae. implexarum propria est aut agnitio aut rerum in contrarium conversio aut utrumque. ante quam pergit declarare fabulae sive argumenti naturam, interim quot et quales species eius reperiantur definit.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-76

Ritter, cap. 10 § 2

ἧς γινομένης, ὥσπερ ὥρισται, συνεχοῦς καὶ μιᾶς: verba ὥσπερ ὥρισται referenda sunt ad ea quae capite 7 et 8 et 9. de fabulae natura explicata sunt. quae adduntur συνεχοῦς καὶ μιᾶς, haec lectorem breviter admonent eorum quae illis locis uberius disputata sunt, actio fit συνεχής, si eius partes ex causa quadam ac principio deinceps prodeunt; eadem μία fit, si ex partibus ipsius arte coniunctis totum ( ὅλον) quoddam efficitur. πεπλεγμένην δέ, ἐξ ἧς μετ': quamquam de scripturae vulgatae integritate dubitatio vix admitti potest, tamen operae pretium videtur insignem codicum discrepantiam recognoscere et intelligere, quemadmodum ea ex uno fonte nata sit.nimirum ἐξ ἧς cum litteris coniunctis εξης scriberetur et pro mediae aetatis consuetudine εξις pronuntiaretur, ex eo nomen λέξις fecerunt. iam consequens erat ut πεπλεγμένην in nominativum mutarent, cum vulgares isti correctores magis studeant structurae sustentandae quam sententiae rite conservandae. itaque AcBcNa offerunt πεπλεγμένη δὲ λέξις μετὰ, idemque in M 14 16 21 haud dubie inest, quamquam Winstanleius nonnisi λέξις pro ἐξ ἧς attulit. M XIV exhibet πε πλεγμένη δὲ πρᾶξις eique consentiunt GP. Aldus prope ad verum accedens dedit πεπλεγμένη δὲ ἐξ ἧς cet. ἄνευ περιπετείας ἢ ἀναγνωρισμοῦ: quid sit περιπέτεια et ἀναγνωρισμός sequente capite illustratur. forma ἀναγνωρισμὸς ab altera ἀναγνώρισις quae paulo post adhibetur ita differt, ut ἀναγνώρισις actum agnoscendi, ἀναγνωρισμὸς potius agnitionem a poeta propositam designet.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-77

Ritter, cap. 10 § 3

ταῦτα δὲ δεῖ γίνεσθαι ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συστάσεως τοῦ μύθου: ut fabulae implicatae unitas et forma poetica conservetur, peripetia vel agnitio aut ambo ex fabulae compositione sponte prodire debent, et ita quidem prodire, ut tamquam effectus causae appareant. vides idem h. 1. postulari, quod paulo ante (c. 9, 10), si fabulis deesset, pro summo vitio poetae notabatur.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-78

Ritter, cap. 11 § 1

Quid sit περιπέτεια et quid ἀναγνώρισις definitur, ac simul quaedam agnitionis species enumerantur. καθάπερ εἴρηται: haec verba non ita intelligenda sunt, quasi haec peripetiae definitio iam ante prolata sit, sed pertinent ad sola ἡ εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον τῶν πραττομένων μεταβολή. nam rerum in tragoedia agendarum duplicem esse posse conversionem significatum erat capite 7 extr. - καὶ τοῦτο δέ, ὥσπερ λέγομεν, κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἢ ἀναγκαῖον: repetit quae (c. 10, 3) et de peripetia et de agnitione monuerat. itaque verba καθάπερ εἴρηται ad remotiorem locum, ὥσπερ λέγομεν ad proximum provocant. ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι - τουναντίον ἐποίησεν: respicit Sophoclis Oedipum regem v. 924-1185. quod omisit poetae nomen et hic et §. 2., sane mirum videatur, cum et Aeschylus et Euripides et alii eo nomine tragoedias conscripserint. ponit Sophoclis nomen c. 15, 7., ubi eandem fabulam commemorat. mira dominatur per totum hoc caput consuetudo, ut cum quater tragoedia quaedam memoretur, ne semel quidem eius auctor nominetur. pugnat hoc utique contra rationem quam Aristoteles in commemorandis poetarum operibus cum in ceteris suis disputationibus tum in Rhetoricis secutus est. itaque haec explicatio aut ab epitomatore quodam insigniter contracta est et decurtata aut exempla ab aliena manu h. 1. adscripta sunt. certe exemplis istis lectores Graeci Aristotelis aetate haud aegre caruerint. equidem de operis particula huic capiti (§.1-5) assignata sic statuo: is qui toti libro miram illam formam partim resecando partim interpolando concinnavit, pleniorem Aristotelis de περιπετείᾳ et ἀναγνωρίσει disputationem ita in compendium redegit, ut ex generali explicatione nonnisi summa eius fastigia retineret et pro ceteris exempla quaedam reponeret. καὶ ἐν τῷ Λυγκεῖ ὁ μὲν ἀγόμενος ὡς ἀποθανούμενος, ὁ δὲ Δαναὸς ἀκολουθῶν ὡς ἀποκτενῶν: Lynceus infra c. 18, 1. Theodectis fabula appellatur a personato Aristotele. quae de tragoediae huius argumento utroque loco afferuntur, inde nihil certi elici potest, quo ipso auctor horum exemplorum suspectus fit. id quidem dubitationi haud obnoxium videtur, verba ὁ μὲν ἀγόμενος ὡς ἀποθανούμενος de ipso Lynceo accipienda esse, non de Aegypto eius patre vel alio quo. nam hoc si ita se haberet, statim nomen Δαναὺς omittendum et post ὁ μὲν nihil nisi ὁ δὲ ponendum erat. quis sit puer, cuius captio c. 18, 1. commemoratur, non constat. quae Tyrwhittus de fabulae argumento coniecit, ea admodum incerta sunt ¹). ἐκ τῶν πεπραγμένων est ex iis quae in iudicio acta sunt.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-79

Ritter, cap. 11 § 2

εἰς φιλίαν ἢ ἔχθραν: in amicitiam aut odium, h. e. ut aut amicitia aut odium inter personas agentes oriatur. τῶν πρὸς εὐτυχίαν ἢ δυστυχίαν ώρισμένων: agnitio tragica talis est, ut inde aut amicitia aut odium personarum agentium fiat. ὡρισμένων h. e. eorum qui a poeta ad felicitatem aut infelicitatem destinati sunt. quippe poeta tragoediam scribens pro arbitrio quodammodo decernit, qui felices et qui infelices fiant.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-80

Ritter, cap. 11 § 3

ἔστιν ὅτε, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, συμβαίνει: additur ὥσπερ εἴρηται ad definienda verba ἔστιν ὅτε συμβαίνει, est cum evenit, ut dictum, adversus ea quae anima carent, nempe ut fiat pro ignoratione cognitio, sive ἐξ ἀγνοίας εἰς γνῶσιν μεταβολή, et quidem talis mutatio, qua homines ad fortunam aut infortunium destinati se amare aut aversari incipiant. nimirum interdum ex fortuitis rebus homines suam aliorumque condicionem et sortem ita intelligunt, ut inde amicitia aut odium exsistat, ceterum loci lectio dubia est. nam ὅτε deest libris AcBcNa et Momnibus et GPQ. in nonnullis codicibus, ut in GP et M XIV est συμβαίνειν, quod grammatico deberi videtur sustentandae structurae studioso, postquam ὅτε a subsequente ὥσπερ absorptum erat. fortasse ἔστιν ex versu continuo sequente huc temere tractum est, ut Aristoteles scripserit καὶ γὰρ πρὸς ἄψυχα καὶ τὰ τυχόντα, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, συμβαίνει. – καὶ εἰ πέπραγέ τις ἢ μὴ 1) "Ex mera verborum vi coniiceremus ipsum Lyncea ad mortem duci etc. sed infra c. 18, 1. (si modo ad eandem tragoediam respicit, quod satis probabile est) non Lynceus, sed puer aliquis in capitis discrimen videtur venisse. hic autem puer Abas forte erat Lyncei filius. modum quidem quo periit Danaus, nemo veterum (qui scilicet hodie extant) tradidit; sed Hyginus, cuius fabulae ex tragicis saepissime derivatae sunt, mortem eius ab Abante parentibus nuntiatam bis commemoravit, fab. 170 et 273" 1 yrwhittus. πέπραγεν, ἔστιν ἀναγνωρίσαι : agnoscere aliquis potest, utrum actionem iam odiosam aut optandam omiserit aut susceperit.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-81

Ritter, cap. 11 § 4

ἢ ἔλεον ἕξει ἢ φόβον, h. e. sive in alios miserationem sive de ipsis timorem in nobis excitabit. οἵων πράξεων, h. e. φοβερῶν καὶ ἐλεεινῶν, actiones quibus miseratio ac timor excitatur.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-82

Ritter, cap. 11 § 5

αἱ μὲν θατέρου πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον μόνον: talis agnitio inest in Aeschyli Choephoris: Orestes enim sororem Electram noverat, ipse autem se Electrae et verbis et signis quibusdam agnoscendum praebet. - οἷον ἡ μὲν Ἰφιγένεια τῷ Ὀρέστῃ ἀνεγνωρίσθη ἐκ τῆς πέμψεως τῆς ἐπιστολῆς: ex missa epistola agnoscitur Iphigenia a fratre Oresta in Euripidis Iphigenia Tauricensi v. 759-792. mirum rursus est Euripidis nomen reticeri, cum et Aeschylus et Sophocles Iphigeniam (Aulidensem) scripserint, et Polyidus Tauricensem ediderit. conferantur quae ad §. 1. huius capitis a nobis dicta sunt. accedit quod ἐκ τῆς πέμψεως τῆς ἐπιστολῆς non vere dictum est: Iphigenia enim illas litteras non mittit sed ipsa tradit. ἐκείνῳ δὲ πρὸς τὴν Ἰφιγένειαν ἄλλης ἔδει ἀναγνωρίσεως. conf. Iphigen. Tauricens. v. 811-826.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-83

Ritter, cap. 11 § 6

δύο μὲν οὖν τοῦ μύθου μέρη περὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐστί, περιπέτεια καὶ ἀναγνώρισις, τρίτον δὲ πάθος: iam in loca duo admodum spinosa incurrimus (dico hanc §. 6 et totum c. 12), quae si ab Aristotele sunt, ille qui adhuc de poesi optima quaeque docuit, idem falsissima et inutilia puerili explicatione protulit, sed veniamus ad singula. duae fabulae partes circa haec sunt, tertia autem perpessio. quid hoc ? num vere peripetia et agnitio fabulae ( τοῦ μύθου) partes esse possunt, cum modo expositum sit peripetiam et agnitionem uni fabulae implexae competere, iisque ipsis differre a simplice implexam? dicat quispiam, at Aristoteles τὸν μύθον dixit eam fabulam de qua proxime disputavit, h. e. implexam. si id vel invita lingua concederemus, quid inde sequetur? scilicet τὸ πάθος esse uniusimplexae fabulae partem, quod falsissimum est, sed vide quaeso quomodo novum illud prioribus adiungatur, τρίτον δὲ πάθος. id ita explicari potest, ut hoc tertium περὶ ταῦτ᾽ εἶναι dicatur (eo verba ducunt), aut ut idem pro tertia mythi parte venditetur. si prius admittis, absurdum est dicere πάθος circa id versari circa quod agnitio et peripetia, si alterum, non minus falsum est docere tres fabulae partes esse peripetiam agnitionem perpessionem, cum duae priores a multis fabulis plane abesse possint, perpessio autem ne pro parte quidem fabulae haberi possit. considera quae sequuntur, τούτων δὲ περιπέτεια μὲν καὶ ἀναγνώρισις εἴρηται: scribere debuit τούτων δὲ περιπέτεια μὲν καὶ ἀναγνώρισις τί ἐστι, εἴρηται vel τούτων δὲ περὶ περιπετείας μὲν καὶ ἀναγνωρί σεως εἴρηται. hoc, περιπέτεια εἴρηται, nihil est nisi peripetiae nomen ante positum est. denique haec πάθους definitio utique caret omni philosophi sagacitate et accuratione elocutionis. restat aliud indicium quo haec admodum suspecta fiant, idque mox afferre placet. accedimus enim ad alterum illum locum Aristotelis gravitate et nomine non minus indignum.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-84

Ritter, cap. 12 § 1

Tragoediae quantitatis ratione inita quattuor partes inveniuntur, prologus episodium exodus choricum. chorici partes sunt parodus et stasimum; accedunt ex scena cantica et commi. Bene sane factum est quod quae iam sequuntur, quamvis et loco alieno collocata et verbis mirum in modum expressa, ad nostram notitiam pervenerunt: inde enim et melius et plenius quam aliunde discimus, in quas partes antiqui grammatici tragoediam discreverint, discretas quibus nominibus appellaverint. nihilo minus haec, quibus pretium suum derogare nolo, Aristoteli abiudicanda esse censeo. tria sunt quae ut sic statuam mihi suadent. primum egregia illa fabulae ( τοῦ μύθου) explicatio hisce interiectis absurde interpellatur, neque ullus toto libro locus inveniri potest, ubi haec apte sedem sibi vindicent. scilicet de fabula exposuit Aristoteles inde a capite 7. usque ad c. 11, 5., reditque ad eandem c. 13., et ita redit ut in disputatione continuo sequente partes illae c. 12. enumeratae omnino negligantur 1). itaque haec partium tragoediae enumeratio ineptissimo loco posita est. secundum quo interpolator se prodit signum hoc est, quod nonnisi nuda nomina exhibentur, quorum descriptio non ex fine tragoediae proposito, non ex interna eius forma et constitutione, id quod deceret philosophum, sed ex habitu illius externo petitur. ulna utitur qui haec scripsit, ulna et norma unice gaudet, id quod alienum est a disputandi ratione Aristoteli probata et a genuinis huiusce operis reliquiis. quo igitur consilio haec doceantur dici nequit, vel potius inane scribenti consilium hoc fuit, edito doctrinae suae specimine curare ut lectores quorundam nominum ad tragoediam pertinentium significationem addiscerent. tertium vero indicium ad detegendum interpolatorem omnium est manifestissimum quippe homo iste, auctorem suum quantum potuit imitaturus, in enarrationis suae aridissimae initio ponit formulam, cui similes sane multae ad transitum faciendum admissae in libris Aristotelis reperiuntur: μέρη δὲ τραγῳδίας, οἷς μὲν ὡς εἴδεσι δεῖ χρῆσθαι, πρότερον εἴπομεν· κατὰ δὲ τὸ ποσὸν καὶ εἰς ἃ διαιρεῖται κεχωρισμένα, τάδε ἐστι. haec non male, sed cum idem ille propter ingenii sterilitatem nonnisi de externa tragoediae forma perpauca proferre potuisset, statim, scilicet ne parum videretur attulisse, explicationem 1) Contra aliquis moneat respici quae hoc capite exponantur infra c. 18, 2. τραγῳδίας δὲ εἴδη εἰσὶ τέσσαρα· τοσαῦτα γὰρ καὶ τὰ μέρη ἐλέχθη. sed haec ipsa non esse Aristotelis suo loco ostendetur.suam ita conclusam exhibuit: μέρη δὲ τραγωδίας, οἷς μὲν δεῖ χρῆσθαι, πρότερον εἴπομεν, κατὰ δὲ τὸ ποσὸν καὶ εἰς ἃ διαιρεῖται κεχωρισμένα, ταῦτ᾽ ἐστίν. nimirum hac formula a se laboriose ac feliciter inventa ita iste gaudebat, ut quo minus brevissimo intervallo bis ea uteretur sibi temperare non posset. ad singula iam accedamus. μέρη δὲ τραγῳδίας, οἷς μὲν ὡς εἴδεσι δεῖ χρῆσθαι, πρότερον εἴπομεν: partes tragoediae prius enumeratas intelligit illas, quae a vero Aristotele c. 6, 7. μέρη, καθ' ἃ ποιά τις ἐστὶν ἡ τραγῳδία, designantur, μῦθος ἤθη λέξις διάνοια ὄψις μελοποιία. Hermannus et qui hunc sequitur Graefenhanius πρότερον εἴπομεν ad proxime praegressa (c. 11, 6), h. e. ad περιπέτειαν et ἀναγνώρισιν et πάθος spectare opinantur. illic vero non tragoediae partes sed fabulae ( τοῦ μύθου), neque cuiusvis fabulae partes sed unius implexae a personato auctore enumeratae sunt. ipsum πρότερον huic explicationi repugnat. κοινὰ μὲν ἁπάντων ταῦτα, ἴδια δὲ τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ κόμμοι. nomen ἁπάντων quo referatur quaerunt ambiguntque interpretes, et iure quidem dum ambigunt, nonnulli δραμάτων supplent, alii omnes poetas intelligunt, alii omnes chori personas, neque ulla ex his interpretationibus non obnoxia est gravi dubitationi, sed ea culpa non est interpretum sed auctoris obscure vitioseque scribentis. nam obscure ille locutus est, quia vocem tam incertam ( ἁπάντων) dedit, qua multa et varia consignari possunt, vitiose, quia omnibus non opposuit nonnullos ( ἐνίους s. ἔνια) vel aliud pronomen quod omnibus apte responderet. mihi verisimile videtur interpolatorem per ἁπάντων omnia dramata intelligi voluisse, eisque opposita cogitasse cantica ex scena et planctus quae non in omnibus reperirentur, sed ne certi quidquam decerni de hac re possit, prohibet obscura negligenter scribentis elocutio. τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς ab actore quodam ex scena, non a choreutis ex orchestra, decantantur. haec cantica, si chorus non respondet, μονῳδίαι vocantur, quibus Euripidem prae ceteris studuisse constat. vid. Aristophan. Ran. v. 849. 014. 1330. conf. Thesmophor. v. 1077. Pacis v. 1012. Photius in lexico: μονῳδία, ἡ ἀπὸ σκηνῆς ᾠδὴ ἐν τοῖς δράμασι, καὶ μονῳδεῖν τὸ θρηνεῖν· ἐπιεικῶς γὰρ πᾶσαι αἱ ἀπὸ σκηνῆς ᾠδαὶ ἐν τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ θρῆνοί εἰσι. idem: μονῳδία λέγεται, ὅταν εἶς μόνος λέγῃ τὴν ᾠδὴν, καὶ οὐχ ὁμοῦ ὁ χορός. eadem hace paulo aliter disposita Suidas habet s. v. μονῳδεῖν et μονῳδία. conf. Hesychius s. v. μονῳδεῖ et lex. a Bachmanno editum p. 303. de commis paulo post dicemus.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-85

Ritter, cap. 12 § 2

ἔστι δὲ πρόλογος μὲν μέρος ὅλοντρα - γῳδίας τὸ πρὸ χοροῦ παρόδου: iam incipit ulna sua uti et sic disputare, ut missa interna tragicae poesis natura curet, ne forte quo nomine singulae tragoediarum particulae vocandae sint lectores nesciant. prologus est igitur tota tragoediae pars quae posita est ante chori carmen parodicum. nomen πάροδον h. 1. non de chori in orchestram ingressu sed de tragoediae parte quadam intelligendum esse definitio παρόδου quae statim sequitur ostendit. Aristophanes tragoediae initium, h. e. primam orationem eius qui primum inducitur, πρόλογον appellavit in Ranis v. 1119., ubi Euripidem Aeschyli tragoedias exagitantem haec dicere fecit: καὶ μὴν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς τοὺς προλόγους σοι τρέψομαι, ὅπως τὸ πρῶτον τῆς τραγῳδίας μέρος πρώτιστον αὐτοῦ βασανιῶ τοῦ δεξιοῦ. ibidem cum Aeschylo imperatum esset ut πρόλογον ἐκ τῆς Ὀρεστείας recitaret, ille dicto audiens tres versus qui primi sunt in Choephoris ac deinde quartum et quinti dimidiam partem ex oratione Orestis protulit. verus Aristoteles in Rhetoricis III, 14 init. cuiusvis carminis exordium πρόλογον vocat: τὸ μὲν οὖν προοίμιόν ἐστιν ἀρχὴ λόγου, ὅπερ ἐν ποιήσει πρόλογος καὶ ἐν αὐλήσει προαύλιον· πάντα γὰρ ἀρχαὶ ταῦτ᾽ εἰσί, καὶ οἷον ὁδοποίησις τῷ ἐπιόντι. haec significatio nomini plane convenit: πρόλογος enim ea est oratio quae ceteris prius admittitur. sed si ὁ λόγος opponitur τῷ μέλει, prologus ea complectitur quae ante chori adventum in scena peraguntur, h. e. quae prius dicuntur quam cantus inchoatur. hoc intellectu πρόλογον dictum accepit scriptor anonymus apud Küsterum ante comoedias Aristophanis p. XIV (apud Bekkerum p. XII): πρόλογος τὸ μέχρι τῆς εἰσόδου τοῦ χοροῦ μέρος. conf. Tzetzae Versus de tragica poesi editi a Dübnero in Museo Rhen. philolog. vol. IV. p. 403. πρόλογος μέν ἐστι τὸ μέχρι χοροῦ τῆς εἰσόδου. nec vero haec significatio multum immutatur, si quando chorus ante adest quam histriones' in scenam ingressi sunt, quod factum videmus in Aeschyli Persis et Supplicibus atque in Rheso Euripidis: tum enim πρόλογος continet illa quae ante a coryphaco recitantur quam totius chori canticum incipit, quae unius choreutae recitatio et λόγος et λέξις appellari potest. itaque in Persis prologus continetur v. 1-64., in Supplicibus v. 1-40., in Rheso v. 1-22. longius autem in prologo definiendo a significatione vocis πρόλογος recessit technicus hic noster, dum quae primam λέξιν totius chori praecedunt eo nomine complectitur. secundum hanc sententiam dimidia paene Oedipi Colonei pars (v. 1-667) ingenti prologo occupatur, sed ea culpa non est praestantissimi poetae: immo in culpa sunt technici notiones suas ex vagis notis componentes. cur ὅλον μέρος, non μέρος simpliciter, scripserit et hic et paulo post ubi episodium et exodus definitur, id in tali scriptore non curiose quaerendum existimo. fortasse significari voluit prologi ambitum plerumque satis magnum esse, item episodii exodique. ἐπεισόδιον δὲ μέρος ὅλον τραγῳδίας τὸ μεταξὺ ὅλων χορικῶν μελῶν: quae ab histrionibus inter duo chori cantica aut inter semet ipsos aut inter ipsos et choreutas peraguntur, ἐπεισόδιον efficiunt. nomen inde factum est, quod actorum colloquia nascentis artis tragicae aetate canticis choricis tamquam quoddam alienum vel secundarium interserebantur. ὅλα μέλη chori quae circumdant ἐπεισόδιον, aut parodus et stasimum aut duo stasima esse possunt. conf. anonymus apud Küsterum 1. c. ἐπεισόδιον τὸ μεταξύ δύο χορικῶν μελῶν. Tzetzes 1. c. ἐπεισόδιος δέ ἐστιν... λόγος μεταξὺ πλὴν μελῶν χορῶν (lege χοροῦ) δύο. ἔξοδος δὲ μέρος ὅλον τραγωδίας μεθ' ὃ οὐκ ἔστι χοροῦ μέλος: accuratius scripsisset ὅλου χοροῦ μέλος. in ipsa enim exodo singuli choreutae in κόμμοις interdum respondent canticis ab histrionibus ex scena fusis, et minora singulorum choreutarum carmina decantari et anapaesti coryphaei recitari possunt. ceterum vel sic definitio accommodari nequit ad omnes tragoedias, si quidem Aeschyli Supplices totius chori cantico concluduntur, et Eumenides in fine novi chori carmine instructae sunt. scriptor anonymus (apud Küsterum p. XIV) comoediae exodum a nostro tehnico discedens sic definivit: ἔξοδος τὸ ἐπὶ τέλει λεγόμενον τοῦ χοροῦ. huic consentit scholiasta Aristophanis ad Vespas v. 270., Pollux IV, 108., Hesychius s. v. ἐξόδιοι νόμοι. imperite Tzetzes 1. c. vers. 24. ἡ δ' ἔξοδός τις τυγχάνει χοροῦ λόγος, μεθ' ὃν χοροῖς οὐκ ἔστι τι λέγειν μέλος. πάροδος μὲν ἡ πρώτη λέξις ὅλου χοροῦ: si nomen παρόδου (Einzug) premis, quae chorus canit vel coryphaeus recitat, dum choreutae in orchestram sive a dextra sive a sinistra parte per apsides ingrediuntur, ea voce consignantur. id fere fecerunt grammatici, ut scholiasta Euripidis ad Phoeniss. v. 210 (202): πάροδος δὲ ἐστιν ᾠδὴ· χοροῦ βαδίζοντος ἀδομένη ἅμα τῇ εἰσόδῳ. item scholiasta Aristophanis ad Vespas v. 270., qui coryphaei exhortationem inter chori in orchestram adventum (230-247) enuntiatam πάροδον appellavit. alios grammaticorum de parodo locos collectos attulit G. C. W. Schneiderus de Re scenica Atheniensium pag. 205 sq., quibus iam addendus est I. Tzetzae definitio in Versibus de tragica poesi v. 35-42. a Dübnero evulgatis in Museo Rhen. philologico t. IV. p. 403. eiusmodi vero parodus multis tragoediis omnino deest, Sophocliis quidem omnibus, excepta Aiace, deest. hoc cum alios tum Pseudo - Aristotelem videtur impulisse, ut aliam definitionem parodi excogitarent. nam hic noster nonnisi totius chori primum carmen ( πρώτην λέξιν iste dixit) nomine parodi intelligi voluit, eodemque intellectu eandem vocem a Plutarcho acceptam fuisse patet ex illius quaestione an seni sit gerenda res publica c. 3. p. 785 A (IV. I. p. 152. apud Wyttenb.): Σοφοκλῆς δὲ λέγεται μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν υἱῶν παρανοίας δίκην φεύγων ἀναγνῶναὶ τὴν ἐν Οἰδίποδι τῷ ἐπὶ Κολωνοῦ πάροδον, ᾗ ἐστιν ἀρχὴ εὐίππου ( ν. 668), ξένε, τᾶσδε χώρας.” quae sint huiusce definitionis τῆς παρόδου incommoda, neuter eorum videtur vidisse vel curavisse. iam enim, ut ante notavimus, dimidia fere Oedipi Colonei pars prologus est. porro idem huius fabulae carmen (v. 668 sqq.) non minus pro stasimo quam pro parodo haberi potest. nam quia omnes chori personae hic demum canere incipiunt, parodus est. sed idem canticum stasimum est, quia neque anapaestorum neque trochaeorum systemata admixta sunt. idem dici potest de primo carmine chorico Oedipi Regis v. 151 - 215. aliisque pluribus. his expositis, dicendum restat cur λέξιν ὅλου χορού h. 1. legamus, ubi μέλος exspectamus. hoc ego technico nostro parum caute scribenti excidisse puto, quemadmodum apud Photium et Suidam legimus μονῳδία λέ γεται, ὅταν εἶς μόνος λέγῃ τὴν ᾠδήν. conf. Argumentum Persarum Aeschyli τῶν δὲ χορῶν τὰ μὲν ἐστι παροδικά, ὡς ὅτε λέγει δι' ἣν αἰτίαν πάρεστιν, ὡς τὸ “ Τύριον οἶδμα λιποῦσα,” h. e. primum carmen choricum Phoenissarum Euripidis v. 202 sqq. Tzetzes 1. c. ὅλου χοροῦ λέξις τε πρώτη τυγχάνει· ᾠδὴν ὁ Εὐκλείδης δέ, λέξιν οὐ λέγει. accuratius igitur Euclides locutus est de parodo quam ceteri technici solebant. de iis qui parodum λέξιν et qui αδὴν nominabant, Tzetzes v. 42. monet, et recte monet, ut mihi videtur, ταυτὸν τάχα λέγοντες ἐν πολλοῖς λόγοις. Hermannus et Müllererus, ille in Commentariis ad h. 1. pag. 142., hic in Museo Rhenano philolog. t. V. p. 362., existimant λέξιν, non ᾠδήν, consulto ab Aristotele positam esse, ne systemata anapaestica 2), quae ab uno coryphaeo recitata esse, non a toto choro cantata, certum est, a parodo excluderentur. sed ita 2) Nobile exemplum anapaestorum ab uno coryphaeo recitatorum et strophis intersertorum praebet parodus Antigonae Sophocliae v. 100 - 161.auctor personatus sibi ipse non constabit, cum parodum totius chori λέξιν esse dicit et nihilo minus unius coryphaei anapaestos recipere voluit, aut ille hoc ignoravit, anapaestos non cani a choro sed recitari a coryphaeo. accedit quod ὅλου χοροῦ λέξις nihil nisi carmen esse potest: totus enim chorus nunquam loquitur, sed semper canit. hoc recte monuit Tyrwhittus. diligenter et docte, ut solet, Odofr. Müllerus nuper de parodo disputavit in Museo Rhenano philolog. t. V. p. 360 sqq., sed virum aequissimum sententiam suam aliqua ex parte immutaturum esse, ubi haec legerit, confido. στάσιμον δὲ μέλος χοροῦ τὸ ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου: τὸ ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου τo consilio addita esse puto, ut, si quando stasimo coniuncta essent systemata anapaestica vel trochaica, haec ad ipsum stasimum non pertinere moneretur. sic in Sophoclis Aiace post prologum (v. 1-133), dum chorus in orchestram ingreditur, primum sex systemata anapaestica a coryphaeo recitantur (v. 134-171), iisque parodus absolvitur, tum sequitur carmen a choro stante ( στάσιμον) decantatum (v. 172 - 200). dum anapaesti illi recitantur, chorus non stat sed in orchestrae mediam partem ingreditur. aliud exemplum ex Aeschyli Agamemnone petere licet. chorus ingredi orchestram incipit a versu 40., et hinc usque ad v. 103. novem systemata anapaestica a coryphaco recitantur, et haec τὴν πάροδον efficiunt; continuo sequitur stantis chori carmen ( στάσιμον) a versu 104. usque ad 257. in eiusdem Supplicibus statim ab initio chorus ingreditur, quod dum fit, coryphaeus decem systemata anapaestica (v. 1-40) recitat, quo facto stantis chori carmen inchoatur. eiusmodi igitur systemata a carmine chorico excludi technicus voluit. sed idem cur etiam ἄνευ τροχαίου addidit ? scilicet τροχερός est numerus trochaicus et ad saltandum aptus, non ad standum, ideoque cantica ex trochaeis continuis composita ex stasimis eximenda putavit. fortasse cogitavit eiusmodi carmina quae apud Aeschylum in Eumenid. v. 997-1002. leguntur: χαίρετ' ἀστικὸς λεώς, ἴκταρ ἥμενοι Διός, παρθένου φίλας φίλοι σωφρονοῦντες ἐν χρόνῳ. Παλλάδος δ' ὑπὸ πτεροῖς ὄντας ἅζεται πατήρ. baec et similia a saltante choro cantata esse dubitari nequit. conf. eiusdem fabulae v. 1014 - 1020. Prometh. v. 415-417. 420-422. Hermannus olim (in Comment. ad h. 1.) stasima inde dicta putabat, quod carmina essent perpetua sive systematis anapaesticis trochaicisve non interrupta, sed hanc sententiam ab ipso iam improbari credo. nam perpetuus Graece dicitur non στάσιμος sed συνεχής. stasima recte tradunt grammatici Graeci dicta esse propterea quod canerentur a stantibus choreutis, quamquam modicos ac decoros motus ne ab his quidem carminibus remotos fuisse verisimile videtur. locos grammaticorum de στασίμοις exponentium collectos posuit Schneiderus in Re scenica Atheniensium p. 207. conf. Odofr. Müllerus ad Aeschyli Eumenides p. 95. illis locis iam accedit Tzetzes 1. c. vers. 51 sqq. ἄλλοι δὲ τὸ στάσιμον χοροῦ φασὶν μέρος (1. μέλος) ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου τῶν μέτρων· πάλιν ὁ Εὐκλείδης δέ φησιν σιν ὧδέ πως · ὅταν χορὸς στάς τι κατάρχεται λέγειν. in versu postremo λέγειν negligenter dictum esse pro άδειν memineris. Tzetzes illam priorem definitionem et alteram Euclidis non re sed verbis differre pronuntiat ( καὶ ταῦτα πολλοῖς ἓν τελοῦσι τοῖς λόγοις), et recte pronuntiat, quoniam, dum illa systemata anapaestica recitantur, choreutae in mediam orchestrae partem procedunt, itemque non stantes sed saltantes trochaica systemata decantare solent. itaque μέλος χοροῦ ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου idem est atque μέλος ὃ χορευταὶ στάντες ἄδουσιν. κόμμος δὲ θρήνος κοινὸς χοροῦ καὶ ἀπὸ σκηνῆς: nomen κόμμοι inde factum est, quod plerumque unus vel alter canentium sese plangebat doloris ostentandi causa.mira est huius technici etiam h. 1. sive dicendi brevitas sive negligentia. debuit saltem κόμμος δὲ θρήνος κοινὸς τοῦ χοροῦ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ σκηνῆς, sed articulum saepius hoc capite omisit, ubi verus Aristoteles haud dubie illum positurus erat. de commo absurda quidem Tzetzes attulit, sed quae contemnere nobis non licet, propterea quod ex eius verbis patet, huius technici definitionem ignotam ei non fuisse: scribit igitur 1. c. vers. 64 sqq. οὗτος δ᾽ ὁ κόμμος τοῦ χοροῦ τελῶν μέρος ὑποκριταῖς ἦν ὡς πολὺ συνηγμένος, κόμμος δὲ θρήνου πενθικώτερος πλέον. ὁ θρῆνός ἐστιν ἠρεμέστερον μέλος. κόμμον πάλιν ἄλλος δέ τις θρῆνον λέγει, κοινὸν χοροῦ σκηνῆς τε τυγχάνει λέγων.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-86

Ritter, cap. 12 § 3

μέρη δὲ τραγῳδίας, οἷς μὲν δεῖ χρῆσθαι, πρότερον εἴπομεν - ταῦτ᾽ ἐστίν: vide quomodo interpolator, quem hac formula mire delectatum fuisse supra dixi, variandae orationi consuluerit. nimirum modo scripserat μέρη δὲ τραγῳδίας, οἷς μὲν ὡς εἴδεσι δεῖ χρῆσθαι, nunc scribit μέρη δὲ τραγῳδίας, οἷς μὲν δεῖ χρῆσθαι, unde inepta oritur sententia, quasi partibus proxime enumeratis uti nihil cogat. moneo ne quis existimet haec librarii culpa ex initio capitis huc delapsa esse. si hoc factum esset, fideliter repetita forent omnia: nunc vero et variationem illam modo memoratam satisque gravem deprehendimus, et in capitis fine ταῦτ᾽ ἐστίν legimus, in initio τάδε ἐστί, et recte quidem : τάδε enim ad sequentia, ταῦτ' ad proxime praegressa refertur. εἴπομεν BCNa et M 14 XIV et GL: εἴπαμεν Ac et M 16 21 et Q. Bekkerus είπαμεν recepit.13. §. 2. 173

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-87

Ritter, cap. 13 § 1

Quae sint consectanda, quae cavenda in fabula tragica componenda, quae sit praeferenda argumenti constitutio disputatur. Fabulae sive argumenti tragoediae subiecti explicationem paene ad finem capitis undecimi perductam (c. 11, 5) et nondum absolutam interrumpi subito vidimus technici cuiusdam importuno studio, qui Aristoteliae Poeticae fragmenta cum conglutinare vellet et supplere, magis etiam perturbavit omnia et Graecarum litterarum historiam et hic et alibi magnis difficultatibus implicuit. sed veri Aristotelis fabulae pertractatio modo inepte interpellata hoc capite revocatur et sequente demum concluditur verbis περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων συστάσεως, καὶ ποίους τινὰς εἶναι δεῖ τοὺς μύθους, εἴρηται ἱκανῶς. pergit igitur philosophus exponere quae c. 11, 5. intercisa sunt, pergit explicare argumenti compositionem, eorum habita ratione quae c. 10 et 11. de argumentis simplicibus et implexis, de agnitione et peripetia dicta erant, docetque quid in illis adhibendis fugiendum, quid consectandum sit. τὸ τῆς τραγῳδίας ἔργον: tragoediae opus sive officium est id quod efficere tragoediae propositum est. conf. c. 6, 12. οὐ ποιήσει ὃ ἦν τῆς τραγῳδίας ἔργον. ἐφεξῆς ἂν εἴη λεκτέον τοῖς νῦν εἰρημένοις : attende animum, lector benivole. quae sequuntur apte sucсе- dunt post c. 11, 5.: sed eadem haec post c. 12. collocata omni vinculo carent.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-88

Ritter, cap. 13 § 2

ἐπειδὴ οὖν δεῖ-ἀλλὰ πεπλεγμένην: haec scribit respiciens quae c. 11. disputaverat. illud tamen, fabulam implexam esse pulcherrimam, non tam demonstravit quam obscure significavit, nisi illa disputatio in brevius ab epitomatore quodam contracta est. conf. Comment. ad. c. 18, 5 extr. τοὺς ἐπιεικεῖς ἄνδρας: vir ἐπιεικής is est quem esse decet, h. e. nullis vitiis infectus, et pluribus virtutibus ornatus. οὐ γὰρ φοβερὸν οὐδὲ ἐλεεινὸν τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ μιαρόν ἐστιν: viri egregie innocentis insignis calamitas in tragoedia repraesentata neque metum neque miserationem nostram potest excitare, propterea quod illam accidere posse primum credere vix sustinemus, tum quod indignatio de eiusmodi casu in nobis orta metum miserationemque opprimere solet. illud enim indignum est ac foedum ( μιαρόν), ideoquc non misereri nos facit, sed indignari. huius pronuntiati veritatem praeclare perspexit et optime vindicavit Lessingius in Dramaturgia Hamburgensi c. 82. οὔτε γὰρ φιλάνθρωπον οὔτε ἐλεεινὸν οὔτε φοβερόν ἐστιν : ubi improbus ex infelice felix evaserit, neque timor neque miseratio, ne id quidem quod prope ad miserationem accedit, h. e. τὸ φιλάνθρωπον, excitari potest. τὸ μὲν γὰρ φιλάνθρωπον ἔχοι ἂν ἡ τοιαύτη σύστασις: si vir improbus pro felice factus erit infelix, ne id quidem tragicum videbitur. nam cum ea sit humanissimi cuiusque natura, ut vel scelestissimi hominis calamitate moveatur, miseratio tamen metusque illa re oriri nequeunt. nam ut miseratione afficiamur, requiritur ut innocens sit qui aerumnis conflictatur: ὁ μὲν ( ἔλεος) γὰρ περὶ τὸν ἀνάξιών ἐστι δυστυχοῦντα. conf. Rhetor. II, 8 et 9. nec vero metus emergit, ne nobis idem accidat, cum nemo spectantium vel legentium tam sese improbum esse credat, ut simili poena plecti çommereat. ἔλεος μὲν περὶ τὸν ἀνάξιον, φόβος δὲ περὶ τὸν ὅμοιον: mirum sane videtur neminem adhuc vidisse haec orta esse ex nota in margine posita. nimirum additamentum ad sententiam enuntiandam non modo plane supervacaneum est, sed etiam his verbis sublatis ne vestigium quidem obscuritatis exsistit, cum unusquisque Graece mediocriter doctus ὁ μὲν referri intelligat ad έλεον modo positum, alterum autem ὁ δὲ ad φόβον. copiosius Aristoteles de miseratione metuque disputavit in Rhetoricis II, 5 et 8 et 9.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-89

Ritter, cap. 13 § 3

ἔστι δὲ τοιοῦτος – δι᾽ ἁμαρτίαν τινά : hanc sententiam Aristoteles pronuntiavit tum ob finem tragoediae optime a se perspectum, tum ob praeclara tragicae artis Graecorum opera, ex quibus prae ceteris Sophoclias tragoedias videtur respexisse. conferenda sunt quae Lessingius ad hunc locum illustrandum exposuit in opere illo laudatissimo c. 82. κακία improbitas est animo inhaerescens; μοχθηρία et πονηρία improbis factis alios laedit: μόχθους vel πόνους aliis hominibus creare solet ὁ μοχθηρός et ὁ πονηρός. τῶν ἐν μεγάλῃ δόξῃ ὄντων καὶ εὐτυ χίᾳ: haec non iam ex prioribus necessario consequuntur, sed nova accedunt. homines magni nominis ac felices tragoediae aptiores sunt, propterea quod περιπέτεια in talibus admodum illustris contingit. accedit quod multis spectantium facta moresque horum hominum cognita sunt. οἷον Οἰδίπους καὶ Θυέστης: praeter alios quod tres illi Graecae tragoediae principes Oedipi nomine tragoedias scripserunt, ex quibus ad nos pervenit duplex ille Sophoclis Oedipus, quod item Sophocles Thyestae nomine duas, unam Carcinus et Agatho unam evulgavit, id h. 1. Aristoteles non respexit, sed Oedi pum et Thyestam tamquam personas a mythica historia oblatas tragoediaeque aptas designavit.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-90

Ritter, cap. 13 § 4

ἀνάγκη ἄρα τὸν καλῶς ἔχοντα μῦθον ἁπλοῦν εἶναι μᾶλλον ἢ διπλοῦν: hoc cum pronuntiat, libri sui locum c. 8. pertractatum lectoribus in mentibus haerere recentem existimat, iisque nititur quae de unitate fabulae illic exposita sunt. μῦθος ἁπλοῦς dum opponitur τῷ διπλῷ alio intellectu accipiendus est quam c. 10., ubi idem contrarius est τῷ πεπλεγμένῳ, ἁπλοῦν μῦθον nunc eum dicit, in quo est simplex transitus aut ex aerumnis ad res secundas aut ex rebus secundis ad labores, eumque esse meliorem contendit quam duplicem, in quo miseri pro felicibus simulque qui felices miseri ostenduntur. conf. infra §. 7. ὥσπερ τινές φασιν: hi sunt qui ante Aristotelem de re scenica scripserant, quique duplicem praestare simplici fabulae docuerant. eosdem tangit §. 7. conf. Comment. ad c. 9, 8. καὶ μεταβάλλειν οὐκ εἰς εὐτυχίαν ἐκ δυστυ χίας ἀλλὰ τουναντίον ἐξ εὐτυχίας εἰς δυστυ χίαν: nempe ex tali in res adversas conversione facilius τὸ φοβερὸν καὶ ἐλεεινὸν oritur. ceterum non obliviscendum est philosophum loqui h. 1. de tragoedia pulcherrima et omnium optima, ut ex his verbis colligi haud liceat felicem tragoediae eventum, qualis est Philoctetae et Iphigeniae Tauricensis, ab illo prorsus improbari. secus id esse vel ex fine c. 7. et ex c. 11. §. 4. liquet. - ἢ οἷου εἴρηται, ἢ βελτίονος μᾶλλον ἢ χείρονος: aut eius qui descriptus est paulo ante (§. 2), aut eius qui probitate magis quam improbitate excellit.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-91

Ritter, cap. 13 § 5

τοὺς τυχόντας μύθους ἀπηρίθμουν: fabulas forte oblatas decantabant. ἀπηρίθμουν cum fastu quodam dictum est. ceterum ex his verbis ne colligas Aristolelem antiquis tragicis poetis praetulisse novos. ille enim nihil nisi hoc dicit, in eligendis fabulis novos tragoediarum scriptores, usu scilicet edoctos, cautius agere et prudentius. – ἡ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὴν τέχνην καλλίστη τραγῳ- dia: tragoediam quam hactenus descripsit artis legibus maxime respondere, h. e. ita factam esse ut finem huic generi poesis propositum ceteris facilius assequatur, dum monet, prudenter adiungit κατὰ τὴν τέχνην. nam etiam ea tragoedia, cuius fabula ad artis leges bene constituta est, aliis vitiis inquinata potest esse unde fiat deterrima.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-92

Ritter, cap. 13 § 6

διὸ καὶ οἱ Εὐριπίδῃ ἐγκαλοῦντες τὸ αὐτὸ ἁμαρτάνουσιν: τὸ αὐτὸ pertinet ad ἐγκαλοῦντες, non ad ἁμαρτάνουσιν: qui Euripidi id ipsum vitio vertunt. Reiziuş αὐτοὶ scribendum coniecit et Hermanno adprobavit. καὶ ὁ Εὐριπίδης - φαίνεται. nihil nisi tristis exitus tragoediarum Euripidearum laudatur. etiamsi una aliqua Euripidis virtus candide agnoscatur, multa tamen eius vitia auctorem nostrum haud latuisse monuit interiectis εἰ καὶ τα ἄλλα μὴ εὖ οἰκονομεῖ. reprehenditur Euripides infra c. 15, 5. et c. 18, 7. item in Ethicis Nic. III, 1. p. 1110 a 27. καὶ γὰρ τὸν Εὐριπίδου ᾿Αλκμαίωνα γελοῖα φαίνεται τὰ ἀναγκάσαντα μητροκτονῆσαι.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-93

Ritter, cap. 13 § 7

καθάπερ ἡ Ὀδύσσεια: mirum est pro exemplo citari Odysseam, ubi de argumentis tragicis, non de epicis, disputatur; quo accedit quod ipsum hoc additamentum post καὶ τελευτῶσα ἐξ ἐναντίας τοῖς βελτίοσι καὶ χείροσιν, non ante ponendum erat. καθάπερ ἡ Ὀδ. est glossa ad verba modo transcripta primo in margine posita et deinde in alienum contextus locum admissa. in fine Odysseae improbi (proci) trucidantur, Ulixes cum suis et amicis imperium recuperat. Aristotelis lectores in re manifesta exemplis supersedere poterant. διὰ τὴν τῶν θεάτρων ἀσθένειαν: sententiam esse similem illi, quam Aristoteles in Rhetoricis III, 1. p. 1404 a 8. διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀκροατοῦ μοχθηρίαν enuntiavit, dubitari nequit: sed id sane dubium est, an τὰ θέατρα numero plurali pro τοῖς θεαταῖς dicere liceat. nam si τὸ θέατρον et bene et saepe (vid. Aristoph. Acharn. 629. Equit. 233. 508. 1318. Рас. 735. Plato Conviv. p. 194 A. Pseudo - Aristoteles infra c. 16, 7) pro θεαταῖς dicitur, inde tamen non consequitur etiam τὰ θέατρα eodem intellectu poni posse. itaque θεατῶν scribendum existimo. τὰ θέατρα cuiuscumque generis spectacula denotant, ut apud Plutarchum An seni sit gerenda res publ. c. 24. p. 795 D (tom. IV. p. 192. ed. Wyt tenb.), ubi Euripides Timotheum dithyramborum scriptorem consolatur, ὡς ὀλίγου χρόνου τῶν θεάτρων ὑπ' αὐτῷ γενησομένων.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-94

Ritter, cap. 13 § 8

ἔστι δὲ οὐχ αὕτη ἀπὸ τραγῳδίας ἡδονή: voluptas quae ex felice tragoediae eventu redundat, ea non ex tragoedia exit qua tragoedia est. quae sequuntur ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τῆς κωμωδίας οἰκεία cet. praecipue spectant mediam comoediam. in antiqua comoedia non inauditum erat et in solens, si fabula in tristem finem desineret, ut desinunt Nubes Aristophanis et desinebant eiusdem Babylonii et Daeta lenses. conf. Fritzschii de Daetalensibus Aristophanis Commentatio p. 133. :

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-95

Ritter, cap. 14 § 1

Miseranda timendaque rectius excitantur factorum serie solerter instituta et conformata quam tristibus casibus in scena ante oculos spectatorum propositis. timor et miseratio quattuor modis ex rerum connexu nasci solent. Rerum in tragoedia gerendarum compositionem ( τὸν μῦθον) amplius explicaturus, primum monet hoc tragoediae officium nulla alia re satis compensari posse, neque spectaculis quibusdam hominum oculos mentesque percellentibus neque portentis rudes animos tenentibus, deinde pergit exsequi, quot modis quod miserandum et timendum ex rerum complexione oriatur. ἔστι μὲν οὖν - ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως γίνεσθαι: ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως est ex adspectu eorum quae tristia in scena peraguntur, veluti caedes et vulnera et dolores, praeterea homines olim felices et clari sed iam depressi laboribus et squalore sordeque insignes. ὄψις et hic et paulo post non tragoediae pars est, ut c. 6, 4 et 7., sed solito suo munere fungitur. δεῖ γὰρ καὶ ἄνευ τοῦ ὁρᾶν - ἐκ τῶν συμβαινόντων: qui dum agitur tragoedia oculis non utitur vel uti nequit, sed unis auribus quae fiunt percipit, is etiam timere debet et miseratione tangi, si poeta officio suo bene functus est. cave credas verum Aristotelem illud dicere voluisse, quod falsus bis monuit, semel c. 6, 19., iterum c. 26, 3., scilicet tragoediae vim etiam legendo apparere: immo cogitat aliquem qui dum datur fabula non nisi auribus quae funt ( τὸν ἀκούοντα τὰ πράγματα γινόμενα) excipiat. conf. Comment. ad. c. 6, 19.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-96

Ritter, cap. 14 § 2

τὸ δὲ διὰ τῆς ὄψεως τοῦτο παρασκευά - ζειν ἀτεχνότερον καὶ χορηγίας δεόμενόν ἐστιν: non dedit ἀγῶνος καὶ ὑποκριτῶν, neque dare id potuit, quia fabulam legendam et spectandam secum componere non voluit, sed eam quae molesto ac pretioso apparatu indiget coniunxit cum ea quae illo adeo non eget, ut audire res eius argumento consertas sufficiat. itaque posuit χορηγίας δεό μενον, non ἀγῶνος καὶ ὑποκριτῶν: choragia enim cum in fabula agenda magni pretii constaret, cumque a chorago ad orchestram condecorandam et ad chorum conducendum, instituendum, ornandum multo maiores impensae faciendae essent, quam a civitate ad scenam instruendam et actores conducendos, χορηγίαν generatim pro pretioso et operoso apparatu et apte dici posse et eo intellectu h. 1. accipiendam esse manifestum est. - ceterum lectori animum attendenti liquebit scriptorem personatum, quem c. 6, 19. deprehendimus, ex hoc loco sapientiam suam hausisse, sed eundem auctoris sui sententiam non recte accepisse. Aristoteles enim dicit, si quis ad excitandam miserationem et timorem nimium miserando quodam personarum agentium habitu tristique condicione oculis exposita utatur, id esse ἀτεχνότερον καὶ χορηγίας δεόμενον. hoc sane prudenter et modice dictum. quid inde imitator fecit? is omnem modum excedens, ut solent imitatores exaggerare, pronuntiavit (c. 6, 19) totam ὄψιν, h. e. totam actionem oculis excipiendam, ἀτεχνότατον esse ac minime propriam artis poeticae, et hoc dicere sustinuit, quamvis verus Aristoteles paulo ante (c. 6, 4) monuisset ὄψιν esse necessariam tragoediae partem. ἀλλὰ τὸ τερατῶδες μόνον: qui nonnisi miras imagines, ad praestringendos scilicet spectantium oculos, con sectantur, veluti Gigantes et Titanes et Cyclopes, vel insolitos casus, ut sereno caelo fulminum fulgores et tonitruum fragores, illi ad delectandos spectatores non tragoediae vi utuntur, sed artificia quaedam adhibent quae ab arte tragica plane aliena videntur. ex eiusmodi fabulis licet voluptatem aliquam percipiamus, ea tamen non ex ipsa tragoedia manavit: delectatio enim tragoediae propria proficiscitur a miseratione et timore.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-97

Ritter, cap. 14 § 3

τὸν ποιητὴν esse poetam tragicum ex contextu verborum liquet. - “ τοῦτο - ἐμποιητέον: τοῦτο esti τὸi ἐλεεινὸν καὶ τὰ φοβερόν. - ποῖα οὖν δεινὰ ἢ ποῖα οἰκτρὰ φαίνεται τῶν συμπιπτόντων, λάβωμεν: ut sententiam ab Aristotele in sequentibus enuntiatam recte intelligamus, attendere debemus ad verbum φαίνεται, quod non idem est, ac δοκεῖν, sed, apparere et in oculos, incurrere. itaque statim ea timenda et miseranda intelligit, quibus extemplo et facile omnes commoventur. non omnes tragoedias anse comprehendi, ne bonas quidem omnes, ipse ignorare non potuit. λάβωμεν sanum esse vix credo. sententia quamquam manifesta est, tamen difficile est ad indicandum quod verbum ab initio h. 1. positum fuerit. aptum erat λέγωμεν, διίωμεν, είπωμεν, alia, § 4. ἂν μὲν οὖν ἐχθρὸς - μέλλων δείκνυσι: hine discimus miserationem spectantium ex Aristotelis sententia pertinere ad primariam tragoediae personam, certe ad eam quae peragit facinus, non ad eam quae perpetitur: nam setiamsi eius qui occidit inimicum inimicus non miseremur, illum tamen, qui occiditur miseratione complecti possumus, sed id philosophus minus spectavit et curavit, immo nonnisi obiter significavit verbis πλὴν κατ' αὐτὸ τὸ πάθος. iam ubi inimicus inimicum interficit, is sponte inimicoque animo indulgens hoc facit, ut cum innocens esse non possit, nostra in illum miseratio non commoveatur, neque timor in nobis exoritur ne simile quidquam admittamus: nemo enim tam vecordem et nefarium se putat esse, ut propter inimicitias inimicum suum occidat. οὐδ᾽ ἂν μηδετέρως ἔχοντες: siis qui neque odit neque diligit aliquem tollit, id facinus fere aut iure commissum est, aut incredibile videtur. illud spectator, non improbat, hoc incredulus odit. ri § 5 ιτητοὺς μὲν οὖν παρειλημμένους μύθους λύειμ οὐκ ἔστιν κτλ. traditas fabulas solvere, h. e. plane invertere, quamquam non licet, poeta tamen immutare et ad propositum sibi finem adaptare adeo debet. aliter sensit falsus Aristoteles. vid. c. 25, 7. 11/4186. καθάπερ καὶ Εὐριπίδης -τὴν Μήδειαν: adiectum za ὶ indicio est Euripidem in novis tragoediarumscriptoribus referri. Medeae versus significantur 1236-1250 et 1271-1292. - τοῦτο μὲν οὖν ἐξω τοῦ δράματος: facinus ab Oedipo in Sophoclis Oedipo rege agnitum, hare. caedes patris Laii a se perpatrata, pluribus annis ante id tempus cuius casus in ea fabula explicantur, commissum erat. hoc est illud quod ἔξω τοῦ δράματος Aristoteles vocavit. οἷος ὁ ᾿Αλκμαίων ὁ ᾿Αστυδάμαντος: Astydamas tragicus Eriphylam in ipsa fabula trucidari fecit a filio Alcmaeone matrem illam esse nesciente. eodem nomine tragoedia Sophoclis et Euripidis duae olim exstiterunt. ex Euripi deis una inscripta erat ᾿Αλκμαίων ὁ διὰ Ψωφῖδος, altera ὁ διὰ Κορίνθου. tragoediae Sophocliae tria frustula, Euripidearum plura attulit Dindorfius in Αποσπασματίοις Poetarum scenicorum Gr. p. 33 et 77 ὁ Τηλέγονος ὁ ἐν τῷ τραυματίᾳ Ὀδυσσεῖ: fortasse Aristoteli de vero huius tragoediae auctore non satis constitit, ideoque eam cognomine definire maluit quam auctorem non satis certum proferre. Athenaeus pluribus saeculis post aut certius hanc rem exploraverat aut minus ille quam Aristoteles cautum se praestitit: scribit enim XIII. p. 562 F., ubi de Chaeremone agit, ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς ποιητὴς καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐρώντων ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ Τραυματίᾳ φησὶν οὕτως cet. idem XIII. p. 608 E. Ulixem Chaeremonis tragoediam commemorat, unde liquet ab hoc vulneratum Ulixem ad Char remonem auctorem relatum esse. forsitan Athenaeus priore loco scripserit ἐν τῷ Ὀδυσσεῖ τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ τραυματία. i

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-98

Ritter, cap. 14 § 7

καὶ παρὰ ταῦτα οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλως: αρ praeter haec non licet aliter facere illum quem poeta in scenam tragicam produxit. statim quidem quattuor agendi modos enumerat, non tres, sed ex his quartum continuo ex tragoedia prorsus relegavit. διόπερ οὐδεὶς - ὁ Αἵμων: haec ab interpolatorė quodam inserta esse recte pronuntiavit Gruppius ¹) in Ariadna 1) Gruppius etiam voces ἀπαθὲς γάρ pro suppositiciis habet, sedp. 556., nisi quod vera argumenta falsis commiscuit. vere ille monuit hanc sententiam moleste inferri, neque esse quo commendetur, immo Sophoclem sine iusta causa vituperari; idemque recte observavit inepte dici οὐδεὶς ποιεῖ, εἰ μὴ ὀλιγάκις, articulumque ante Αντιγόνη omitti praeter consuetudinem Aristoteliam. fallitur cum in vitiosae dictionis indiciis numerat οἷος pro οἷον : οἷος enim nihil est nisi vitium editionis Bekkerianae maioris ab ipso editore in minore correctum; falsum est quod affirmavit, οὐδεὶς ποιεῖ de poeta dici et mire ad Haemonem continuo referri: immo ποιεῖ dictum est de persona a tragico poeta inducta, apteque statim de Haemone facinus in patrem commissuro dici potest. equidem addendum puto hoc, non modo Sophoclis Antigonam exstitisse, sed etiam Euripideam. verus igitur Aristoteles Sophoclis nomen non omisisset, si ipse, illum Antigonae locum ab interpolatore significatum (v. 1216-1219 ed. Herm.) pro exemplo attulisset, ut non omisit in Rhetoricis I, 13 init.. I, 15 init. III, 16. p. 1417 a 28 et b 19. III, 17. p. 1418 b 31. porro Aristoteles de eiusmodi facinoribus loquitur, unde totius tragoediae habitus et forma pendet: tale autem non est Haemonis. dignus esset Sophocles hac vituperatione, si Creon post multas minas nulla poena Antigonam affecisset. quae ad Sophoclem aut defendendum ab hac reprehensione aut incusandum a viris doctis in utramque partem disputata sunt, ea hoc quidem loco commemorare iam nihil attinet.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-99

Ritter, cap. 14 § 8

ἀγνοοῦντα μὲν πρᾶξαι, πράξαντα δὲ ἀνα - γνωρίσαι: facinoris quod in hunc modum perpatratum et postea agnitum sit tria exempla paulo ante (§. 6) posita erant : item tria exempla deinceps afferuntur ad illustrandam tertiam facinoris committendi et agnoscendi rationem, ubi aliquis in eo est ut nefandum quoddam committat, sed ante quam facit rei atrocitatem agnoscit. ego sine certis argumentis nihil in hoc libro Aristoteli subtrahere sustineo..

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-100

Ritter, cap. 14 § 9

κράτιστον δὲ τὸ τελευταῖον : ex iis tragoediis quae statim pro exemplis nominantur cum primam et secundam felici exitu fuisse certum sit, eandemque tertiae rationem fuisse admodum verisimile videatur, Aristotelem hoc loco ante a se dictis (c. 13, 4), ubi felicem tragoediae exitum infelici postponit, repugnare crediderunt. sed Lessingius in Dramaturgia Hamburgensi c. 38. apte monuit, non eam esse philosophi sententiam, ut ex agnitione totius fabulae pretium definiatur, immo tragoediam vel optima agnitione ornatam, nisi alia accedant, satis esse vilem ac tenuem. hoc vere. sed quod idem addit, nihil obstare quo minus in hoc genere agnitionis tragoedia tristi exitu concludatur, id quomodo salva unitatis lege fieri posset, neque explicuit neque explicare potuerit. οἷον ἐν τῷ Κρεσφόντῃ : huius tragoediae auctorem reticeri et earum quae deinceps et c. 15, 5. nominantur, id mirum est et repugnat consuetudini ex aliis Aristotelis operibus cognitae. mihi duobus modis hoc explicari posse videtur. aut finis huiusce capitis (§. 9-11) et totum caput 15. ab interpolatore qui hanc libri formam concinnavit in brevius contracta sunt, cum iste et alia et fabularum laudatarum auctorem tamquam supervacanea omitteret, aut ipse Aristoteles Cresphontem auctoris nomine suppresso memorare sibi licere putavit, quoniam unus Euripides eo nomine tragoediam scripsisset, idemque sibi licere in Iphigenia et Hella, cum Euripides semel legentibus in memoriam vocatus esset, existimavit. eadem ratione defendi vel excusari quodammodo potest, quod c. 15, 5. quattuor Euripidis tragoediae commemorantur, cum primo loco ea posita esset, quo titulo nemo praeter Euripidem tragoediam evulgasset. quamquam, ingenue fateor, haec altera sive explicandi sive excusandi auctoris ratio parum mihi placet: nam vel illud, et Cresphontem nonnisi Euripideam et Orestem nonnisi Euripideam fabulam apud veteres exstitisse, quamquam verisimile est, nullo tamen argumento satis certo constat. de fabula subiecta Euripidis Cresphonti, cuius duodeviginti fragmenta restant, copiosedisputavit Lessingius in Dramaturgia Hamb. c. 37 et 40., hauriens sua ex Hygini fabulis 137 et 184., ex Plutarchi de esu carnium orat. II. c. 5. p. 998 Е.. · καὶ ἐν τῇ Ιφιγενείᾳ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν: scriptoris menti obversatus est locus Iphigeniae Tauricensis v. 609-830.- καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἕλλῃ : hanc fabulam aliunde non cognovimus. quae de filio matrem inimicis tradituro inde memorantur, ea Antiopae Euripideae apte inesse potuerunt, cuius tragoediae nomen huic ignoto substitui voluit Valckenarius. in Diatribe Eurip. p. 58-60. ὅπερ πάλαι εἴρηται: dictum hoc erat c. 13, 5. - §. 11. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων συ στάσεως: iam concludit disputationem bonae frugis plenissimam, quam ad fabulae ( τοῦ μύθου) tragicae naturam et, rationem illustrandam inde a 7. capite inchoaverat.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-101

Ritter, cap. 15 § 1

Quae in exprimendis moribus personarum agentium tragico poetae observanda sint, quae fugienda docetur. Mores hominum in tragoedia agentium proximo post fabulam loco cum supra (c. 6, 14) collocati essent, nemo quidem mirabitur post absolutam fabulae explicationem auctorem adgredi ad morum pertractationem, sed id mirum videbitur unicuique attento animo totum librum perlegenti, ab hoc loco nimium languescere argumenti propositi expositionem, adeo ut modo nonnisi disiecta membra summi philosophi et prudentissimi hominis agnoscere videamur, modo virum ineptum et sola doctrina superbientem intueamur. prius illud cadit in disputationem quae c. 15. continetur. de moribus enim tragoediae pauca quaedam et ieiuna digitis enumerantur adiectis quibusdam non contemnendis observationibus. sed tam arida et tenuis est haec expositio, ut qui eam antecedenticomparaverit, vix Aristotele dignam iudicare possit. num, igitur pro suppositicia habenda est? non puto: nam quae interpolator ille a nobis saepe per hunc librum deprehensus inseruit, ea tot indiciis coarguuntur, ut haec de moribus dicta isti tribuere non possim. itaque sic statuo, Ari! stotelis de moribus disputationem ab isto interpolatore in epitomam redactam et nonnullis in locis mutatam ad nos per venisse. : ὅπως χρηστά ᾖ: hoc praeceptum consequitur ex illis quae с. 13, 1-4. exposita leguntur. conf. c. 2 extr ceterum is cuius probi mores sunt minoribus nihilo minus vін! tiis obnoxius esse et magnis erroribus constrictus teneri potr est. – ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη: epitomator idemque interpolator ad sua ipsius (c. 6, 17) bona ante exprompta provocat. χρηστὸν δ' ἐὰν χρηστήν: quod ante χρηστὸν plerique codices ἢ vel ἢ addunt, id ex proximo versu ( χρηστὰ ᾖ) huc delatum est. in editionibus praeterea legimus φαῦλον μὲν ἐὰν φαύλην, sed hoc additamentum abest ab AcBcNa et. M omnibus et LPQ, neque adesse oportet, cum dicenti nihil propositum sit, nisi ut quos intelligat bonos mores indicet. me: lius adeo et facilius sequentia sic succedunt. nam cum scribit ἔστι δὲ ἐν ἑκάστῳ γένει, ad ἔστι intelligendum est χρηστὸν ἦθος, idque fieri commode potest, si sola illa χρηστὸν δ᾽ ἐὰν χρηστήν praecesserunt. καίτοι γε ἴσως-φαῦλόν ἐστιν: genus muliebre virili comparatum sequius est et deterius, et servorum genus. cum liberis et ingenuis collatum omnino vile est, sed in suo genere unusquisque bene moratus esse ac studere rebus honestis potest. mira haec nobis videri solent, sed Aristotelis non minus severum de feminis iudicium legimus in eius Hi storia animalium IX, 1. p. 608 b 8-15.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-102

Ritter, cap. 15 § 2

δεύτερον δὲ τὰ ἁρμόττοντα: secundum praeceptum est ut poeta personis productis aptos mores affingat, de quibus praeclare agit Horatius in Arte poetica v. 114-124. haec Aristotelia nimium ieiuna et subobscura sunt et inepta brevitate laborant. offendit τὰ ἁρμόττοντα ubi τὸ- ἁρμόττον exspectamus, offendit etiam τὸ ἦθος ubi τι ἦθος vel simile quoddam desideramus: sed haec epitomatori sinistre contrahenti genuinam disputationem imputanda puto. ...

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-103

Ritter, cap. 15 § 3

τρίτον δὲ τὸ ὅμοιον-ὥσπερ εἴρηται: in his neque vola neque vestigium est ingenii Aristotelii. tertium quod poeta in moribus depingendis observare debeat, esse simile ( τὸ ὅμοιον), idque aliud esse quam bonos mores et aptos fingere, ut dictum. quae est illa comparatio, qua "simile" et "bonos aptosque mores" componuntur? quae definitio, qua "simile" aliud esse quam "bonos aptosque mores fingere" declaratur? quid tandem isto ὥσπερ εἴρηται faciemus? num interpolator haec inseruit? fortasse ita est: sed uncis tamen illa includere nolui, quoniam epitomator bonam quandam Aristotelis sententiam male reddidisse videtur, et sententiam quidem ipsam quae subsequitur (§. 6), χρὴ δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἤθεσιν ἀεὶ ζητεῖν ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ τὸ εἰκός. qui haec sive inseruit sive brevioribus et minus aptis verbis reddidit, sua ne ipse quidem videtur intellexisse. nam exemplis continuo sequentibus non quattuor sed tria tantummodo morum vitia notantur, ut statim videbimus. iam non mirabimur hunc locum ab interpretibus varie acceptum esse. Victorius similes mores eos intelligit qui non abhorreant a moribus eius aetatis, unde homines in scenam producuntur, h. e. congruentes cum historia sive vera sive fabulosa. sed quis eiusmodi mores simpliciter ὁμοίους appellaverit? nec vero omnes omnium tragoediarum personae ex historia repetuntur, neque mores cuiusvis temporis ubique a poeta religiose observandi sunt ac reddendi, immo nonnulla in moribus immutare ille et ad consilium suum accommodare debet. conf. c. 14, 5. Hermannus τὸ ὅμοιον cum explicat οἷα ἂν γένοιτο, ego ei ita consentio, ut haec fere dicere voluisse epitomatorem statuam, h. e. sententiam ipsius Aristotelis hanc fuisse, sed ab homine parum diligente corruptam et obscuratam esse.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-104

Ritter, cap. 15 § 4

τέταρτον δὲ τὸ ὁμαλόν: conf. Horatii in Arte poetica praeceptum v. 119. sibi convenientia finge, et praecipue v. 125.si quid inexpertum scenae committis et audes personam formare novam, servetur ad imum qualis ab incepto processerit et sibi constet. ὁ τὴν μίμησιν παρέχων est persona in scenam inducta. ea si prae se fert inconstantiam ( τοιοῦτον ἦθος ὑποτιθείς, tragoediae scilicet sive poetae tragoediam scripturo), poeta tamen in depingenda inconstantia constantiam sequi debet, h. e. qui semel inconstans processit, talis usque ad imum servandus est. hoc est ὁμαλῶς ἀνώμαλος εἶναι, acuta sane observatio et Aristotelis persona non indigna.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-105

Ritter, cap. 15 § 5

ἔστι δὲ παράδειγμα κτλ. tria morum pingendorum praecepta illustrare ita pergit, ut quomodo peccatum sit in primum et tertium singulis exemplis, et quomodo id quod aptum ( τὸ ἁρμόττον) non servatum sit, duobus exemplis demonstret. πονηροῦ ἤθους (quod contrarium τῷ χρηστῷ) exemplar Menelaus est qualem Euripides in Oreste monstravit; τὸ ἁρμόττον violavit Euripides cum in Scylla lamentationem Ulixis et in Melanippa orationem minime convenientem puellae inseruit; inconstantiae vitium deprehenditur in Euripidis Iphigenia Aulidensi. Euripidis nomen epitomator brevitati nimium studens omisit. de singulis ordine dicam. Μενέλαος ὁ ἐν τῷ Ὀρέστη: primum illud praeceptum quo commendatur tragico poetae, ut χρηστὰ ἤθη fingat, Euripides in tragoedia Oreste violavit, cum Menelaum inconstantia foedum atque improbum finxit, eoque magis violavit quod neque argumenti illius natura neque fabulosae historiae traditione cogebatur (hoc est illud μὴ ἀναγκαῖον), sed civibus suis Laconas aversantibus gratificaturus Menelaum Laconem talem descripsit. conf. Marklandius ad Euripidis Iphigen. Aulid. v. 304. qui argumentum Orestae conscripsit monet: τὸ δράμα τῶν ἐπὶ σκηνῆς εὐδοκιμούντων, χείριστον δὲ τοῖς ἤθεσιν· πλὴν γὰρ Πυλάδου πάντες φαῦλοι ἦσαν. θρῆνος Ὀδυσσέως ἐν τῇ Σκύλλῃ: transit ad peccata in alterum praeceptum commissa. Scyllam' nonnisi ex hoc loco et ex c. 26 init. cognovimus. Euripidis fabulam fuisse inde discimus quod media inter Euripideas af-COMMENTARIVS! fertur, drama Satyricum fuisse vir in his litteris versatissimus, Welckerus noster, mox demonstrabit. - καὶ ἡ τῆς Μελανίππης ῥῆσις: Melanippam Euripidis tragoediam saepe, scriptores antiqui respiciunt, ac fragmenta non pauca inde servata sunt. inerat mira et arguta puellae Melanippae ad patrem oratio. illa enim cum geminum partuma Ne ptuno compressa edidisset et in patris stabulis clam exposuisset, ille autem infantulos tamquam monstra ex bubus nata comburere pararet, filia ex placitis Anaxagorae probare studuit, pueros quamvis ex bubus natos non pro monstris habendos esse; item multa alia attulit quibus patri interimendorum puerorum consilium dissuaderet. vid. Dionysii Halic. Rhetor. apud Reiskium vol. V. pag. 300 et 355. propter disputationis subtilitatem ea fabula Μελανίππη ἡ σοφή vocabatur. quemadmodum lamentatio non decet Ulixem virum fortem, sic oratio tam subtilis et parum verecunda non convenit virgini tantis difficultatibus impeditae. sane et illud epitomatorem sapit quod ῥῆσις Μελανίππης tam nude pro exemplo ponitur. – ἡ ἐν Αὐλίδι Ἰφιγένεια: constantiae in moribus observandae praeceptum egressus est Euripides in Iphigenia Aulidensi, nimirum non hoc reprehenditur quod Iphigenia vitam sibi a patre primo supplex deprecatur ac mox rerum condicionem perspiciens mactandam sese offert, sed id recte me iudice vituperatur, quod eadem virgo quae v. 1211-1252. abiecte et humiliter flendo ne immoletur precatur, quaeque adeo ad inhonesta et turpia illa descendit, τὸ φῶς τόδ' ἀνθρώποισιν ἥδιστον βλέπειν, い τὰ νέρθε δ᾽ οὐδέν· μαίνεται δ' ὃς εὔχεται θανεῖν, κακῶς ζῆν κρεῖσσον ἢ θανεῖν καλῶς, quod eadem non multo post (v. 1368-1401) prorsus conversa et tamquam virago fortissima procedit. frustra non Euripidem sed Chaeremonem a se pro auctore fabulae habitum defendere atque hanc reprehensionem diluere conatus est Gruppius in Ariadna p. 487 sqq. et 498 sqq. idem totum hunc locum (§. 5) additamentum esse ab aliena manu insertum :opinatur. vid. p. 557 sqq. hoc si verum esset, tria alia exempla (§. 7) pro insertis maiore etiam iure habenda essent. sed hisce sublatis de moribus disputatio adeo quasi marcescit et vanescit, ut paucula quaedam frusta remaneant: sed cum eadem bonas observationes et pro illo interpolatore nimis egregias contineat, hunc de moribus locum ab illo non scriptum sed insigniter decurtatum et prave dispositum esse coniicere praestat. illud bene monuit Gruppius, ipsum Aristotelem Iphigeniam Euripideam non tam nude designaturum fuisse, cum et Sophocles et Aeschylus Iphigeniam docuerint et Polyidus sophista eodem nomine tragoediam evulgaverit. vid. infra c. 16, 6 et c. 17, 3. sed haec et alia in quibus offendit Gruppius, cur ita se habeant ex nostra ratione liquet. : :

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-106

Ritter, cap. 15 § 6

χρὴ δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἤθεσιν-γίνεσθαι ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ τὸ εἰκός: hoc quartum esse praeceptum, tragoediarum scriptori in moribus effingendis probe observandum ab Aristotele propositum, ego existimo: sed epitomatorem cum hoc fugisset, et iste mancam esse disputationem credidisset, illas de τῷ ὁμοίῳ nugas (§. 3) suo iudicio inseruit, ut non tria sed quattuor enumerasse videretur. praecipit igitur Aristoteles poetae tragico, ut is in moribus describendis anquirat quod verisimile sit vel necessarium. hoc ipsum fit cum unusquisque agentium pro moribus suis et loquitur et agit, cumque ea accidunt, quae ex moribus illis aut semper aut plerumque consequuntur.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-107

Ritter, cap. 15 § 7

φανερὸν οὖν ὅτι καὶ τὰς λύσεις- συμτ βαίνειν: si quis fingit quae ex moribus hominum in scenam adductorum aut probabiliter aut necessario eveniunt, fabularum quas pertractavit solutio ex ipsis procedit, neque opus est ut ea externis quibusdam instrumentis efficiatur. sed qui deum ex machina quem vocant adhibet vel deos agere facit quae hominum sunt, is hoc praeceptum violare solet. ad hoc illustrandum quae sequuntur exempla ex Euripide et Homero petita luculente epitomatorem demonstrant, dico illa καὶ μὴ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ Μηδείᾳ ἀπὸ μεχανῆς καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰλιάδι τὰ περὶ τὸν ἀπόπλουν, quod statim ostendam ubi verba ipsa explicavero. hoc igitur reprehendit philosophus quod Medea Euripidea solari curru ( μεχανῇ) Corinthum iustasque scelerum poenas incolumis aufugit (v. 1320 sqq.), ut poeta τὸ ἀναγκαῖον vel τὸ εἰκὸς non observaverit. nam qui tanta est morum atrocitate quanta est Medea, quae quidem infantes suos pueros trucidare sustinet, eum non incolumem evasurum sed iustas crudelitatis poenas daturum exspectamus. quae succedunt, καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰλιάδι τὰ περὶ τὸν ἀπόπλουν, haec non iam pertinent ad verba ἀπὸ μηχανῆς, sed eiusmodi exemplum est, ubi solutio non ex ipso rerum nexu et pro moribus agentium nascatur. reprehenditur locus quidam ex Homeri Iliade, et quidem ille quem etiamnum legimus B. 155- 181. nam cum Agamemnoni duci amicisque placuisset ad tentandam exercitus fidem repetendae patriae consilium simulare, Achivi tanto patriae desiderio moti sunt, ut etiam contra fatum conscensis navibus domum redirent, nisi Minervae interventu excitatus Ulixes id consilium dissuasisset. deae igitur auxilio ad hoc efficiendum non opus fuisse Arist. significavit: immo intervenire deam nunc quidem a nemine exspectari, sed unumquemque ex ducibus ad tam inhonestum inceptum praepediendum pro virili parte niti, hoc moribus corum convenisse. iam haec observatio tam acuta est ut interpolatori tribui nequeat, sed eadem loco adeo non apto posita est, ut qui hoc viro sapientissimo imputare velit prudentiae iniuriam facturus videatur. sed si Aristoteles finita primaria illa disputatione de fabularum tragicarum solutione moribus et rerum nexui rite adaptanda contrarium illud ex Euripide exemplum attulit ac deinceps monuit etiam ab epicis poetis in hoc praeceptum saepe peccari, quo facto si idem illud ex Homero exemplum protulit, sane hoc prudenter et apte institutum esse, ut decet Aristotelem, dicemus. hoc ipsum igitur ego statuo: technicus illam disputationem contrahendo quae media inter utrumque exemplum posita erant sustulit, exempla ipsa (quippe his ubique studet) servavit, sed usque adeo verborum parcus ut etiam Euripidis et Homeri nomina supprimeret. Aristoteles ipse Euripidem Medeae auctorem non reticuit c. 14, 6. Carcini Medea ad partes vocatur in Rhetoricis II, 23. p. 1400 b 9. Hermannus in Commentariis p. 161. veram loci interpretationem postquam tetigit, addit: "sed videndum ne de parva Iliade sermo sit, cuius partem fuisse ἀπόπλουν colligimus ex XXIII, 7 (c. 23, 4). id quidem non aliter fieri potuit, nisi si excidit vocabulum μι κρᾷ." Graefenhanius in Commentariis ad h. 1. p. 112. "innui aliquam tragoediam huius nominis" opinatur, cui assentiens Welckerus (in Museo Rhenano philolog. tom. V. p. 492) hanc tragoediam fuisse Aeschyli Philoctetam, quae alio nomine Ἰλίου πέρσις vocata sit, coniecit. ἀλλὰ μηχανῇ χρηστέον-προαγορεύσεως καὶ ἀγγελίας: μηχανῇ breviter dicit pro θεῷ ἀπὸ μηχανῆς. Horatius in Arte poetica v. 191. commendat hoc, nec deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus inciderit. τὰ ἔξω τοι δράματος quae sint, illatis ἢ ὅσα πρὸ τοῦ γέγονεν .... ὅσα ὕστερον explicatur. ἢ ἄλογον δὲ μηδὲν εἶναι: si quis fingit quae moribus agentium convenienter accidunt et ex ipsa rerum coniunctione consequuntur, nihil a ratione alienum admittere potest. itaque quartum illud praeceptum egreditur qui ἄλογόν τι admiscet. οἷον τὰ ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι τῷ Σοφοκλέους: illud ratione caret quod Sophoclis Oedipus rex multis demum annis post Laii caedem a coniuge locasta comperit, qua clade et quo in loco Laius perierit, respicit Oedipi v. 715-754. sed rursus agnosce mihi epitomatorem. observatio bona est, sed tam obscure enuntiata, ut eam omnino non intelligeremus, nisi infra (c. 24, 10) eandem clarius verbis expressam posuisset: illic vero hunc hominem non epitomatoris partes agere sed interpolatoris demonstrabo.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-108

Ritter, cap. 15 § 8

quarta lege in moribus fingendis observanda absoluta et contrariis exemplis illustrata, iam ad mores revertitur, ut nonnulla quae partim ex primo praecepto partim ex fine tragoediae proposito consequuntur adiungeret. οὕτω καὶ τὸν ποιητήν - ᾿Αγάθων καὶ Ὅμηρος:tragicus poeta quamquam iracundos et socordes et aliis morum vitiis infectos describit, hos tamen meliores ostendere (h. e. ἐπιεικεῖς ποιεῖν) debet quam vulgo esse solent, qualem Achillem alioquin iracundum finxit Agatho in Telepho tragoedia et Homerus in postrema Iliadis rhapsodia. hanc explicationem sumpsi non ex fallaci editionum scriptura sed ex codicum lectione glossematis repurgata. codices enim tantum non omnes. (AcBcNa et Momnes et P, alii) haec exhibent : τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν τοιούτους ὄντας ἐπιεικεῖς ποιεῖν παράδειγμα σκληρότητος, οἷον κτλ., quae sana sunt et dilucida, si duo interpretamenta avelluntur. nam τοιούτους ὄντας est explicatio verborum τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν, itemque παράδειγμα σκληρότητος nota est marginalis, ab eo adscripta qui Achillis nomine excitatus hunc fuisse durum virum et obstinatum lectores admonere voluit. Agathonis Telephum ab Athenaeo X.. p. 454 D. commemoratum respici acute coniecit Tyrwhittus. Homerus Achillem Priamo mitem ac plane ἐπιεικῆ in postremo Iliadis libro descripsit. verisimile est eundem Achillem multis Telephi precibus fatigatum sub exitum tragoediae illius ab Agathone evulgatae mitem et placidum prodisse. vulgo. codicibus invitis Aldum auctorem secuti legunt: τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν, ἐπιεικείας ποιεῖν παράδειγμα, ἢ σκληρότητος δεῖ, οἷον ατλ. sed. vide quam incerto fundamento haec nitantur. particulam ἢ et verbum δεῖ nulli codici inest, ἐπιεικείας ex uno Leidensi affertur. alii suspectum illud ἢ pro aut alii pro potius quam accipiunt, sed illi sententiam hanc non aptam procudunt, quasi duritiae exemplar tragoediae praecipue conveniat, hi Aristoteli loquendi genus ei incognitum offerunt: quamvis enim interdum ante ἢ notio potius a Graecis suppleatur, eiusmodi tamen loci ita conformati sunt, ut omnis significationis dubitatio exclusa sit. 1) Verba τοιούτους ὄντας quamquam ex Mediceis non afferuntur, inesse tamen admodum verisimile est. etiam Victorius illa invenit in "calamo exaratis libris,16.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-109

Ritter, cap. 15 § 9

καὶ πρὸς τούτοις τὰς παρὰ τὰς ἐξ ἀνάγ κης ἀκολουθούσας αἰσθήσεις τῇ ποιητικῇ: h. e. et insuper eas perceptiones quae praeter necessarias poesin comitantur. an mores boni sint aptique sibique constent, an cum ipsa factorum serie conveniant necne, id ex ipsa poesi necessario percipitur. sed poesin etiam saltatio et musica comitari possunt, quod si fit, in his quoque artibus τὸ ἠθικὸν probe observandum est. nomen αἴσθησις similiter positum c. 7, 6., praepositio παρὰ (praeter) c. 14, 7. τὰς παρὰ τὰς recepi ex AcNa et L: ceteri aut τὰ παρὰ τὰς aut τὰς παρὰ τὰ. quos statim dicit λόγους ἐκδεδομένους, intelligere videtur librum a se περὶ μουσικῆς et περὶ παιδείας olim conscriptum, tum etiam illa quae in Politicis etiamnum de musica (VIII, 5 sqq.) exposita legimus.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-110

Ritter, cap. 16 § 1

Inseritur arguta disputatio de variis agnoscendi generibus miro acumine et futili sedulitate excogitatis. Vide, lector, quam praeclare qui hoc disputationis caput conscripsit illis respondeat quae ab Aristotele in fine c. 14. dicta sunt, περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων συστάσεως, καὶ ποίους τινὰς εἶναι δεῖ τοὺς μύθους, εἴρηται ἱκανῶς. scilicet post interiectam de moribus explicationem (c. 15) continuo ad fabulam ( τὸν μύθον) revolvitur, varias agnitionis (quae implexae fabulae pars est) species describens, et ita describens, ut magis doctrinae copiam quam aliquam iudicandi facultatem prodat. haec inconstantia et ordinis perturbatio, magis autem mira illa lectionis ostentatio et insignis iudicii perversitas Aristotele prorsus indigna est et ab eius disputandi more planissime abhorret. nec vero in hac quaestione negligendum videtur quod iam undecimo capite non modo quid sit agnitio expositum est, sed etiam agnoscendi species breviter dextreque enumeratae sunt, ut qui illum locum diligenter consideratum huic contulerit, intelligat, totum caput ad quod pervenimus a viro quodam erudito sed subinepto ex illo ductum exemplisque improbe dilatatum esse. haec quae universe diximus in adnotationibus subsequentibus firmare conabimur. εἴδη δὲ ἀναγνωρίσεως - ἡ διὰ τῶν σημείων: mire haec dicta sunt et sinistre coniuncta: nam ante quam prima agnoscendi species ipsa declaratur, eam arti plane repugnare sed tamen a plerisque imperite adhiberi cum fastu quodam et laetitia severus hic arbiter pronuntiat. ἡ διὰ σημείων est agnitio quae fit signis, et signis quidem iis, quae adspiči oculis possunt, sive in agentium corporibus impressa sive eisdem appensa visuntur. conf. nota postrema ad §. 4. t

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-111

Ritter, cap. 16 § 2

τούτων δὲ τὰ μὲν σύμφυτα - διὰ τῆς σκάφης: signorum duo genera enumerantur: alia enim corpori natura ( σύμφυτα) impressa sunt, alia post adquisita ( ἐπίκτητα). secundi generis duae sunt species, prout signa illa adquisita corpori aut inhaerescunt aut appensa sunt. vide putidam diligentiam. λόγχην ἣν φοροῦσι Γηγενεῖς: verba haec esse tragici cuiusquam poetae recte collegit Hermannus, primum ob casum nominis a verbo φοροῦσι aptum, quamquam ei argumento in hoc scriptore non multum tribuendum videtur, tum ob articulum nomini Γηγενεῖς non additum, denique ob hoc ipsum nomen nove pro Σπαρτοῖς positum. Γηγενεῖς h. 1. sunt terrigenae illi Thebani sive Sparti, quibus hastae insigne corpori a natura impressum fama dedit. conf. Plutarchus de sera numinis vindicta p. 563 A (vel tom. III. p. I. pag. 268. apud Wyttenb.), Dionis Chrysostom. Orat. IV. p. 62 (vel ap. Reisk. tom I. p. 149), Iuliani orat. II. p. 81 C. ed. Spanhem. φοροῦσι dictum est, non φέρουσι, quia signum illud utpote innatum semper secum tulerunt. ἢ ἀστέρας οἵους ἐν τῷ Θυέστῃ Καρκίνος: quid est hoc? num poeta Carcinus stellas in corpore suo gestavit? immo ἐποίησε intelligendum est. audio: sed hoc ἐποίησε unde sumemus? nihil adest, nihil unde nobissponte se offerat. est igitur vitium orationis homini negligenter scribenti relinquendum. grammaticum etiam inde agnoscimus, quod de re sibi satis nota tam obscure loquitur, ut verba eius nonnisi intelligere is possit, qui hanc rem strictim memoratam sive ex Carcini fabula sive aliunde edoctus est. intelligit enim insigne quoddam splendidum (eburneum), quod genti Pelopidarum (Pelopida Thyestes erat) in humeris impressum fuisse fama tulit. conf. Iulianus 1. c. μηδὲ εἰς Πελοπίδας ἐξῆν ἐγγράφεσθαι τοὺς μὴ φέροντας ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων τοῦ γένους τὰ γνωρίσματα. Themistii Orat. VI. p. 92. ed. Dindorf. τοῖς Πελοπίδαις μὲν ἐξήρκει καὶ μόριόν τι περὶ τὸν ὦμον ἐξεικασμένον ἐλέφαντι (cf. Pindar. Olymp. I, 27) πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν τῆς συγγενείας. vid. quae idem tradit in Orat. XXI. p. 304. Gregorius Nanzianzenus Epist. CXXXIX, 3. Σπαρτιάτας ἡ λόγχη γνωρίζει, ὦμος τοὺς Πελοπίδας, hanc famam Carcinus in Thyesta suo ita videtur exornasse, ut splendidam illam Pelopidarum in humeris particulam stellam esse fingeret vel metaphora usus eo nomine designaret. de Carcino diligenter expositum est a Meinekio in Comment. miscell. fasc. I. p. 23 sqq. τὰ δὲ ἐκτός, τὰ περιδέραια, καὶ οἷον ἐν τῇ Τυροῖ διὰ τῆς σκάφης: etiam haec mire coniuncta sunt. cum dixisset nonnulla signa corpori non inhaerescere sed extra esse, non pergit οἷον περιδέραια, sed secure adiungit τὰ περιδέραια, ac tum demum etiam tardius sequuntur καὶ οἷον ἐν τῇ Τυροῖ διὰ τῆς σκάφης. hanc σκάφην ne intelligas veram cymbam qua gemini Tyrus a Neptuno compressae filii expositi sunt, sed crepundia sive monumenta in scaphae speciem conformata puerisque appensa. sermo enim est de indiciis quae quis gestare solet, et quibus quis ille sit agnoscitur. Tyrus nomine tragoediam Sophocles conscripsit, unde fragmenta nonnulla exstant. hanc ab interpolatore respici vix dubium videtur, sed vide mihi quantopere turbaverit in exemplis congerendis. primum enim attulit versus particulam nomine auctoris omisso, deinde meminit ignobilis tragici Thyesten, denique tragoediam Sophocliam laudavit suppresso nomine poetae.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-112

Ritter, cap. 16 § 3

ἔστι δὲ καὶ τούτοις - ἐν τοῖς Νίπτροις, βελτίους: haec non malam sententiam continent, quae si alio loco legeretur pro Aristotelia haberi fortasse posset, sed tamen duo insunt quae alienam manum prodant. Ulixes a nutrice Euryclea inter lavandum inopinato ex cicatrice agnoscitur. vid. Odyss. T. 386 sqq. hanc agnitionem cum mox dicit fieri ἐκ περιπετείας, aliam ac multum distantem significationem huic nomini dedit quam verus Aristoteles c. 10 et 11. - καὶ ἄλλως ὑπὸ τῶν συβοτῶν: ab Eumaco et Philoetio Ulixes agnoscitur, cum ut fidem faceret ( πίστεως ἕνεκα) cicatricem illam ipse monstrasset. vid. Odyss. Ф. 217 sqq. sed illi qui agnoscebant num συβόται erant ? immo Philoetius βουκόλος erat, Eumaeus συβότης. hoc alterum est vitium interpolatoris securitati tribuendum. Νίπτρα undevicesima Odysseae rhapsodia vel potius pars eius libri vocabatur. vid. ad cap. 24, 9 extr. de perdita Sophoclis fabula, quae modo Νίπτρα modo Ὀδυσσεὺς ἀκανθύπληξ appellatur, hic nemo cogitaverit.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-113

Ritter, cap. 16 § 4

δεύτεραι δὲ - διὸ ἄτεχνοι: hoc manifestum alienae manus vestigium, quod secundum genus est eiusmodi, ut idem primum et tertium et quartum esse possit: poetae enim cuiusvis generis agnitiones excogitare licet. sed hic noster suo arbitrio pronuntiavit agnitiones a poeta inventas ob eam ipsam causam rudes esse, cum tamen et optimas et pessimas invenire possit. tarde succedit et hiante iunctura διὸ ἄτεχνοι. quae sequuntur, merae nugae sunt. οἷον Ὀρέστης ἐν τῇ Ἰφιγενείᾳ ἀνεγνώρισεν ὅτι Ὀρέστης: talem hunc locum exhibent AcBcNa et M omnes et GLPQ, quos cur deseramus iusta causa deest. technicus noster ἀνεγνώρισεν ὅτι Ὀρέστης nove dixit pro manifestum fecit se esse Orestem, dativum Ἰφιγενείᾳ lectori supplendum relinquens, sinistre sane utrumque, sed idem in admittendis ellipsibus omnem modum egredi solet. respexit Iphigeniae Euripideae Tauricensis v. 811-826. sed vide quomodo editores antiqui huic loco succurrere conati sint, siquidem legunt οἷον Ὀρέστης ἐν τῇ Ἰφιγενείᾳ ἀνεγνώρισε τὴν ἀδελφήν, ἀναγνωρισθεὶς ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνης ὅτι 1) Ὀρέστης, sed eo additamento nihil proficiunt novi interpolatores nisi ut veteri turpem errorem iniungant: nam apud Euripidem Orestes sororem non agnoscit postquam ipse ab ea iam agnitus est, sed prior sacerdotem illam sororem Iphigeniam esse intelligit ac tum demum sese illi agnoscendum praebet. lege v. 759-792 et 811-826. ἐκείνη μὲν γὰρ διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, ἐκεῖνος δὲ αὐτὸς λέγει ἃ βούλεται ὁ ποιητής, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὁ μῦθος: haec scriptura est codicum AcBeNa et M omnium et GLPQ, cui haec subiecta est sententia, Iphigeniam per epistolam sese notam Oresti fecisse (verbum ἀνεγνώρισε novo significatu praeditum ex prioribus assumendum est), Orestem vero ipsum protulisse (scilicet ut soror illum fratrem esse intelligeret) quae poeta suggesserit, non quae fabula sive fabulosa 2) historia. posteriorem agnoscendi modum tamquam ab arte alienum notat, priorem paulo post (§. 8) laudat. verum enim vero difficultatibus vix expediendis hunc locum implicuit quod Victorius in uno codice se dicit legisse, acceptum illud ab editoribus tantum non omnibus, ἐκεῖνος δὲ διὰ σημείων. ταῦτα οὖν αὐτὸς λέγει – ὁ μῦθος. sed auctor hic noster σημεῖα dixit signa quae ipsis agentium oculis aut corpori cuiusdam personae inhaerescentia aut extra corpus conspicua visuntur, nisi forte illum sibi omnino non constitisse statuere volumus. iam si illa, quae Orestes fratrem se esse probaturus sorori narrat de telis ab ipsa pertextis et in paterna domo asservatis, σημεῖα dixis- 1) Nonnulli ex editoribus haec probantibus verba ὅτι Ὀρέστης expungunt, sed hi eodem in loco quaedam ex coniectura Italorum interpolatorum adsciscunt, quaedam a codicibus oblata negligunt. 2) μύθον h. 1. non argumentum tragoediae sive τῶν πραγμάτων σύστασιν intelligi sed fabulosam narrationem, tam ex illis αἱ πεποιημέναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ποιητοῦ quam ex altero exemplo liquet.set, etiam haec agnitio διὰ σημείων facta et in primo genere, non in secundo, reponenda esset. praeterea quae statim sequuntur huic lectioni plane adversa sunt. διότι ἐγγὺς τῆς εἰρημένης ἁμαρτίας - ἐστίν· ἐξῆν γὰρ ἂν ἔνια καὶ ἐνεγκεῖν: dictum vitium est si quis agentium signis conspicuis ad fidem faciendam utitur. prope ab hoc vitio abest Orestes ille Euripideus, cum quae res sorori suae in paternis aedibus cordi sint exponit: quippe poeta non multum aberat quin Orestem signis nonnullis conspicuum eaque Iphigeniae ostendentem inducere auderet. hoc est illud ἐξῆν γὰρ ἂν ἔνια καὶ ἐνεγκεῖν ( τὸν Ὀρέστην). arguta disputatio et obscura. καὶ ἐν τῷ Σοφοκλέους Τηρεῖ ἡ “ τῆς κερκίδος φωνή”: ecce alterum doctrinae specimen mire et γραμματικῶς prolatum, non ut sententia illustretur, quod factum iam est, sed ut eruditionis thesauri magis etiam recluderentur. loci perobscuri sensum acute explanavit Tyrwhittus. nimirum κερκίδος φωνή ex ipsa Sophoclis tragoedia sumpta tela illa est vel potius radius textorius, cuius ope Philomela Procnae sorori declaravit, quae ipsa ab eius coniuge Tereo indigna perpessa sit, cum lingua excisa loqui non posset. vid. Ovid. Metamorph. VI, 424 sqq. Hygin. Fab. 45. eandem telam Procna alloquitur in Attii Tereo apud Nonium p. 96, 27. o suavem linguae sonitum, o dulcitas conspirantis animae. vid. Welckeri Trilogia Aeschyl. p. 503. sed in co Tyrwhitto non assentior, quod ille κερκίδα pro tela accipiendam esse dicit: immo κερκὶς nunquam tela est, sed audaci metaphora usus Sophocles posuit κερκίδος φωνὴν (der Spule Stimme), quoniam Philomela radii textorii auxilio in tela eas notas intexuit, quibus Procna infelicem sororis sortem agnovit. sed unde hic noster tam accurate rescivit hoc a Sophocle excogitatum, non autem fama traditum esse ? credo hunc technicum illam fabulam a Sophocle aliter et ingeniosius tractatam repperisse, quam in fabularum cyclo perscriptam vel ab aliis poetis conformatam eandem legisset. item iste non multo ante epistolam illam IphigeniaeEuripideae (759-792) fabulosae historiae ( τῷ μύθῳ) tribuit, sed illa quae Orestes v. 811-826. expromit, ab Euripide inventa esse dicit: quippe de epistola illa etiam aliunde aliquid inaudiverat, sed quae Orestes dum se sorori agnoscendum praebet profert, ea apud unum Euripidem invenerat. sed quid tandem in agnitione Sophoclia illa reprehendendum sit tamquam ἄτεχνον, alii viderint: ego illud technico dicendum relinquo, quem ad dubitationem meam sic fere respondentem audio ἔστι γὰρ πεποιημένη, διὸ ἄτεχνος.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-114

Ritter, cap. 16 § 5

τρίτη δὲ ἡ διὰ μνήμης, τῷ αἰσθέσθαι τι ἰδόντα: tertia est agnitio quae fit per recordationem, cum quis adspiciens vel audiens aliquid animo commovetur, eoque quis sit ab aliis agnoscitur. hoc postremum a nobis ex subiectis exemplis sumptum scriptor addere oblitus est: quippe homo succinctus statim ad exempla discurrit. ὥσπερ ἡ ἐν Κυπρίοις τοῖς Δικαιογένους: Cypria Dicaeogenis tragoediam fuisse et Dicaeogenem tragicum aliunde non cognitum existimant, sed quis tragoediam eo nomine consignaverit, quo notissimum apud Graecos carmen epicum cyclo illo comprehensum, et insigni rerum ambitu, vocatum fuisse constat? hoc minus etiam probabile nobis videbitur, ubi viderimus continuo item ex epico poemate alterum exemplum proferri. interpolator igitur alterum quoddam carmen Cyprium nobis haud cognitum videtur respexisse. sic post Thebaida τὴν κυκλικήν novam fecit Antimachus Platonis aevo, sic Telesis Methymnaeus post antiquam illam sive Titanoта- chiam sive Gigantomachiam novam edidit, si tabulae Borgianae vestigia recte secutus et interpretatus est Welckerus in Cyclo epico p. 32-37. ἰδὼν γὰρ τὴν γραφὴν ἔκλαυσεν: in Cypris Dicaeogenis aliquis (Menelaus ut videtur) tabulam pictam adspiciens collacrimavit et sic ceteris quis esset prodidit. sed rursus vide grammaticum negligenter et obscure loquentem. quis sit ille ἰδὼν reticet, item silentio premit et ubi lacrimas ille fuderit et qui cum agnoverint. καὶ ἡ ἐν ᾿Αλκίνου ἀπολόγῳ: ᾿Αλκίνου ἀπόλογον Gracci Odysseae libros 9-12 vocarunt, quia Ulixis narrationem ( ἀπόλογον) Alcinoi gratia susceptam continent. conf. Platonis Civit. X. p. 614 B. Aristotel. Rhetor. III, 16. p. 1417 a 14. sed quem interpolator significavit locum, Odyss. Θ. 521 sqq., is non inest in illa narratione, sed ea sequente libro demum inchoatur. ὅθεν ἀνεγνωρίσθησαν: Ulixes dum canentem Demodocum audiens lacrimas fundit, id Alcinoum impellit, ut Ulixem quis sit percontetur, cui morem gerens libro sequente patriam et nomen professus casus suos narrat. ἀναγνώρισις quam vulgo intelligimus haec dici vix potest, sed haec saltem difficultas evanescit, si ἀνεγνωρίσθησαν intellectu illo huic homini proprio dictum accipiamus, noti facti sunt, non agniti sunt. verus Aristoteles certe scripturus fuisset ἐν τῷ ᾿Αλκίνου απολόγῳ. cf. Rhetor. 1. c. non minus negligenter personatus homo statim scribit ἐν Χοηφόροις, non ἐν ταῖς Χοηφόροις. vid. Commentar. in C. 23, 4.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-115

Ritter, cap. 16 § 6

τετάρτη δὲ ἡ ἐκ συλλογισμοῦ, οἷον ἐν Χοηφόροις - Ὀρέστης: etiam hic vir ille litteratissimus nimium ad exempla festinat. vix nomen quartae agnitionis positum est, cum iam exemplum succedit, quo allato demum explicatur cur ἐκ συλλογισμοῦ hoc agnitionis genus vocetur. οὗτος ἄρα ἐλήλυθεν: non satis vere haec dicta esse intelliges ex Aeschyli Choephoris (hanc fabulam technicus dixit) v. 166-234. nam Electra cum cincinnum in tumulo patris invenisset et vestigia solo impressa suis similia vidisset, Orestem advenisse inde coniecit, sed nihilo minus satis incerta demum ex indiciis, quae Orestes fidei causa cum illa communicavit, fratrem cognovit. καὶ ἡ Πολυείδου - συμβαίνει θύεσθαι: haec hausit ex c. 17, 3. strenue pergit exempla exemplis cumulare. considera haec: καὶ ἐν τῷ Σοφοκλέους Τηρεῖ. – καὶ ἡ ἐν ᾿Αλκίνου ἀπολόγῳ. – καὶ ἡ Πολυείδου τοῦ σοφιστοῦ περὶ τῆς Ἰφιγενείας. – καὶ ἡ ἐν τῷ τοῦ Θεοδέκτου Τυδεῖ. καὶ ἡ ἐν τοῖς Φινείδαις. de Polyido sophista dicemus ad c. 17, 3. καὶ ἡ ἐν τῷ Θεοδέκτου Τυδεῖ κτλ. TydeumTheodectis tragici poetae aliunde haud cognitum habemus, neque ex his verbis de argumento eius fabulae certi quidquam colligi potest, ne id quidem, ipsum Tydeum fuisse de quo h. 1. referuntur illa, ἐλθὼν ὡς εὑρήσων υἱὸν αὐτὸς ἀπόλλυται. nam in ellipsibus hic noster temere audet. καὶ ἡ ἐν τοῖς Φινείδαις: Φινεῖδαι gemini sunt Phinei filii a matre oculorum lumine orbati. vid. Sophocl. Antig. v. 966-987. sed quae continuo ex fabula Phinidarum afferuntur de mulieribus fatum suum ex loco ubi olim expositae erant agnoscentibus prorsus obscura sunt. filiae Phinei nusquam commemorantur; itaque incertum relinquitur quae fuerint illae quae sortem sibi destinatam ex loco agnoscunt. Phineum et Aeschylus scripit et Sophocles, sed haec ex alterutra desumpta esse nihil est quod probet. neque verisimile videtur Timothei dithyrambum Φινείδας inscriptum et a Suida memoratum respici. exstitisse tragoediam hoc nomine dubitari nequit, cum Attii Phinidae octies a Nonio Marcello et semel a Festo s. v. tonsillam memorentur. vid. Bothii Poetae scen. Latin. vol. V. p. 235 ed. a. 1834. ellipsis illa ἰδοῦσαι γὰρ (quae?) plane intolerabilis est, sed huius hominis stilo satis convenit. chorum virginibus vel mulieribus constantem videtur significare.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-116

Ritter, cap. 16 § 7

ἔστι δέ τις καὶ συνθετὴ ἐκ παραλογι σμοῦ τοῦ θεάτρου: agnitionem compositam dicere videtur ubi spectatores ( τὸ θέατρον) sperant fore ut aliquis agnoscatur is quem esse ipsi falso ratiocinati sunt, sed paulo post alium illum esse atque opinati sunt intelligunt. haec agnitio ita composita est, ut spectatores in agnoscenda persona quadam primo errent, mox eadem quae sit cognoscant. hoc videtur accidisse in Ulixe mendace nuntio, fabula nobis haud cognita. personatus quidam Ulixes se Ulixem esse probare voluit; spectatores verum esse Ulixem credentes exspectabant illum se pro Ulixe per arcum, quem sibi notum esse iactabat, probaturum esse, sed neque probavit, et alium quendam esse innotuit. sed haec omnia in coniectura versantur: nam ut certi nihil pronuntiari possit, scriptoris negligentiaprospexit. - τὸ μὲν γὰρ τόξον ἔφη : quis dixit? personatus Ulixes: sane, sed nota quam parcus sit hic homo in subiectis definiendis. statim τὸ δέ AcBc et M XIV 16 21 et GLPQ, τῷ δὲ Na et ( τῷ δὲ) Μ 14. τὸ δέ est theatrum; verba ὡς δι' ἐκείνου ἀναγνωριοῦντος de Telemacho falsum Ulixem percontante dicta accipio. editores Aldo auctore ὁ δὲ legunt, sed ea coniectura nihil expeditur: iam enim quis sit o δé nescimus, neque cur theatri mentio facta sit liquet, et genitivus ille absolutus magis etiam offendit. ubi res tam incerta est, a coniecturis abstinere praestat, ceterum statim ἐποιήσατο exspectamus, non ἐποίησε. itaque etiam hoc sciri certo nequit, an veteres editores corruptam codicum scripturam ποιῆσαι vere correxerint. certe ex ποιῆσαι non magis facile ἐποιήσατο fiat quam ἐποίησε.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-117

Ritter, cap. 16 § 8

πασῶν δὲ βελτίστη ἐπιθεῖναι γράμματα: haec hausta sunt et inepte repetita ex c. 11. post οἷον ἐν τῷ Σοφοκλέους Οἰδίποδι cum succedat καὶ τῇ Ἰφιγενείᾳ, unusquisque legentium haec verba sola respiciens Sophoclis Iphigeniam intelligere debet (ab eo tragoediam hoc nomine editam esse constat), sed si ad consequentia animum adverterit, non Sophoclis Iphigeniam (Aulidensem), sed Euripidis Tauricensem significari comperimus, quae negligentia eo magis vituperanda est, cum praeter Sophoclem etiam Aeschylus Iphigeniam (Aulidensem) scripserit, et Tauricensem Iphigeniam praeter Euripidem etiam Polyidus sophista docuerit. Sed iam haec omnia et obscure et hiulco sermone et negligenter scripta esse, id satis, credo, constabit, quae qui Aristoteli tribuit, summi viri laudibus et ingenio insignem iniuriam fecerit.17. §. 1. 203 :

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-118

Ritter, cap. 17 § 1

Qui tragoediam facere adgreditur, rem ad scribendum delectam ante oculos suos explicare et habitum personarum agentium corpore suo exprimere debet. in co negotio multum se iuvari sentiet, si primum generatim fabulam delineaverit, tum nominibus impositis eam amplificaverit episodiisque distinxerit. Praecepta a poeta tragico in argumentis constituendis et in moribus exprimendis observanda postquam exposuit, addit nonnulla unde idem ille condiscat, qua cautione et quibus exercitationibus adhibitis eo pervenire possit, ut argumenta moresque apte conformata exhibeat. eadem haec disputatio sub finem c. 18. continuatur: initium enim ab aliena manu sinistre additum est. ceterum quae utroque capite explicantur, exceptis illis ab interpolatore admixtis, ex disputatione ampliore et luculenta in breviorem a technico contracta videntur esse. δεῖ δὲ τοὺς μύθους- σχήμασι συναπεργαζόμενον: duas res philosophus ei qui tragoediam scripturus est commendat, ut in ipsis rebus a se pertractandis versetur, ut porro personarum agentium vultus et gestus suo corpore inter scribendum exprimat. ad δεῖ συνιστάναι intellectu supplere debemus τὸν συνίσταντα, h. e. tragicum poetam. τοὺς μύθους intellige fabulas a fama suppeditatas, non argumenta tragoediarum in universum. conf. adnotatio ad §. 3. ὅτι μάλιστα πρὸ τῶν ὀμμάτων τιθέμε vov: poeta inter ipsas res versari easque sibi ob oculos ponere debet. in hoc praeceptum quomodo peccari possit, exemplo illo statim ex Carcini Amphiarao allato in parenthesi docetur, quo facto alterum illud praeceptum, ὅσα δὲ δυνατόν, καὶ τοῖς σχήμασι συναπεργαζόμενον, subsequitur. aliud est πρὸ ὀμμάτων λέγειν (anschaulich reden) vel ποιεῖν deeo qui dicit vel scribit, quode explicatum est in Rhetoricis III, 11. ὁ γὰρ ᾿Αμφιάραος - ἐξέπεσε : festive sibi respondent haec, Αμφιάραος ἐξ ἱεροῦ ἀνῄει atque ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς σκηνῆς ἐξέπεσε. scilicet Carcinus ὁ τραγικός Amphiaraum ex templo redeuntem fecit, idemque hunc egressum spectatoribus non cognitum deinceps ita respexit, ut tragoedia obscura fieret ideoque non placeret. festivum in locutione illud est, quod ἐξέπεσε, verbum de fabulis exactis dici solitum, ad ipsam Amphiarai personam transfertur, quodque qui de templo egressus erat, in scena non stetisse dicitur. de illo verbi ἐκπίπτειν significatu dixit Hemsterhusius ad Luciani Nigrin. c. 8. Dissenius ad Demosthenem de Corona p. 416. (p. 265 R.) ὅσα δὲ δυνατόν, καὶ τοῖς σχήμασι συναπερ - γαζόμενον: hoc alterum praeceptum mores potissimum spectat, prius argumenti conformationem. iam enim poetae suadet, ut is, dum sive iratos sive quocumque alio modo affectos pingit, ipse iratorum vel alio affectu commotorum vultus et gestus ( σχήματα) imitetur, quo verius eos affectus verbis exprimere possit ipse ira sive odio incitatus vel quomodocumque commotus. scilicet qui vultum irati vel aversantis vel aliter commoti adhibet, is sese sponte subirasci aversarique sentit, idemque in ceteris affectibus usu venire solet. vid. Aristotel. Physiognom. c. 4. p. 808 b 12. ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς ἕξις ἀλλοιουμένη συναλλοιοῦ τοῦ σώματος μορφήν, πάλιν τε ἡ τοῦ σώματος μορφὴ ἀλλοιουμένη συναλλοιοῖ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἕξιν. conf. quae disputavit Wüllnerus meus in libro bonae frugis plenissimo Ueber die Verwandtschaft des Indogermanischen, Semitischen und Tibetanischen cet. §. 3. non bene interpretes nonnulli de figuris ab histrionibus in scena exprimendis cogitaverunt: eae enim histrionum sunt, non poetarum; neque hoc loco agendae tragoediae sed perscribendae praecepta traduntur. quod ad structuram verborum attinet, haec ὅσα δὲ δυνατόν, καὶ τοῖς σχήμασι συναπεργαζόμενον respondent superioribus illis ὅτι μάλιστα πρὸ ὀμμάτων τιθέμενον. media igitur παρενθετικῶς prolata sunt.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-119

Ritter, cap. 17 § 2

πιθανώτατοι γάρ - εἰσι : aptissimi enim ad persuadendum sunt ( πιθανώτατοί εἰσι), eiusdem quidem ingenii homines ( ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως), ii qui animo commoti sunt ( οἱ ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν), h. e. qui proclives sunt ad animum commotum, si iidem ceteris ingenii dotibus non sunt inferiores, hi omnium optime imitari et proxime veritatem accedere possunt. quae subsequuntur, καὶ χειμαίνει - ἀληθινώτατα, ad hoc pronuntiatum probandum accedunt. aliud est quod Horatius in Arte poetica v. 101-113. poetis suadet, scilicet ut ad quemcumque fortunae habitum verba et dictionem accommodare velint. διὸ εὐφυοῦς ἡ ποιητική κτλ. quapropter solertis est poetica aut eius qui animo commotior. qui animo commotiores ( οἱ μανικοί') facile in quodlibet finguntur ( εὔπλαστοί εἰσιν), h. e. facile quemcumque animi habitum ipsi induere ideoque verbis exprimere possunt ¹). alteri autem qui solertis ingenii sunt ( οἱ εὐφνεῖς), inclinant ad anquirendum ( έξεταστικοί εἰσι), quid in quaque animi condicione et loqui et agere conveniat, ideoque facile quemcumque animi habitum verbis imitari possunt. plures editores έκστατικοὶ ex uno Victorii codice receperunt, sed hoc ab ipso Victorio satis refutatum est in Comment. ad h. 1. pag. 167.

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.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-123

Ritter, cap. 18 § 1

Partes tragoediae sunt convinctio et solutio; eiusdem species quattuor, una implexa, alia pathetica, alia moralis, quarta qualis Prometheus cet. ut tragici argumenti unitas conservetur, cavere decet complexum fabularum, neque choro tribuere licet nisi quae proposito conducant et apte cohaereant. -3. ἔστι δὲ πάσης τραγῳδίας - δεῖ δὲ ἄμφω ἀεὶ κροτεῖσθαι: primum signum ac magnum quo haec ab Aristotelis explicatione segreganda esse colligo hoc est, quod quae in capitis 17. fine et inde a c. 18, 4. docentur his illatis mire divelluntur. nam extremo c. 17. cum expositum esset propter diversam argumenti condicionem poesin dramaticam brevibus episodiis distingui, epicam longioribus dilatari, iam consentaneum est ut tragoediarum scriptori commendetur, ne materiam epopoeiae aptam in tragoedia pertractare velit. id vero ipsum monetur demum c. 18, 4. quo facto praecipitur, ne chori cantica a fabulae argumento aliena sint, ac tum totum illud disputationis caput (c. 17 et 18, 4-7), in quo tragoedias scripturum respexit et praeceptis instruxit Aristoteles, finitur. num forte hisce illa c. 18, 1-3. apte inseri possunt? non possunt: quippe non solum aliena sunt, sed etiam futilia. nam quaedam inania de iis tragoediae partibus explicantur quas technici δέσιν et λύσιν appellant, deinde quattuor tragoediarum genera non explicantur sed nude enumerantur et ridiculo praecepto clauduntur. alterum signum hoc est, quod simpliciter ponit cuiusque tragoediae partim esse implicationem partim solutionem, porro tragoediae quattuor species, et hoc ita narrat ut nullo suo iudicio utatur sed totus ab exemplis pendeat. hoc vero indignum est Aristotelis ingenio. accedunt alia de quibus ad singulos locos disputabimus. esse §. 1. τὰ μὲν ἔξωθεν καὶ ἔνια τῶν ἔσωθεν πολλάκις ἡ δέσις, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἡ λύσις: praeclara vero et loquendi et definiendi ratio. τὰ ἔξωθεν sunt quae c. 15, 7. ἔξω τῆς τραγῳδίας vocantur; sed quae extra sunt nullam fabulae partem efficiunt; immo implicatio fit per eam actionem quae in tragoedia ostenditur, et haec ipsa ut tota sit ab initio proficisci debet. illud πολλάκις adeo significare videtur interdum ἔνια τῶν ἔσωθεν ne requiri quidem ad instituendam implicationem. τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἡ λύσις quod relicuum solutio. nomine λοιπὸς Graeci et relicuus Latini utuntur, cum quae restant certa sunt et definita; alioqui Latini cetera et Graeci τὰ δὲ ἄλλα ponunt. at vero hic plane deest eiusmodi definitio, quoniam nonnisi vage dictum est ad δέσιν pertinere ἔνια τῶν ἔσωθεν πολλάκις, unde consequitur interdum totam fabulam solutione contineri, quod absurdum est falsumque. λέγω δὲ δέσιν - εἰς εὐτυχίαν: cum modo λύσιν ita descripsisset interpolator, ut λύσει maior tragoediae pars contineri videretur, continuo tamen δέσιν longe maximam esse pronuntiavit: λέγω δὲ δέσιν μὲν εἶναι τὴν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς μέχρι τούτου τοῦ μέρους ὁ ἔσχατόν ἐστιν cet. vide, non quid sit δέσις vel quo modo instituatur exposuit, sed digitis pro norma usus quousque pertineat indicavit; eadem ratione λύσιν statim definire voluit. ἐξ οὗ μεταβαίνει εἰς εὐτυχίαν: quid est hoc? nihil est nisi vitium manifestum. qui haec scripsit tragoedias cogitavit, qualis est Sophoclis Philocteta, Euripidis Iphigenia utraque, etiam Medea eiusdem: nam ea tragoedia quamvis satis luctuosa sit et atrox, ipsa tamen Medea feliciter evasit, quod igitur in paucis tragoediis factum sciebat, id temere ad omnes transtulit. quapropter non bene fecerunt qui verborum contextu immutato hoc vitium tollere aut obscurare conati sunt. alii enim ἀτυχίαν dederunt (Goulstonus), alii εὐτυχίαν ἢ δυστυχίαν (Tyrwhittus), alii δυστυχίαν ἢ εἰς εὐτυχίαν (Reizius), Graefenhanius denique persuasissimum sibi habet verbo εὐτυχία breviter fortunae mutationes notatas esse. λύσιν δὲ τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς μεταβάσεως μέχρι τέλους: quemadmodum ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς scripsit, ita μέχρι τοῦ τέλους scribere debuit, quod ipsum paulo post subsequitur. non solum ex hac inconstantia agnoscas serioris aetatis scriptorem, sed etiam ex loquendi infantia quae perspicitur ex illis μέχρι τούτου τοῦ μέρους, μέχρι τέλους, μέχρι τοῦ τέλους.

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.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-125

Ritter, cap. 18 § 3

μάλιστα μὲν οὖν ἅπαντα δεῖ πειρᾶσθαι ἔχειν, εἰ δὲ μή, τὰ μέγιστα καὶ πλεῖστα: divisionibus a se propositis duas adiungit admonitiones. earum prior spectat ad poetas tragoedias scripturos, altera lectoribus vel spectatoribus suadet, ut iuste leniterque de fabulis iudicare velint. itaque dum poetae commendat, ut is omnia habere (in tragoediis) conetur, sin minus, gravissima et plurima, ea admonitio ridicula est et inanis, ridicula propter nimiam benigni magistri facilitatem, inanis quod quae sint gravissima non explicatur. non minus mira, ne dicam inepta, est querela illa ἄλλως τε καὶ ὡς νῦν συκοφαντοῦσι τοὺς ποιητάς, quasi tu dicas, zumal auch wie man jetzt hinter den armen Dichtern her ist. sed haec prodere mihi videntur disciplinae Peripateticae alumnum quendam ad Academicos (illi Platonis exemplo poetas in multis saepiusque iniuste et speciosius quam verius reprehendebant) maligne et invidiose respicientem. δίκαιον δὲ καὶ κτλ. haec ad priorem illam divisionem, secundum quam tragoedia δέσει et λύσει continetur, spectant. moneo quam dure τοῦτο δὲ - καὶ λύσις inferantur. iustum sermonis vinculum deest: membra singula mire adnectuntur: δίκαιον δὲ τοῦτο δέ πολλοὶ δὲ δεῖ δὲ. quid denique volunt sibi δεῖ δὲ ἄμφω ἀεὶ κροτεῖσθαι? hoc, bonam implicationem bonamque solutionem laudandam esse ? immo verba hanc offerunt sententiam, bonam implicationem et malam solutionem semper laudibus prosequendam esse. num

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-126

Ritter, cap. 18 § 4

χρὴ δὲ - τραγῳδίαν: nunc demum revertimur ad verum Aristotelem. quam bene sequentia cum fine capitis 17. cohaereant, et unusquisque videt et a nobis paulo ante explicatum est. quod saepius dictum esse pronuntiat, respicit c. 5, 4. 7,5-7. 17,5. alii loci quibus idem monebatur fortasse interciderunt. epopoeiae unitas latioribus finibus circumscripta est, eaque cum multa episodia admittat, complexum mythorum proponere potest. itaque epicum carmen multis mythis ( πολύμυθον) distinctum apparet. trilogiae compositionem significari per ἐποποιικὸν sive πολύμυθον σύστημα existimavit Welckerus in Trilog. Aeschyl. p. 349. 444. 531. 601. et in Museo Rhenano philolog. V. p. 490. sed in verbis quae hic legimus nihil inest, unde illam sententiam probemus. nimirum hoc commendatur poetae tragico, ne mythicae materiae nimium uni tragoediae subiicere velit. conf. Commentar. in c. 7, 3. p. 145. ἐκεῖ μὲν τὸ πρέπον μέγεθος: quae h. 1. μέρη vocantur episodia sunt, quae quamvis ampla tamen propter epici carminis ambitum ( διὰ τὸ μῆκος) iustos fines non facile excedunt.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-127

Ritter, cap. 18 § 5

ὅσοι πέρσιν Ἰλίου ὅλην ἐποίησαν: qui eversionem Iliacae urbis totam tragoediae argumentum fecerunt. varia illa quae acciderunt, cum Ilium devastaretur, una tragoedia comprehendi salva lege dramaticae unitatis non possunt, quam ob causam eae fabulae displicuerunt quae id praestare conarentur. ceterum de certo tragoediae cuiusdam nomine ( Πέρσις Ἰλίου) ne cogitemus, vel collocatio verborum ( πέρσις Ἰλίου) impedit. carmen illud epicum Arctini et Leschis (v. ad c. 23, 4) non πέρσις Ἰλίου, sed Ἰλίου πέρσις 1) vocatur, eodemque modo tragoedia appellanda erit, si quidem unquam eo titulo tragoedia exstitit, vid. Commentar. ad c. 23, 4. καὶ μὴ κατὰ μέρος [, ὥσπερ Εὐριπίδης Νιόβην, καὶ μὴ ὥσπερ Αἰσχύλος]: haec est constans co- 1) Conf. c. 23, 4. Pausan. X, 25 et 27. Proculi Chrestom. excerpta apud Gaisfordium ad Hephaest. p. 483., alii,dicum scriptura, unde qui discessere huius loci auctorem et doctiorem et prudentiorem fecerunt quam re vera fuit. Aristotelem non scripsisse verba uncis circumdata plura sunt quae ostendant. Euripidi fabula tribuitur quam non conscripsit; eadem ad devastationem Ilii a vero auctore memoratam nihil pertinet; Euripides laudatur quod fabulam Niobiam κατά μέρος tractaverit, Aeschylus reprehenditur quod eadem solertia non usus sit. haec ego ne antiquo quidem interpolatori tribuo, quippe in ipso verborum contextu nimis absurda sunt, sed ex nota marginali nata esse puto. scilicet cum in extremo codicis antiqui versu collocata essent verba illa καὶ μὴ κατὰ μέρος, aliquis in margine adscripsit ὥσπερ Εὐριπίδης Νιόβην, intelligens κατὰ μέρος ἐποίησε, illisque καὶ μὴ ὥσπερ Αἰσχύλος adiectis significavit Aeschylum Niobae fabulam deterius in rem suam convertisse. iam, si pro Euripidis nomine interim Sophoclis admiserimus, quae in ipso operis contextu et sensu carent et disputationis ordinem turbant, ea hanc si minus veram at tolerabilem sententiam offerunt, Sophoclem (Euripidem) in Nioba sua fabulae Niobiae particulam, Aeschylum eandem totam (in trilogia) pertractandam sibi sumpsisse. sed nihilo minus Euripidem de loco per scribentis errorem benigne concesso non movendum esse censeo. qui coniecturis hanc difficultatem tollere conati sunt, operam me iudice perdiderunt. Valla convertit Hecubam, non Niobam, unde Tyrwhittus Εκάβην sumpsit, sed ne Hecuba quidem ad Ilii eversionem pertinet, sed ad illa quae secuta sunt eversionem, ut omittam sic iniuste laudari fabulam illam pessimam et duplice argumento vitiosam, neque adesse quo referantur καὶ μὴ ὥσπερ Αἰσχύλος. Aldus ex coniectura vel sua vel alius dedit νιόβην ἢ μήδειαν, quibus loci difficultas magis etiam augetur. alii alia tentaverunt. ἢ ἐκπίπτουσιν ἢ κακῶς ἀγωνίζονται: aut exiguntur aut male certant, h. e. aut fabulam peragere non possunt aut ita certant ut nonnisi secundo tertiove loco nominentur. conf. c. 17, 1. ἐπεὶ καὶ ᾿Αγάθων ἐξέ - πεσεν ἐν τούτῳ μόνῳ: Agatho in tragoedia quadam ase edita ( Ἰλίου πέρσιν inscriptam fuisse neque hinc neque alio indicio constat) totam excidii urbis Troiae historiam videtur comprehendisse, verbi causa illa quae Priamo indigna acciderunt, quae Cassandra et Astyanax aliique perpessi sunt, quae Ulixes et Aiax et Agamemno perpatraverunt. ex verbis ἐξέπεσεν ἐν τούτῳ μόνῳ ne colligas Agathonem vicisse in ceteris suis fabulis omnibus: quippe potuit in nonnullis κακῶς ἀγωνίζεσθαι. ἐν δὲ ταῖς περιπετείαις - ὧν βούλονται θαν - μαστῶς: si rerum conversiones ( αἱ περιπέτειαι) sunt eiusmodi ut simplicibus factis ( ἁπλοῖς πράγμασιν) eveniant, quod fit ubi necessario vel probabiliter accidunt, poetae tragici propositum suum optime consequuntur. intelligit igitur eas περιπετείας quae ἁπλοῖς πράγμασι, non συστήματι πολυμύθῳ, continentur, atque haec ipsa ἁπλᾶ πράγματα non μύθῳ πεπλεγμένῳ sed συστήματι πολυμύθῳ opposita cogitari debent. noli igitur confundere ἁπλᾶ πράγματα cum ἁπλῇ πράξει sive ἁπλῷ μύθῳ (vide c. 10 et 11) neque statuere Aristotelem contra loqui c. 13, 2., ubi pronuntiat pulcherrimae tragoediae fabulam ( μύθον) implexam esse, non simplicem. - τραγικὸν γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ φιλάνθρωπον : tragicum hoc est, quia eiusmodi facta timorem miserationemque movent. nam simplicia cum naturae convenienter fieri soleant, similia cuivis accidere possunt. inde timor in nobis et simul aliorum miseratio nascitur; sin minus, certe sensus humanus tangitur.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-128

Ritter, cap. 18 § 6

ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο - ἄδικος δὲ ἡττηθῇ: haec nonnisi ad τὸ φιλάνθρωπον pertinent. si prudens idemque pravus decipiatur, et fortis idemque iniustus vincatur, is miserationem nostram excitare nequit, cum innocentia ei desit (vid. c. 13, 2), sed animum humanum eiusmodi casus tangere et movere solet. ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο εἰκός - παρὰ τὸ εἰκός: ut prudens decipiatur et fortis superetur, non saepe quidem evenit, sed per sese non pugnat contra probabilitatem. hoc breviter videtur monere voluisse, ne quis eiusmodi res peccare in leges ὥσπερ ᾿Αγά- ab ipso c. 9. praescriptas existimaret. θων λέγει: Agathonis sententiam plenam posuit in Rhetoricis II, 24. p. 1402 a 10. τάχ᾽ ἄν τις εἰκὸς αὐτὸ τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι λέγοι, βροτοῖσι πολλὰ τυγχάνειν οὐκ εἰκότα. brevitatis causa h. 1. illam Agathonis sententiam suis verbis significasse contentus est.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-129

Ritter, cap. 18 § 7

καὶ τὸν χορὸν - παρά Σοφοκλεῖ: ut per tragoediam unum quoddam ( ἕν τι) et totum ( ὅλον) exprimatur, opus est ut chori cantica cum fabulae argumento cohaereant: alioquin unitas fabulae perit et cantica ista vana funduntur. qui chorum tamquam actoris partes sustinentem accipere iubetur, est is qui tragoediam scripturus est: hunc enim etiamnum Aristoteles respicit. quae chorus canit loquiturve, ea ex ipsa actione tragica ducta esse decet. praeclare Horatius in Arte poetica v. 193. actoris partes chorus officiumque virile defendat, neu quid medios intercinat actus, quod non proposito conducat et haereat apte. chorus Euripideus non raro officium suum deserit et intercinit quae a proposito aliena sunt. magis etiam in hoc praeceptum peccavit Agatho Euripidi aetate suppar, quo auctore ἐμβόλιμα (exodia) in tragoediam recepta sunt, h. e. cantica ab argumento tragoediae aliena et pro arbitrio poetae inserta. τὰ ἀδόμενα οὐ: codices τὰ διδόμενα. vid. notae crit. qui τὰ διδόμενα defendere et explicare tentarunt, ad inania et prava prolapsi videntur. quomodo ἀδόμενα corrumpi potuerit in διδόμενα comparanti AI ΔOMENA et 1110- MENA liquet. negationem οὐ praecedens vocalis absorpsit. οἱ λοιποί sunt tragici Euripide posteriores quibus ad exodia facienda exemplum Agatho praeivit.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-130

Ritter, cap. 19 § 1

Διάνοια aptius in arte rhetorica quam in poetica pertractatur; neque de λέξει quae exponi possunt, ad poeticam pertinent omnia. Explicata argumenti conformatione a poeta tragico instituenda (c. 7-11 et c. 13-14) et descripto morum habitu ab eodem in tragoediis observando (c. 15) et utraque disputatione praeceptis quibusdam tragoediarum scriptori destinatis conclusa (c. 17 et c. 18, 4-7), iam ad animi sensa ( διά- votar quam una voce sententiam appellare licet) a personis in scenam productis expromenda pervenit. quae cum dictione ( λέξει) proferantur, hanc tractandam sibi sumpsit, illa Rhetoricis reservanda putavit. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἄλλων ἤδη εἴρηται: cetera quae dicit, sunt fabula, mores, spectaculum, melopoeia. de fabula quae disputata sunt sufficere videantur, de moribus quae docuit in epitomam contracta esse intelleximus: spectaculum vero et melopoeia nonnisi brevissime commemoravit c. 6, 4 et c. 18, 71). at vero spectaculum et melopoeiam accuratius ab Aristotele explicata non esse et nullis praeceptis a tragoediarum scriptore servandis instructa, vix est cur existimemus: immo c. 18, 7. cum chori tragici rite conformandi praeceptum paucis verbis proponit, ita disputat ut antegressa ampliore expositione niti videatur. quae igitur de ὄψει et μελοποιίą uberius explanata ab Aristotele erant, omisit, opinor, ille qui ex integra Aristotelis Poetica plura et egregia conservavit. nimirum inutilia illa videbantur poetis Alexandrinis (Alexandrinos dico omnes qui post Alexandri Magni aevum sive Alexandriae sive in aliis Grae- 1) Falsus Aristoteles etiam c. 6, 19. ad ὄψιν et μελοποιίαν revolvitur, sed nihil affert quae alicuius momenti videantur esse.cis urbibus artem tragicam factitabant), qui lectoribus magis quam spectatoribus scribebant, quique tragoedias edebant aut nullis aut paucis chori carminibus distinctas. - λοιπὸν δὲ περὶ λέξεως ἢ διανοίας εἰπεῖν: postquam de quattuor illis partibus dictum est, iam restat de διανοίᾳ vel λέξει disputare, ut de omnibus sex partibus ante constitutis (c. 6, 4-7) explicatio absolvatur. vide mihi Aristotelem ipsum pronuntiare se ex illis sex tragoediae partibus adhuc quattuor disputatione amplexum esse, duabus etiamnum relicuis de quibus dicatur. inde iam novo documento apparet, et illa quae de alteris κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν tragoediae partibus c. 12. posita sunt, et quae de quattuor formis tragoediarum c. 18, 2-3., quaeque de tragoediae δέσει et λύσει c. 18, 1. narrantur, quae omnia suis locis gravibus de causis pro suppositiciis declaravi, haec inquam ab Aristotele non scripta esse. – περὶ λέξεως ἢ διανοίας scribit, cum absolutis quattuor partibus iam ex duabus relicuis alterutram explicandam eligere possit. statim monet quae de διανοία dicenda sint, ea in Rhetoricis aptius explicari posse. ἐν τοῖς περὶ ῥητορικῆς: quamquam quae de animi sensis dicenda sunt in Rhetoricorum tribus libris comprehensorum primo et secundo libro legimus, inde tamen non consequitur Poeticam post artem illam rhetoricam a philosopho emissam esse: immo in Rhetoricis quater provocat ad Poeticam iam editam. lege III, 1 et 2. ars dicendi cum pluribus ac diversis libris ab Aristotele tractata et tradita sit, hoc loco lectores non ad tres illos Rhetoricorum libros sed ad alios prius evulgatos ablegantur. de operibus Aristotelis rhetoricis disputavit Titze de Aristotelis operum serie et distinctione p. 34 sqq. ἔστι δὲ κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν ταῦτα, ὅσα ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου δεῖ παρασκευασθῆ - ναι: pertinent ad sententiam haec, quaecumque oratione parari debent, h. e. quae personae in scenam productae sentiunt verbisque pronuntiant. quod statim sequitur τὸ λύειν, est obstantia sive ab adversariis dicta dissolvere.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-131

Ritter, cap. 19 § 2

καὶ ἔτι μέγεθος καὶ μικρότητα: nove acbreviter significavit rem exaggerare ( αὔξειν) et extenuare ( μειοῦν). conf. Rhetor. II, 26. p. 1403 a 20, τὸ δ' αὔξειν καὶ μειοῦν ἐστὶν ἐνθυμήματα πρὸς τὸ δεῖξαι ὅτι μέγα ἢ μικρόν, ὥσπερ καὶ ὅτι ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακὸν ἢ δίκαιον ἢ ἄδικον καὶ τῶν • ἄλλων ὁτιοῦν. pro nominibus μέγεθος et μικρότητα exspectaverimus saltem αὔξησιν et μείωσιν. itaque haec insolentia, cuius alia quoque vestigia hoc capite comparent, epitomatori tribuenda videatur.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-132

Ritter, cap. 19 § 3

δῆλον δὲ ὅτι καὶ ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν - δεῖ χρῆσθαι: etiam hoc rara brevitate positum est, ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν pro ἐν τῇ συστάσει πραγμάτων τραγῳδίας sive ἐν τῷ μύθῳ τραγῳδίας. in rebus argumento tragico conserendis haurire debet poeta ex isdem eloquendi formis sive locis communibus ( ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν ἰδεῶν δεῖ χρῆσθαι) quos orator in elocutione oratoria adhibet. πλὴν τοσοῦτον διαφέρει – παρὰ τὸν λόγον γίγνεσθαι: haec est artis tragicae ab oratoria, quod ad sententiarum elocutionem attinet, differentia, quod in ipsa alia sine expositione (h. e. sine significatione verbis expressa, ἄνευ διδασκαλίας), alia per orationem a dicente proferri debent et secundum orationem fieri. in tragoedia igitur alia, sive metuenda sive miseranda, ita fiunt ut nulla oratione promantur sed ex rebus quae aguntur sponte consequantur, alia rursus oratione provocantur et secundum orationem accidunt. διδασκαλία h. 1. non est rerum in scenam introductio, nam si esset, ponendum erat διδασκαλίᾳ vel διὰ διδασκαλίας, non ἄνευ διδασκαλίας: immo est expositio verbis enuntiata, ut sibi opponantur ea quae oratione non significantur et quae significantur. παρὰ τὸν λόγον γίγνεσθαι: hoc fit, si res ita peraguntur ut in oratione personarum scenicarum significatum vel iussum vel suasum est. παρὰ τὸν λόγον, iuxta orationem, est igitur sic ut dicentis oratio sive poposcit sive persuasit sive iussit. τί γὰρ ἂν εἴη τοῦ λέγοντος ἔργον - διὰ τὸν λόγον: haec adiiciuntur ad illa παρὰ τὸν λόγον γίγνεσθαι adprobanda. dicentis nullus in tragoediis usus esset, si eaquae dicit nihil valerent ad rerum consecutionem et eventum varie afficiendum. quae tragicam voluptatem afferunt ( τὰ ἡδέα), si ea etiam sine dictione apparerent, dicente non opus esset.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-133

Ritter, cap. 19 § 4

τὰ σχήματα τῆς λέξεως: potuit etiam scribere τὰ πάθη τῆς λέξεως. σχήματα non tam dictionis sunt quam dicentis vel oris eius qui dicit; sed ab ore transferuntur ad vocem et dictionem.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-134

Ritter, cap. 19 § 5

ὅτιεὔχεσθαι οἰόμενος ἐπιτάττει : etiam in his agnoscas epitomatorem Homeri nomen reticentem: Iliadis enim initium omnibus aeque ac sibi notum esse credidit, non serio sed ingenii ostentandi causa hunc imperativum a Protagora reprehensum esse (in eo libro cui nomen Ὀρθοέ πεια) putaverim: aliter visum est Fr. A. Wolfio in Prolegomenis p. CLXVII. Homerum mire defendit scholiasta ad Il. pag. 1 b 20 ed. Bekker. conf. Eustath. p. 10. de illo Protagorae opere vid. Quintilian. III, 4, 10. Protagoram transeo, qui interrogandi respondendi mandandi precandi (quod εὐχωλὴν dixit) solas partes putat. Diogenes IX, 84. διεῖλέ τε τὸν λόγον πρῶτος εἰς τέτταρα, εὐχωλὴν ἐρώτησιν ἀπόκρισιν ἐντολήν. istam Protagorae reprehensionem recoxit Zoilus. conf. Suid. s. v. Ζώϊλος.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-135

Ritter, cap. 20 § 1

Partes sermonis enumerantur earumque definitiones proponuntur. Quae hoc capite traduntur Aristoteli abiudicanda putavi argumentis permotus, quae primum sub unum conspectum collecta afferre et deinde, cum singula explicabo, accuratius persequi in animo est. 1. quae hic docentur, ea pro sese sola posita sunt et nullo vinculo cum ceteris cohaerent. nihil ad definiendam dictionem poeticam inde sumi potest et nihil indesumptum videmus c. 22., ubi dictionis virtutes et vitia enumerantur. immo prima artis grammaticae rudimenta inepte propinantur, eaque a ceteris disiuncta, quasi sublimia haerent. ratio igitur et consilium deest, cur haec explicentur. 2. insunt quae Aristotelem non scripsisse testimoniis non contemnendis constat, quo pertinet §. 1 et 6 et 7. ut mox videbimus. 3. offendunt quae tribui prudenti viro nequeunt. sed priusquam de singulis dicam, unum etiam quod contra dici possit amovendum videtur. scilicet moneo, ne quis hisce Rhetoricorum locis sententiam meam convelli putet, III, 1 extr. III, 2. pag. 1404 b 5 et 28. et pag. 1405 a 5. nam primo loco Aristoteles nihil dicit nisi se disputasse de dictione poetica in opere de arte poetica conscripto, quod re vera factum est c. 21 et 22. quae pro Aristoteliis agnoscimus; secundo loco memorat nominum species a sese enumeratas esse in Poetica, idque factum est c. 21.; idem repetit tertio loco; quarto denique ad disputationem suam de metaphoris provocat in Poetica expromptam, quam legimus c. 21. itaque tantum abest, ut ex illis locis pro c. 20. praesidium petatur, ut ipsum silentium contra id adhiberi forsitan possit. τῆς δὲ λέξεως κτλ. totius sermonis partes ab hoc magistro octo numerantur στοιχεῖον, συλλαβή, σύνδεσμος, ὄνομα, ῥῆμα, ἄρθον, πτῶσις, λόγος. secernendae sunt ex hac serie quae non tam partes sermonis quam elementa vocabulorum sunt littera et syllaba, secernenda est πτῶσις, h. e. varia et nominum et verborum terminatio, secernenda est oratio sive pronuntiatum ( λόγος), quod ex sermonis partibus demum componitur. haec quamquam mire huc congesta quomodocumque defendantur. dicant omnem linguae materiam, qua opus sit ut oratio oriatur, comprehendere Aristoteli destinatum fuisse. si minus iusta est defensio (praesertim πτῶσις vix in hunc modum defendi poterit), certe aliqua est. relicua sunt igitur ὄνομα, ῥῆμα, σύνδεσμος, ἄρθρον, nomen, verbum, coniunctio, articulus. nomina et verba primus distinxit Plato in Sophista p. 261 E. conf. Classen de Grammaticae Graecae primordiis p. 45 sqq. post Platonem Aristoteles... idem argumentum retractans tripartitam linguae divisionem instituit, cum praeter ὄνομα et ῥῆμα ceteram linguae materiam nomine συνδέσμου complecteretur, ut testatur Dionysius Halicarn. de Compositione verb. c. 2. init. ταῦτα δὲ καὶ Θεοδέκτης μὲν καὶ ᾿Αριστοτέλης καὶ οἱ κατ' ἐκείνους φιλοσοφήσαντες τοὺς χρόνους ἄχρι τριῶν προήγαγον, ὀνόματα καὶ ῥήματα καὶ συνδέσμους πρῶτα μέρη τῆς λέξεως ποιοῦντες. οἱ δὲ μετ' αὐτοὺς γενόμενοι καὶ μάλιστα οἱ τῆς Στωϊκῆς αἱρέσεως ἡγέμονες ἕως τεττάρων προυβίβασαν χωρίσαντες ἀπὸ τῶν συνδέ σμων τὰ ἄρθρα. idem de Praestantia Demosthenis p. 1101. Reisk. τοῖς πρώτοις μορίοις τῆς λέξεως –, εἴτε τρία ταῦτ᾽ ἐστιν, ὡς Θεοδέκτῃ τε καὶ ᾿Αριστοτέλει δοκεῖ, ὀνόματα καὶ ῥήματα καὶ σύνδεσμοι, εἴτε πλείω, δύο ταῦτα ἀκολουθεῖ, μέλος καὶ χρόνος ἴσα. Quintilianus I. 0. 1, 4, 18. tum videbit ad quem hoc pertinet, quot et quae sint partes orationis, quamquam de numero parum convenit. veteres enim, quorum fuerunt Aristoteles atque Theodectes, verba modo et nomina et convinctiones tradiderunt paulatim a philosophis et maxime Stoicis auctus est numerus, et primum convinctionibus articuli adiecti, mox praepositiones. sed ecce in hoc nostro Poeticae loco non tripartitam divisionem sed quadripartitam reperimus. habemus articulos quos demum a Stoicis adiectos, h. e. ex convinctionibus secretos fuisse Dionysius cum Quintiliano testatur. numne igitur Dionysium et Quintilianum Poeticam ignorasse aut neglexisse existimabimus cum Classeno 1. c. p. 60.? id equidem non faciam. immo hunc nostrum locum et Dionysius et Quintilianus sane ignoraverunt, sed eosdem ex alio integrae et non interpolatae Poeticae loco nobis deperdito sua hausisse mihi paene certum videtur. nimirum Aristoteles cum in libro suo de Interpretatione c. 2 et 3 et 4. nominis verbique et enuntiati rationem breviter pro suo consilio explicuisset, uberiorem eius rei explicationem aliis libris iam tum reservavit c. 4 extr. ῥητορικῆς γὰρ ἢ ποιητικῆς οἰκειοτέρα ἡ σκέψις. hanc vero a sese in Poetica expromptam esse profitetur quattuor illis Rhetoricorum locis, quos modo (pag. 222.) indicavimus. itaque Aristoteles eo libro, quem de arte oratoria diu post editam de Interpretatione commentationem (sub ipsum ut videtur vitae finem) conscripsit, lectores suos ad Poeticam amandavit, si de λέξει poetarum, et quae sint nominum species et translationum genera edoceri se velint. Dionysium igitur, quem rhetoricos Aristotelis libros perdiligenter versasse nemo infitiabitur, huius de orationis partibus doctrinam ex integra Poetica hausisse admodum probabile, ne dicam certum, videtur. quid igitur inde consequitur, cum in hoc libro quartam orationis partem a Stoicis inventam deprehendimus ? quid nisi haec ab aliena manu addita esse, veram autem disputationem intercidisse? haec quae adhuc disputavimus, nisi alia essent, apud me ipsum nonnisi eo valerent, ut suspicio de hoc loco oreretur, ac de illis praecipue quae dicta sunt de octo orationis partibus §. 1. et de convinctionis et articuli natura §. 6 et 7.: sed accedunt alia multa, quibus adducor ut totum caput Aristoteli subtrahendum existimem, quae deinceps persequemur.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-136

Ritter, cap. 20 § 2

στοιχεῖον μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ φωνὴ ἀδιαίρε τος: recte ponit στοιχεῖον, non γράμμα. elementa enim sive στοιχεῖα sunt unde voces quae audiri possunt tamquam ex principiis conflantur; litterae sive γράμματα (radix verbi est γρ) sunt quatenus scalpuntur vel scribuntur. ἀδιαίρετος et Latinum indivisus non solum de iis dici quae divisa non sunt sed etiam quae dividi non possunt, verbo monere sufficit. ἐξ ἧς πέφυκε συνετή γίνεσθαι φωνή: ea est vocis illius indivisae sive individuae natura, ut vox quae intelligi possit fieri inde possit.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-137

Ritter, cap. 20 § 3

ταύτης δὲ μέρη: per ταύτης non singularis quaedam vox indivisa denotatur sed genus elementorum comprehenditur. quae statim sequitur προσβολή, est vocis ictus quidam, quem allisum novo sed apto nomine consignavit Hermannus. paulo post nonnisi a paucis codicibus (vid. not. crit.) exempla vocalium litterarum οἷον τὸ Α καὶ τὸ 2 exhibentur. fortasse personatus auctor in re manifesta supersedere se posse exemplo credidit, cum discrimen illud intersemivocale et non vocale (quod continuo memorat) ut exemplis illustraretur magis desiderare et flagitare eidem videretur.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-138

Ritter, cap. 20 § 4

ταῦτα δὲ διαφέρει σχήμασί τε τοῦ στόματος καὶ τόποις: σχήματα τοῦ στόματος sunt varii habitus in quos formatur os nostrum dum litteras proferimus, τόποι sunt oris loci unde litterae inter pronuntiandum praecipue afficiuntur, dentes et lingua et labia et guttur. καὶ δασύτητι καὶ ψιλότητι: prout spiritu aspero aut leni ( δασείᾳ et ψιλῇ) enuntiantur. ἔτι δὲ ὀξύτητι καὶ βαρύτητι καὶ τῷ μέσῳ: accentum acutum designat ὀξύτης, gravem βαρύτης, circumflexum ex acuto gravique compositum ideoque media natura praeditum τὸ μέσον. – περὶ ὧν καθ' ἕκαστον ἐν τοῖς μετρικοῖς προσήκει θεω - ρεῖν: homo perdiligens et accuratus paulo post monet similiter ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτων θεωρῆσαι τὰς διαφορὰς τῆς μετρικῆς ἐστίν. prodere haec videntur grammaticum Alexandrinum : Aristotelis aevo doctrina metrica a grammatica nondum seiuncta et nondum tamquam propria et peculiaris disciplina constituta videtur fuisse. videant alii. interpolator ubique τέχνας suas crepat. vid. Comment. ad c. 25, 5.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-139

Ritter, cap. 20 § 5

καὶ γὰρ τὸ ΓΡ ἄνευ τοῦ Α συλλαβή: inauditum hoc est et falsum. nimirum vir sapiens qui haec scripsit suis se laqueis irretivit: nam cum posuisset syllabam constare ex ἀφώνου καὶ φωνὴν ἔχοντος (non καὶ φωνήεντος), inde falsum hoc consequitur, syllabam esse FP, cum Put ἡμίφωνον habere vocem ( ἔχειν φωνήν) negari nequeat. ex his mihi se prodit grammaticus et mediocris et argutiarum studiosus. eiusdem studii specimina magis manifesta in subsequentibus producemus.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-140

Ritter, cap. 20 § 6

σύνδεσμος δ' ἐστὶ φωνὴ ἄσημος-πεφυ κυῖαν συντίθεσθαι: quae hac §. comprehendimus, in iis tria interpretibus et editoribus mira et offensioni obnoxia visa sunt, primum huius definitionis forma et ingenium, tum quod continuo alia subsequitur definitio, quasi scriptor suae definiendi arti parum ipse crediderit, deinde quod alteradefinitio priori prorsus contraria videtur. quae incommoda dum tollere aut allevare conantur, audacibus fere coniecturis indulgent, quibus loci recte pertractandi fundamenta subtrahuntur. ego quae tradita sunt explicare in hunc modum adgredior. auctor falsus alicubi legerat σύνδεσμον esse vocem ἄσημον, h. e. quae neque quod est ut nomen, neque quod fit ut verbum, significet. iam ille nomini συνδέσμῳ conchae instar adhaerescens sapientiam suam profert. scilicet quamquam est σύνδεσμος, tamen neque facit neque impedit vocem unam significativam, quae ut ex pluribus vocibus componatur natura sua inclinat: quid enim συνδέσμῳ opus est ad vocem ex pluribus componendam, si sua sponte coalescere potest ( ἐκ πλειόνων πεφυκυῖα συντίθεσθαι)? adhuc nonnisi duae negantes notionis συνδέσμου notae prolatae sunt; quae praeterea accedunt, de collocatione convinctionum nonnulla monent plane inutilia : καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄκρων καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου, h. e. convinctiones alias in extremitatibus (in principio aut fine enuntiatorum) comparere, alias in medio, si non conveniat in principio solas ponere. earum convinctionum quas in principio enuntiati ponere nudas non conveniat affert tres, μέν, ἤτοι, δή. particula ἤτοι non pro asseverante sed pro disiungente (aut) accipi debet: nam eo intellectu inchoari ab ea pronuntiatum nequit. pessima sane definitio, quae non declarat quid sit σύνδεσμος, sed potius quid non sit enarrat. sed nondum quiescit: immo σοφιστικῶς aliam συνδέσμου ponit definitionem quae priori contraria videtur esse, sed re vera non est. nam si voces una plures assunt, quarum quaevis per se significativa est, ut θεὸς καὶ δῶρον, convinctionis ea vis est, ut ex diversis totum quoddam efficiat. hoc est illud φωνὴ ἄσημος ἐκ πλειόνων μὲν φωνῶν μιᾶς, σημαντικῶν δέ, ποιεῖν πεφυκυῖα μίαν σημαντικὴν φωνήν. utramque definitionem (ita liceat appellare) exemplo planam faciam. in enuntiato παρὰ Θεόδωρον βαδίζω convinctio παρὰ (praepositiones enim συνδέσμοις comprehenduntur) neque facit neque impedit vocem unam significativam ( Θεόδωρον), ex pluribus vocibus (ex voce θεὸς et δῶρον) aptam componi, ac posita est in enuntiati principio. sed in enuntiato θεὸς ἢ θεοῦ δῶρόν ἐστι convinctio ἢ ex pluribus vocibus quae per se significant totum quoddam efficit et posita est in medio. hoc totum quoddam interpolator argute disputans et obscura captans dixit μίαν σημαντικὴν φωνήν. haec quae probabiliter proposui (nam certi quid in eiusmodi locis vix afferre possumus), si vere exро- sita sunt, frigidum habemus verborum lusum semidocto nugatore utique dignum, nihil amplius. Unum etiamnum monendum videtur, ab Aristotele omnem praeter nomina et verba linguae materiem voce συνδέσμου (convinctionis) comprehensam fuisse, adverbia et articulos et praepositiones et coniunctiones et interiectiones: idem factum est a personato, nisi quod is quartam orationis partem articulum Stoicos secutus constituit. frustra, ut mihi quidem videtur, sanam sententiam huic loco conciliare viri et ingeniosi et docti tentaverunt, verborum contextum immutando, supplendo, transponendo. lege prae ceteris quae conatus est Hermannus in suis ad h. 1. Commentariis et post cum Classenus de Grammaticae Gr. primordiis p. 57. ego hanc normam tenendam putavi, ut ab immutandis vocabulis et transponendis religiose abstineam, et haec esse hominis in grammaticis caecutientis declarem.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-141

Ritter, cap. 20 § 7

ἄρθρον δ' ἐστὶ φωνὴ ἄσημος-διορισμὸν δηλοῖ: quod articulus orationis sive enuntiati initium designare dicitur, hoc intelligi videtur, multa enuntiata ab articulo inchoari: quomodo idem τέλος indicet ego non expedio. exempla τὸ φημί et τὸ περί solam postremam articuli vim, ubi distinctionem denotat, respiciunt. sed ut quod deest virtuti definitionis, numero compensetur, iam altera articuli explicatio succedit, ἢ φωνὴ ἄσημος, ἢ οὔτε κωλύει οὔτε ποιεῖ φωνὴν μίαν σημαντικὴν ἐκ πλειόνων φωνῶν, πεφυκυῖα τίθεσθαι καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄκρων καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου. quae συνδέσμου definitio modo posita erat, eadem paucis omissis paucisque mutatis iam pro altera articuli definitione venditatur. num mirum hoc est? mihi secus videtur: nam quipaulo ante duas convinctionis definitiones non veras attulit, cur idem articuli duas non minus ineptas non producat? at haec nimium similis est illi convinctionis definitioni. est sane et esse potest. nam quemadmodum σύνδεσμος est (sic ille fere cogitavit) id quod convincit, ita ἄρθρον est quod iungit ( ἄρει) 1). quapropter indicare voluit quatenus vox illa non iungat, ne quis nomine ἄρθρον decipi se pateretur.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-142

Ritter, cap. 20 § 8

ὄνομα δ᾽ ἐστὶ φωνὴ συνθετή - καθ' αὑτὸ σημαντικόν: haec omnia non bene repetita sunt ex libro Aristotelis de Interpretatione c. 2., ubi legimus ὄνομα μὲν οὖν φωνὴ σημαντική κατὰ συνθήκην ἄνευ χρόνου, ἧς μηδὲν μέρος ἐστὶ σημαντικόν κεχωρισμένον. pro κατὰ συνθήκην (ex consensu, ex instituto) falsus Aristoteles dedit συθετήν, h. e. componendam, vocem ambiguam atque eo magis ambiguam, quod eandem in syllabae definitione posuit §. 5. οἷον ἐν τῷ Θεοδώρῳ τὸ δῶρον οὐ σημαίνει: debuit οἷον ἐν τῷ Θεόδωρος τὸ δῶρος οὐ σημαίνει. male imitatus est verum Aristolelem qui scribit de Interp. c. 2. ἐν γὰρ τῷ Κάλλιππος τὸ ἵππος οὐδὲν αὐτὸ καθ' ἑαυτὸ σημαίνει.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-143

Ritter, cap. 20 § 9

ῥῆμα δὲ φωνὴ συνθετή, σημαντική μετὰ χρόνου: melius verus Aristoteles de Interpr. c. 3. ῥῆμα δὲ ἐστι τὸ προσσημαῖνον χρόνον, οὗ μέρος οὐδὲν σημαίνει χωρίς, καὶ ἔστιν ἀεὶ τῶν καθ' ἑτέρου λεγομένων σημεῖον. exempla quae definitionem sequuntur hominem male sedulum lectoribusque non multum tribuentem produnt.

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-144

Ritter, cap. 20 § 10

πτῶσις - εἴδη ἐστίν: πτῶσιν (casum) Graeci tam nominum quam verborum terminationum affectiones appellant. vid. Aristotel. de Interpr. c. 2 et 3. Latini quoque varias verborum positiones casuum nomine interdum denotaverunt. statim in illis ἡ μὲν τὸ κατὰ τὸ τούτου alterum τὸ accepi a Robortello sustentandae structurae plane necessarium. 1) Ego non is sum qui illam nominis ἄρθρον explicandi rationem veram esse contendam, immo ἄρθρον passivo intellectu dictum existimo.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-145

Ritter, cap. 20 § 11

λόγος δὲ φωνὴ συνθετὴ σημαντική, ἧς ἔνια μέρη καθ' αὑτὰ σημαίνει τι: exprimere voluit locum ex libro de Interpretatione c. 4. λόγος δὲ ἐστι φωνὴ σημαντική κατὰ συνθήκην, ἧς τῶν μερῶν τι σημαντικὸν κεχωρισμένον. sed male admisit συνθετή pro κατὰ συνθήκην, male quoque ἧς ἔνια μέρη pro ἧς τῶν μερῶν τι κεχωρισμένον, quae sequuntur οὐ γὰρ ἅπας λόγος ἐκ ῥημάτων καὶ ὀνομάτων σύγκειται, οἷον ὁ ἀνθρώπου ὁρισμός, haec saltem hoc loco supervacanea sunt. λόγον Aristoteles dixit non modo enuntiatum (Satz) sed etiam quamcumque significantium vocum copulationem, v. c. ζῷον ἄπτερον, ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός. interpolator quaerenti τί ἄνθρωπος respondentem aliquem cogitat ζῷον πεζὸν δίπουν 2), non ζῷον πεζὸν δίπουν ἐστίν, qui est λόγος ἀποφαντικός. vid. de Interpr. ἀνάγκη δὲ πάντα λόγον ἀποφαντικὸν ἐκ ῥήματος εἶναι ἢ πτώσεως ῥήματος· καὶ * γὰρ ὁ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου λόγος, ἐὰν μὴ τὸ ἔστιν ἢ ἦν ἢ ἔσται ἤ τι τοιοῦτον προσθετῇ, οὔπω λόγος ἀποφαντικός. sed plane absurda et falsa quae post haec allata legimus, μέρος μέντοι ἀεί τι σημαῖνον ἕξει ( ὁ λόγος), οἷον ἐν τῷ “ βαδίζει Κλέων” ὁ Κλέων. hic homo Aristotelis sententiam in libro de Interpretatione propositam adeo non intellexit, ut βαδίζει pro voce non significante habuerit.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-146

Ritter, cap. 20 § 12

εἷς δ᾽ ἐστὶ λόγος διχῶς- τῷ ἓν σημαί νειν: imitatus est sed non intellexit illa de Interpr. ἔστι δὲ εἷς λόγος ἀποφαντικὸς ἢ ὁ ἓν δηλῶν ἢ ὁ συνδέσμῳ εἷς 3). λόγος ὁ ἓν δηλῶν v. gr. est “ ζῷον πεζὸν δίπουν," quippe qui pluribus verbis unum quid (hominem) denotet. λόγος συνδέσμῳ εἷς est “ εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἀγαθός, ἀἴδιον τὸ πᾶν.” vid. quae Ammonius ad 1. c. copiose disputavit in Scholiis in Aristotelem I. p. 110 a 31 - 111 a 9. ed. Brandis. falsus Aristoteles τὸν λόγον qui est oratio vel enuntiatum commutavit cum τῷ λόγῳ qui est notio, quasi adhuc de notionibus locu- 2) Conf. de Interpr. c. 5. Metaphys. Z. 12 init. 3) Codices in Poeticae loco συνδέσμων exhibent, quod librarii vitio irrepsisse pro συνδέσμῳ liquet.tus esset. itaque pro notione multa in unum comprehendente nomen collectivum Ἰλιάδα posuit. - sapienti sat. qui haec partim perobscura partim falsa partim absurda et inutilia Aristoteli, acutissimo homini prudentissimoque harum rerum arbitro tribuere potest, is suo iudicio fruatur: ego non potui.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-147

Ritter, cap. 21 § 1

Variae nominum species enumerantur, definiuntur, exemplis illustrantur. sub finem capitis nonnulla de genere nominum ab aliena manu adiecta leguntur. Quae hoc capite usque ad §. 12. disputantur, ea et ob suam virtutem et ob Rhetoricorum locos III, 1 et 2., ubi Aristoteles quater ad haec lectorem ablegavit, denique ob Poeticae caput 22. quo haec unice respiciuntur, ab ipso Aristotele scripta esse satis certum videtur. sed quoniam statui nequit post finitum illud c. 19. (vicesimum non esse Aristotelis vidimus) Aristotelem continuo, exponere perrexisse, quae capite 21. exposita legimus, Ὀνόματος δὲ εἴδη τὸ μὲν ἁπλοῦν cet., vel inde satis liquet haec quae legimus fragmenta esse sive epitomam uberioris de dictione disputationis. idem adprobabitur consideranti locum in Rhetoricis III, 1 extr. ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι οὐχ ἅπαντα ὅσα περὶ λέξεως ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ἀκριβολογητέον ἡμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα περὶ τοιαύτης οἵας λέγομεν (de dictione oratoria). περὶ δ' ἐκείνης (de dictione poetarum) εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιητικῆς. nimirum quae illic de oratoria dictione docentur (c. 2-12), ambitu minimum sexies haec pauca quae de poetica exponuntur superant, cum tamen de hac aeque multa vel plura etiam quam de illa dicenda essent. nihil, ut unum exempli gratia afferam, de imagine ( εἴκονι) explicatum legimus, cum in Rhetoricis (III, 4) doceatur, et quid sit imago et quo differat a metaphora. locus ipse, cui haec de dictione disputatio intexitur, male electus videtur.IN POETICAEЕ CAP. 21. §. 1-2. scilicet haec sub finem totius de poesis generibus commentationis ponenda erant, cum ad omnia eius genera aeque pertineant. ὁ μὴ ἐκ σημαινόντων σύγκειται, οἷον γῆ: per μὴ ἐκ σημαινόντων scriptor complectitur μήτ' ἐκ σημαινόντων μήτ' ἐκ σημαίνοντος καὶ ἀσήμου. nomen διπλοῦν est quod duobus vocabulis compositum est. horum autem aut utrumque aut alterutrum significativum est, utraque pars nominis duplicis significativa est in Θεόδωρος, μητροκτόνος, una in ἄπτερος, ὑπερβολή. καὶ τριπλοῦν καὶ τετραπλοῦν καὶ πολλαπλοῦν: nomina composita cuiusvis generis συμπεπλεγμένα appellat de Interpr. c. 2. πολλά τῶν μεγαλιωτῶν: vulgo scribunt Μεγαλιωτῶν, et in boc nomine vitium admissum putant. mihi πολλὰ τῶν μεγαλιωτῶν vocis admodum longae et ab Aristotele factae frustula videntur esse. fortasse scripsit πολλαπλομεγάλωπος.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-148

Ritter, cap. 21 § 2

ἢ κόσμος: omnium nominis generum quae hoc loco memorantur, definitiones continuo subsequuntur : κόσμος autem quid sit non definitur. bis eadem vox recurrit c. 22, 3 et 10., et bis quidem inepte, ut mox declarabimus. quid igitur est κόσμος ? interpretantur Latine ornatus et cogitant de epithetis ornantibus, sed haec ab Aristotele κόσμον appellata esse unde probabitur? moneo ne quis abuti velit iis quae Aristoteles Rhetor. III, 7 init. scribit: τὸ δὲ ἀνάλογόν ἐστιν, ἐὰν μήτε περὶ εὐόγκων αὐτοκαβδάλως λέγηται μήτε περὶ εὐτελῶν σεμνῶς, μήδ᾽ ἐπὶ τῷ εὐτελεῖ ὀνόματι ἐπῇ κόσμος. nam hic universe locutus est, cum ornari nomen magnifico epitheto recte dicere posset: alioqui nomine ἐπιθέτων utitur, ut ibidem pag. 1408 b 11. τὰ δὲ ὀνόματα τὰ διπλᾶ καὶ τὰ ἐπίθετα πλείω ἁρμόττει τῷ παθητικῶς λέγοντι. conf. III, 2. p. 1405 a 10. ipse κόσμος, si ponamus esse idem quod ἐπίθετον, et γλῶττα et μεταφορά, denique quodcumque praeter κύριον esse potest. testis est ipse Aristoteles Rhetor. III, 2 sub initium : τῶν δ᾽ ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων σαφή ( τὴν λέξιν) μὲν ποιεῖ τὰ κύρια, μὴ ταπεινὴν δὲ ἀλλὰ κεκοσμέ νην τἆλλα ὀνόματα ὅσα εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιητικῆς. ita- ...que κόσμος vel ob hanc causam adiungi hic non potest. quapropter eam vocem et hic et duobus aliis locis ex nota marginali natam existimo. scilicet κόσμον explicationis gratia aliquis in margine posuit, ut sex illa nominum genera quae praeter κύριον memorantur ad orationis ornatum conferre moneret.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-149

Ritter, cap. 21 § 3

, λέγω δὲ κύριον μὲν ᾧ χρῶνται ἕκαστοι: τὸ κύριον nomen est quo omnes gentis cuiusdam nationes utuntur. - γλῶτταν δὲ ᾧ ἕτεροι: glossam id voco quo alii atque omnes utuntur. glossarum origo et ratio duplex: nam eae aut etiamnum apud alios vigent apud alios ignorantur (Provinzialismen), aut aliquando in usu fuere et iam ignorantur (voces obsoletae). — τὸ γὰρ σίγυνον κτλ. glossa haec modo σίγῦνος sive σίγῦνον, modo σιγύνη sive σιγύννη scribitur. Herodotus V, 9., σιγύννας δ᾽ ὧν καλέουσι Λίγυες οἱ ἄνω ὑπὲρ Μασσαλίης οἰκέοντες τοὺς καπήλους, Κύπριοι δὲ τὰ δόρατα. Hesych. σίγυνοι, τὰ ξυστὰ δόρατα ἢ τοὺς ὁλοσιδήρους ἄκοντας. conf. Etym. Magn. et Suid. s. v.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-150

Ritter, cap. 21 § 4

μεταφορὰ δ' ἐστίν: Aristoteles metaphoram latiore sensu intelligit quam nos solemus, qui nonnisi tertiam et quartam speciem ab illo commemoratam pro metaphora accipimus. noster dicendi usus etiam Ciceronis aetate obtinuit. vid. eius de Orat. lib. III. c. 38 sqq. ἀπ᾿

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-151

Ritter, cap. 21 § 5

οἷον “ νηῦς δέμοι ἥδ᾽ ἕστηκε”: versus est Homeri Odyss. Α. 185. νηῦς δε μοι ἥδ᾽ ἕστηκεν ἐπ᾿ ἀγροῦ νόσφι πόληος. idem versus recurrit 2. 307. in portu esse ( ὁρμεῖν) est standi ( τοῦ στάναι) species: ipsum stare genus est. genus igitur positum sive illatum pro specie. εἴδους δὲ ἐπὶ γένος: qui in exemplum affertur est versus Homeri Il. Β. 272. ὦ πόποι, ἢ δὴ μυρί᾽ Ὀδυσσεὺς ἐσθλὰ ἔοργεν. genus est multa ( πολλά), species sexcenta ( μυρία). species posita vel illata est pro genere. ᾧ νῦν ἀντὶ τοῦ πολλοῦ κέχρηται. intelligendus est qui scripsit, h. e. Homerus. haec dicendi brevitas ad epitomatorem auctorem referenda videatur. ἀπ᾿ εἴδους δὲ ἐπὶ εἶδος: hoc fit, si verbum speciem significans pro alio item speciem denotante ita admittitur, ut utrumque simul pro genere ponatur. hoc enim apparet ex adiectis illis ἄμφω γὰρ ἀφελεῖν τι ἐστίν. pro exemplis duo afferuntur hemistichia χαλκῷ ἀπὸ ψυχὴν ἀρύσας atque τεμὼν ἀτειρέϊ χαλκῷ, quae unde sumpta sint non constat. nonnulli haec ex antiqua Homericorum carminum recensione transcripta existimant, sed ea coniectura unde probari possit non video. in priore χαλκῷ ἀπὸ ψυχὴν ἀρύσας illud ἀρύσας pro τεμών positum esse edocemur, ut sit aere animam hauriens pro aere animam intercidens ( τεμών) vel rapiens ( ἀφελῶν). simile sed non idem est quod Tacitus Histor. I, 41. iugulum haurire dixit. conf. Claudius Quadrigarius apud Gellium IX, 13. eo pacto ei sub Gallicum gladium successit atque Hispanico pectus hausit. difficilius ad explicandum est alterum hemistichium τεμὼν ἀτειρέϊ χαλκῷ, ubi τεμών pro ἀρύσας positum esse audimus. equidem coniicio hoc dictum fuisse de spuma aquae vel iusculi bullientis, sumptumque ex quodam parodiarum scriptore, qui spumam demere s. haurire ridicule appellaret τεμὼν ἀτειρέϊ χαλκῷ. iam habemus duo exempla, in quibus verbum speciem denotans pro altero item speciem denotante positum est ita ut utrumque etiam pro genere admissum sit.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-152

Ritter, cap. 21 § 6

καὶ ἐνίοτε προστιθέασιν ἀνθ' οὗ λέγει, πρὸς ὅ ἐστιν: post finitam quartae speciei explicationem non continuo exempla sequuntur, idque fieri posset, si etiam eius quae sequitur admonitionis exemplum aliquod additum legeretur, quod factum non esse cernimus. ipsa verba consideres velim; et interdum addunt (qui scribunt) pro quo dicat (qui scribit), ad quid spectet (nomen translatum). nonne vides miram confusionem et explicationis obscuritatem summae infantiae signum? hoc mihi liquet, πρὸς ὅ ἐστιν nihil esse nisi ἐπεξήγησιν commatis antecedentis ἀνθ' οὗ λέγει. interpolator huiusmodi exempla fortasse respexit, τὸ γῆρας ἑσπέρα βίου μοι πάρεστιν pro eo quod quis nude dicat ἑσπέρα βίου μοι πάρεστιν. haud dubie hoc ita obscure dictum est, ut prae ceteris exemplo illustrandum esset, quod cum nonsit factum, et exempli defectus et loquendi obscuritas et locus non aptus conspirant, ut multis modis personati auctoris vultum agnoscamus. ἐρεῖ τοίνυν, h. e. is qui scribit. metaphora hic commemorata usus est Timotheus dithyramborum scriptor, quem ridet Antiphanes comicus. v. Athen. X. p. 433 C. οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι δέ τις καὶ τὸ ποτήριον αὐτοῦ λέγων φιάλην Αρεως κατὰ τὸν ᾿Αντιφάνους Καινέα, ἐν ᾧ λέγεται οὕτως· ἦτει 1) δ' ἥρως φιάλην ῎Αρεως, κατὰ Τιμόθεον, ξυστόν τε βέλος. eiusdem metaphorae mentionem facit Aristoteles Rhetor. III, 4 extr. et 11. pag 1412 b 35.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-153

Ritter, cap. 21 § 7

ἐνίοις δ' οὐκ ἔστιν ὄνομα κείμενον τό ἀνάλογον: per ὄνομα et nomen et verbum hoc loco complectitur vulgarem dicendi usum secutus, idemque bis factum ante, §. 2 et 4. τὸ δὲ τὴν φλόγα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνώνυμον: h. e. solis radios demittere per unum verbum Graece enuntiari nequit. καὶ τὸ σπείρειν πρὸς τὸν καρπόν: ut analogia constet, καρπός intelligendus est moles frumenti, unde particulae proiiciuntur in agrum. iam radios demittere se habet ad solem sicut serere (frumenti particulas demittere) ad saccum frumenti plenum. unde σπείρων θεοκτίσταν φλόγα sumptum sit, nobis haud compertum. Latinos poetas eadem uti metaphora monent interpretes afferentes Virgil. Aen. II, 584. Lucret. II, 211.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-154

Ritter, cap. 21 § 8

ἀλλ᾽ ἄοινον: qui scutum appellat pateram vini expertem, is dum scutum alieno nomine ( φιάλην) designat ( προσαγορεύσας τὸ ἀλλότριον), adiecto ἄo ινo ν aliquid denegat ( τῶν οἰκείων τι ἀπύφησι) quod est paterae proprium: eo autem lector admonetur non proprie accipienda esse quae de patera dicuntur. peracuta sane observatio est et philosopho digna. 1) ᾔτει δ' ἥρως Tyrwhittus in annot. ad h. 1. scite dedit; Athenaei codices εἰ τῇ δῆλος.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-155

Ritter, cap. 21 § 9

πεποιημένον - ἀρητῆρα: πεποιημένον est factum fictumque a poeta. eiusmodi verba novata appellat Cicero de Orat. III, 38, 154. novantur autem verba quae ab eo qui dicit ipso gignuntur ac fiunt. pro exemplis ibidem affert expectorare, versutiloquus, incurviscere. - δοκεῖ γὰρ ἔνια εἶναι τοιαῦτα: dubitat, et recte quidem, utrum eiusmodi voces scriptoris ingenio an usui antiquo et obsoleto tribuat. οἷον τὰ κέρατα ἔρνυγας. κτλ. quemadmodum cornua ramulos et sacerdotem precatorem. recte ab Hermanno observatum est ἔρνυξ eiusdem esse significationis atque ἔρνος, sed formatum ut ἄντυξ. Bekkerus cum antiquis editoribus ἐρνύγας dedit, nominativum ἐρνύγη accipiens, non ἔρνυξ. Hesychius et Favorinus : ἐρνύ) τας (sic), ἔρνη, βλαστήματα, κλάδους. hoc vocabulum ex cyclico quodam carmine sumptum videtur. ἀρητὴρ Homeri est Il. A. 94. Е. 78.

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-156

Ritter, cap. 21 § 10

ἀφηρημένον δὲ οἷον τὸ κρῖ καὶ τὸ δῶ: stirpes illae nominum δῶμα et κριθή saepius apud Homerum ceterosque poetas epicos reperiuntur. nomina sunt imperfecta potius quam mutilata, quatenus terminos non tam amiserunt quam omnino non receperunt. conf. Strabo VIII. p. 364 (p. 560): παραδείγμασι δὲ χρῶνται τοῦ μὲν ποιητοῦ τῷ κρῖ καὶ δῶ καὶ μάψ, καὶ ἔτι (Il. Τ. 392) “ ἵππους δ᾽ Αὐτομέδων · τε καὶ Αλκιμος᾽ ἀντὶ τοῦ ᾿Αλκιμέδων, Ἡσιόδου δέ, ὅτι τὸ ῥᾴδιον ῥᾶ, Ἐπίχαρμος δὲ τὸ λίαν λί, Συρακὼ δὲ τὰς Συρακούσας. παρ' Ἐμπεδοκλεῖ δὲ “ μία γίνεται ἀμφοτέρων ὄψ” ἡ ὄψις. καὶ παρ' ᾿Αντιμάχῳ “ Δήμητρός τοι Ἐλευσινίης ἱερὴ ὄψ,” καὶ τὸ ἄλφιτον ἄλφι. paulo post Empedoclis hemistichium (Empedoclis esse Strabo nos docet) totum ab Aristotele transcriptum est, ut lectores vocem ὄψ pro decurtata ὄψις, non pro foramine, acciperent.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-157

Ritter, cap. 21 § 11

οἷον τὸ “ δεξιτερὸν κατὰ μαζόν᾽ ἀντὶ τοῦ δεξιόν: secundum hanc opinionem poeta δεξι reliquit, τερος ipse fecit. τὸ ὀνομαζόμενον est quod vulgo dicitur, h. e. nomen usitatum.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-158

Ritter, cap. 21 § 12

αὐτῶν δὲ τῶν ὀνομάτων - καὶ Ν καὶ Σ:quae hinc usque ad finem capitis leguntur, ab Aristotele scribi potuisse nego: ille enim non canones grammaticos voluit perscribere sed ex rebus grammaticis nonnisi eligere quae ad illustrandam dictionem poeticam pertinerent. sed haec de genere nominum disputatio et ab illo consilio utique aliena est et absurdo ludi magistro digna. ipsa quae docentur gravibus vitiis laborant. nimirum nomina in Net Pet ∑ desinentia mascula esse audimus, quamquam permulta et neutrius et feminini generis esse constat, ut ὀστέον, φρέαρ πέρας, νῆσος et sexcenta alia. paulo post sibi ipse non constat scribens τὰ δὲ μεταξὺ (neutrius generis nomina) εἰς ταῦτα καὶ Σ. vulgaris et ineptus grammaticus agnoscitur etiam in illis ὥστε ἴσα συμβαίνει 'πλήθει εἰς ὅσα τὰ ἄρρενα καὶ τὰ θήλεα. εἰς δὲ τὸ Ιτρία μόνον, μέλι κόμμι πέπερι: doctius Athenaeus II. p. 66 F: τοῦτο δὲ ἡμᾶς τηρῆσαι δεῖ, ὅτι οὐδέτερον ὄνομα οὐδέν ἐστι παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν εἰς Ι λῆγον, εἰ μὴ μόνον τὸ μέλι. τὸ γὰρ πέπερι καὶ κόμμι καὶ κοῖφι ξενικά.

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-159

Ritter, cap. 22 § 1

Poeticae dictionis virtus et vitium. Quae hoc capite breviter quidem sed peracute docteque de vitiis et virtutibus poeticae dictionis explicata legimus, ea respexit Aristoleles in Rhetoricis III, 1 extr. et 2 init. his verbis: περὶ δ' ἐκείνης (de dictione poetica) εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιητικῆς. ἔστω οὖν ἐκεῖνα τεθεωρημένα, καὶ ὡρίσθω λέξεως ἀρετὴ σαφῆ εἶναι. quibus locis omnem de hac disputatione dubitationem amoveri liquet. σαφεστάτη μὲν οὖν ἐστὶν ἡ ἐκ τῶν κυρίων ὀνομάτων: per ὀνόματα hic tam ὀνόματa quae proprie dicuntur quam ῥήματα complectitur, et idem constanter facit per caput hoc 22 et antecedens 21, quod ipsum signum est haec non esse illius qui c. 20 intertexuit. eadem quae22. §. 1. 237 hic sententia profertur Rhetor. III, 2 sub initium: τῶν δ᾽ ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων σαφῆ μὲν ποιεῖ τὰ κύρια. pro exemplo humilis dictionis Cleophontis poesis et Stheneli affertur. de Chleophonte dictum ad c. 2, 3. Sthenelus tragicus erat temporibus Aristophanis, abs quo irrisus est in Gerytade, ut ex Athenaeo (collato scholiasta ad Aristoph. Vesp. 1303) IX. p. 367 B discimus, in hunc modum: καὶ πῶς ἐγὼ Σθενέλου φάγοιμ᾽ ἂν ῥήματα; εἰς ὅξος ἐμβαπτόμενος ἢ λεπτοὺς ἅλας. alterum versum etiam Pollux VI, 65. laudavit. cf. Harpocratio s. v. Σθένελος. Athenaeus unum Stheneli fragmentum servavit X. p. 428 Α, Σθένελός τε ὁ ποιητὴς οὐ κακῶς εἴρηκεν οἶνος καὶ φρονέοντας ἐς ἀφροσύνας ἀναβάλλει. σεμνὴ δὲ καὶ ἐξαλλάττουσα τὸ ἰδιωτικὸν ἡ τοῖς ξενικοῖς κεχρημένη: quidquid contrarium est τῷ κυρίῳ, una voce τοῦ ξενικοῦ significavit. causam cur peregrinis admixtis splendida dictio fiat exposuit in Rhetoricis III, 2 sub initium.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-160

Ritter, cap. 22 § 2

ἂν μὲν οὖν ἐκ μεταφορῶν, αἴνιγμα: dictio ex meris metaphoris conflata nonnisi ab eo potest intelligi, qui et translate dici scit neque ignorat quomodo translatio instituta sit. ἐὰν δὲ ἐκ γλωττῶν, βαρβαρισμός: peregrina dictio fit, si unis glossis composita est. hoc fieri tam manifestum est, ut explicatione non egeat: nam quae paulo post interponuntur, ἐκ τῶν γλωττῶν βαρβαρισμός, ea ab interpolatore quodam ex his ipsis hausta illic inertissime repetuntur, et ab editoribus, ut saltem aliqua iunctura prodiret, in hunc modum interpolata vulgo exhibentur : ἐκ δὲ τῶν γλωττῶν ὁ βαρβαρισμός. sed alterum illud, aenigma fieri si quis nonnisi translationibus utatur, cum minus manifestum videatur, hoc aenigmatis definitione declaratur. κατὰ μὲν οὖν τὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων σύνθεσιν οὐχ οἷόν τε τοῦτο ποιῆσαι: per ὀνόματa hic quoque nomina et verba significantur. secundum unam verborum copulationem fieri non potest, ut simul quae sunt ( τὰ ὑπάρχον- τα) et simul quae non possunt esse ( τὰ ἀδύνατα) exprimantur, sed id per metaphoram fieri potest, cum verba proprie intellecta significant quae fieri nequeunt, contra improprie accepta id indicant quod fieri potest. οἷον “ ἄνδρ᾽ - κολλήσαντα": igne aera viro adglutinare refertur in ἀδυνάτοις: sed qui resciverit χαλκὸν translate dictum esse ( ἀπὸ γένους ἐπ᾿ εἶδος c. 21, 5) pro cucurbitula (Schröpfkopf), statim intelligit dici quae fieri possunt. Aristoteles Rhetor. III, 2. p. 1405 b 1. posito eodem aenigmate scribit κόλλησιν τοίνυν εἶπε τὴν τῆς σικύας προσβολήν. Athenaeus X. p. 452 C. πολλοὶ δὲ γρίφων καὶ τοιαῦ τοί τινές εἰσιν οἷον ἄνδρ᾽ εἶδον πυρὶ χαλκὸν ἐπ᾿ ἀνέρι κολλήσαντα οὕτω συνκόλλως ὥστε σύναιμα ποιεῖν. veterum cucurbitularum genera et formas descripsit Celsus de Medicina II, 11. cucurbitularum vero duo genera sunt, aeneum et corneum, aenea altera parte patet, altera clausa est: in aeneam linamentum ardens coniicitur, ac sic os eius corpori aptatur imprimiturque donec inhaereat. conf. Pollux X, 149.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-161

Ritter, cap. 22 § 3

δεῖ ἄρα κεκρᾶσθαί πως τούτοις: subintellige τὴν λέξιν. de scriptura verbi κεκρᾶσθαι in notis criticis dictum. τούτοις est τῷ ξενικῷ καὶ τῷ κυρίῳ. qui intertexuit ἐκ τῶν γλωττῶν βαρβαρισμός, is videtur subintellexisse τῷ αἰνίγματι καὶ βαρβαρισμῷ. καὶ ὁ κόσμος: ipsa metaphora et glossa et cetera nominum genera ante memorata ad ornatum dictionis pertinent eumque efficiunt. xó- σμος igitur loco inepto et ab aliena manu infertur. vide quae diximus ad c. 21, 2.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-162

Ritter, cap. 22 § 4

τὸ παρὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς γιγνόμενον τὸ μὴ ἰδιωτικὸν ποιήσει: id quod contra consuetum fit sive admissum est facit ne vulgare assit. primum τὸ et codicibus deest et editionibus, sed a sententia, ut mihi videtur, efflagitatur. subiectum enim est τὸ παρὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς γιγνόμενον, idque sine articulo non potest consistere. intercidit eo quod continuo duplex τὸ subsequitur.•

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-163

Ritter, cap. 22 § 5

οἷον Εὐκλείδης ὁ ἀρχαῖος: quis sit incertum est; eius versus scriptorem parodiarum sapiunt. αὐτῇ λέξει, h. e. ipsa dictione ita conformata, ut eius reprehensioni responderet. - ἤτοι ῎Αρην: codices ἠτίχαριν, utrumque vitium ex itacismo natum est, si vere emendavi. Hermannus scripsit ἤτοι Χάριν, Graefenhanius ἢ τάχ' " Αρην. ἐπέκτασις in hoc versu admissa vitiosa illa est pronuntiatio βαδδίζοντα. καὶ “ οὐκ ἄν γ' ἐράμενος τὸν ἐκείνου ἐλλέβορον:” versus sic dispositos puto fuisse - νν ἐλλέβορον νυ οὐκ ἄν γ' ἐράμενος τὸν ἐκείνου ... ἔκτασιν vitiose admissam coniicio in prima syllaba verbi ἐράμενος ( ἐρράμενος). hoc ipsum cum infinitivo quodam, unde aptus fuerit accusativus τὸν ἐλλέβορον, iunctum fuisse coniicio, ut apud Sophocl. Oed. Col. 512. ὅμως δ᾽ ἔραμαι πυθέσθαι, nisi scribere mavis τοῦ ἐκείνου ἐλλεβόρου, quod per versum licet. particularum av et y' coniunctio in exemplo vitiosae locutionis offendere non debet.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-164

Ritter, cap. 22 § 6

τὸ μὲν οὖν φαίνεσθαί πως χρώμενον τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ γελοῖον: ac deprehendi quodammodo utentem hoc genere ridiculum est. φαίνεσθαί πως χρώμενον τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ est ita his uti orationis ornamentis ut deprehendaris, h. e. ut dedita opera te fecisse appareat. conf. Rhetor. III, 2 sub init. ibi oratoribus, quos illis ornamentis etiam parcius quam poetas uti convenit, praecepit διὸ δεῖ λανθάνειν ποιοῦντας, καὶ μὴ δοκεῖν λέγειν πεπλασμένως cet. τὸ δὲ μέτρον κοινὸν ἁπάντων ἐστὶ τῶν με - ρῶν: metrum autem commune est omnium partium. quomodo aliis haec placeant nescio: mihi displicere scio. hoc certum est, τὸ μέτρον intelligi non posse iustum modum: is enim si intelligeretur, μέτρον ΤΙ scribi debuit, non ΤΟ μέτρον, et μέτρον τι γὰρ poni debuit vel ἀλλὰ μέτρον τι, non μέτρον δὲ, porro κοινὸν δεῖ εἶναι, non κοινόν ἐστι, postremo ἁπασῶν ἰδεῶν, non ἁπάντων μερῶν. hisce alienis autem sublatis, optime procedit sententia: ridiculum esse deprehendi τὸ μὲν aliquem consectantem extensiones. tum quasi per parenthesin monetur etiam in ceteris illis formis nimium earum usum ridiculum videri ¹); tandem sequitur id pronuntiatum - τὸ δὲ ἁρμόττον ὅσον διαφέρει -, quod priori illi οὖν φαίνεσθαί πως χρώμενον τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ γελοῖον contrarium positum est. sed unde suppositicia orta sunt ? ex glossa marginali, quemadmodum docebo ad §. 7.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-165

Ritter, cap. 22 § 7

τὸ δὲ ἁρμόττον ὅσον διαφέρει, ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπῶν θεωρείσθω, ἐντιθεμένων τῶν ὀνομάτων εἰς τὸ μέτρον: iustus extensionum modus significatur per τὸ δὲ ἁρμόττον. in epicis carminibus extensiones potissimum adhibentur; quae causa est cur dixerit, hoc considerandum esse ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπῶν. pergit ἐντιθεμένων τῶν ὀνομάτων εἰς τὸ μέτρον, nominibus metro includendis: ὀνόματα dicuntur ut ταῖς ἐκτάσεσιν opponantur. suadet Aristoteles ut quis in versibus epicorum pro extentis formis vulgares numero iuste adstringat, si velit intelligere quantum iustus extensionum modus valeat. contra haec ἐντιθεμένων τῶν ὀνομάτων εἰς τὸ μέτρον in margine a sciolo quodam posita existimo illa quae modo ex Aristoteliis sublevavi, τὸ δὲ μέτρον κοινὸν ἁπάντων ἐστὶ τῶν μερῶν. nimirum nasutulus iste cogitavit: "quid tandem nomina metro includamus, cum sermo sit de poetica dictione, cum omnes quae enumerantur formae, et extensiones et metaphorae cet., versibus iam adstrictae a nobis inveniantur ?" Αἰσχύλος μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῷ Φιλοκτήτῃ : de Aeschyli Philocteta nobis perdito praeclare disputatum est ab Hermanno in Opuscul. III. p. 119 sqq. fragmenta Euripidei Philoctetae Augustus Matthiae et Dindorfius collecta exhibent. tres trium tragoediae Graecae principum Philoctetas inter se comparare instituit Gruppius in Ariadna p. 417-452. — φαγέδαινα ή: quamvis versus vitium optime et facil- 1) τὸ αὐτὸ ἀπεργάσοιτο: is idem efficeret, h. e. ut irrideretur faceret.lime ab Hermanno φαγέδαιναν scribente sublatum videatur, ego tamen non imitabor. nam in versu Aeschylio particula quaedam post φαγέδαινα inserta esse potuit (ex. gr. r' vel d'), quam Aristoteles prudens omittere voluit. idem, si re vera apud Aeschylum φαγέδαιναν legebat, tamen suo verborum contextui nominativum magis convenire ratus hoc immutare potuit, ut saltem Aristotelis editori non liceat codicibus nou iuvantibus quidquam mutare. ὁ δὲ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐσθίει τὸ θοινᾶται μετέθηκεν: Euripides metaphoram captavit, ubi abstinere ab ea debuit. θοινᾶται est species, ἐσθίει genus. Euripidis metaphora secunda est ex iis quae c. 21, 4. enumeratae sunt. νῦν δέ μ᾽ ἐὼν ὀλίγος: est versus Homeri Odyss. I. 515. qui subsequitur ab Aristotele factus est. ὀλίγος pro μικρὸς species est 2) pro specie, οὐτιδανὸς pro ἀειδὴς genus est pro specie, ἄκικυς pro ἀσθενικὸς glossa est. conf. c. 21, 3-5. ἄκικους iterum legitur in Odyss. Φ. 131. δίφρον ἀεικέλιον: est versus Homericus ex Odyss. T. 259. αεικέλιος pro μοχθηρός species est pro genere. vid. c. 21, 5. in nostris Homeri exemplaribus παραθεὶς legimus, non καταθείς. hoc aut memoriae Aristotelis aut diversitati scripturae, quae eius Homericae Odysseae exemplari inerat, tribuendum erit. - ἠϊόνες βοόωσιν: sumptum est ex Homeri Iliade P. 265. βοᾶν cum proprie de mugitu boum et κράζειν item atque κρώζειν de clamore corvorum dicatur, ἠϊόνες κράζουσιν humile atque ridiculum, ἠϊόνες βοόωσιν dignum apparet. κράζειν est kreischen, quo verbo in nonnullis Germaniae regionibus clamorem inaequalem et minus gravem, praecipue infantilem, exprimunt. itaque crociunt quod in versione mea Latina posui non omnino respondet: sed alia verba Latina sonum denotantia magis etiam a Graeco recedunt.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-166

Ritter, cap. 22 § 8

ἔτι δὲ ᾿Αρειφράδης - ἐκεῖνος δὲ τοῦτο 2) Bene Ammonius de Differentia affin. vocab. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὀλίγον ἐπ᾿ ἀριθμοῦ τὸ δὲ μικρὸν ἐπὶ μεγέθους τάσσεται, ἠγνόει: quid attinebat obscurissimi hominis ineptissimam reprehensionem ex secreto secessu excitare? nihil nisi ut curiosi ineptique grammatici doctrina ostentaretur. nam quid ineptius excogitari potest quam tragicis poetis vitio dari (ex. gr. anastropham praepositionum) id quod omnium poetarum commune et ne a vulgari quidem locutione alienum est ? advertas etiam velim quam perturbate exempla afferantur: primum enim ponitur anastropha praepositionis δομάτων ἄπο, tum tamquam singularia σέθεν et viv, deinde quarto loco rursus anastrophae exemplum recurrit. advertas putidam diligentiam δομάτων ἄπο ἀλλὰ μὴ ἀπὸ δομάτων, et rursus ᾿Αχιλλέως πέρι ἀλλὰ μὴ περὶ ᾿Αχιλλέως. tertium exemplum (viv) mire ita producitur, ut particula versus Sophoclei (Oed. Colon. 987) afferatur, sic ἐγὼ δένιν ἄκων ἔγημα φθέγγομαί τ' ἄκων τάδε. quod equidem defendere nolim exemplo illo simili c. 21, 10. μία γίνεται ἀμφοτέρων ὄψ. vide etiam quanto cum fastu doctus magistellus sententiam suam concludat: ἐκεῖνος δὲ τοῦτο ἠγνόει. restat aliud. tragoediarum scriptores iste appellat τραγῳδούς, sua sibi loquendi consuetudine, non Aristotelia. serioris aetatis scriptores minus accurate loquentes interdum haec nomina commiscent, ut Athenaeus qui II. p. 35 D. Chaeremonem tragicum poetam τραγῳδὸν appellavit. - ᾿Αρειφράδης quis tandem sit nescimus. Aristophanes pluribus locis (Equit. 1281 sqq. Vesp. 1280 sqq. cf. Suidas s. v.) ᾿Αριφράδην Arignoti fratrem citharoedum insectatur, quippe qui nefandam linguam infandis locis turpiter admoverit, sed hic potius obscurus quidam grammaticus intelligitur. neque vero id diligentem lectorem effugiet, veram et dignam Aristotele disputationem his illatis non solum non iuvari sed importune interrumpi.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-167

Ritter, cap. 22 § 9

μόνον γὰρ τοῦτο - θεωρεῖν ἐστίν: brevissime haec et tamen perdilucide et luculente disputata sunt. ex talibus verum Aristotelem agnoscas, ut falsum deprehendere discas.

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-168

Ritter, cap. 22 § 10

τῶν δ᾽ ὀνομάτων τὰ μὲν διπλᾶ - τοῖς ἰαμβείοις: his simillima leguntur in Rhetoricis III, 3. p. 1406 b 1. διὸ χρησιμωτάτη ἡ διπλῆ λέξις τοῖς διθυραμβοποιοῖς· οὗτοι γὰρ ψοφώδεις· αἱ δὲ γλῶτται τοῖς ἐποποιοῖς· σεμνὸν γὰρ καὶ αὔθαδες· ἡ μεταφορὰ δὲ τοῖς ἰαμβείοις. ὅσοις κἂν ἐν λόγοις τις χρήσαιτο: ἐν λόγοις est in orationibus ab oratore habendis. conf. Rhetor. III, 2. p. 1404 b 31. τὸ δὲ κύριον καὶ τὸ οἰκεῖον καὶ μεταφορὰ μόναι χρήσιμοι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ψιλῶν λόγων λέξιν, quos ψιλοὺς λόγους poesin respiciens appellat, eos ibidem paulo post nude λόγους et λόγον nominat. ἔστι δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα τὸ κύριον καὶ μεταφορά [ καὶ κόσμος]: si haec postrema (dico voces καὶ κόσμος) Aristoteles scripsisset, mirum quantum ipse sibi repugnaret. nam ad κόσμον pertinent eumque efficiunt omnes illae praeter τὸ κύριον nominum species: omnibus illis igitur utendum esset et in orationibus et in poematis quae iambicis versibus includuntur (h. e. in iambis et in dialogis fabularum), id quod praefracte negat Aristoteles in iis Rhetoricorum locis, quos ex III, 2 et 3. paulo ante transcripsimus. conferenda sunt quae dixi ad c. 21, 2.