Poetics. Aristote. Paris. 1692.
La poëtique d'Aristote (André Dacier, 1692) (OCR draft) (fra) (André Dacier's French translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1692.)
Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.
10.
mvp-aristotle-comment-986
1460b29
ἔτι ποτέρων ἐστὶ τὸ ἁμάρτημα κτέ.
is not a
λύσις proper, but an attempt to minimize the offence. In a
λύσις proper the point to which the opponent has taken exception is shown to have another aspect, and to be right (
ὀρθῶς ἔχει
b 24
) when viewed in that other aspect.
10.
mvp-aristotle-comment-987
1460b30
τῶν κατὰ τὴν τέχνην:
in matters belonging to his art, i. e. the art of poetry, as distinct from matters outside poetry, and only acci- dentally (
κατὰ συμβεβηκός) connected with it.
Vahlen draws attention to the change of construction,
κατ' ἄλλο συμβεβηκός instead of
τῶν κατὰ συμβεβηκός. For the appositional clause after
ποτέρων
comp.
Eth. N. 9. 1, 1164 a 22
, and
Rhet. 3. 5, 1407 b 15
.
10.
mvp-aristotle-comment-988
1460b31
ἔλαφος θήλεια κέρατα οὐκ ἔχει:
Η. Α. 4. 11, 538 a 18
κέρατα ἔλαφος θήλεια οὐκ ἔχει.-
De part. an. 3. 1, 662 a 1
τῶν ἐλάφων οἱ μὲν ἄρρενες ἔχουσι κέρατα, αἱ δὲ θήλειαι οὐκ ἔχουσιν. The hind seems to have often been represented as having horns not only by poets (
v.
Nauck,
Aristophanis Byz. fr. p. 61
), but also by artists;
comp. the Scholiast on
Pindar
Ol. 3, 52
:
ἐπιμελῶς οἱ ποιηταὶ τὴν θήλειαν ἔλαφον κέρατα ἔχουσαν εἰσάγουσιν, καθάπερ καὶ τὴν θηλάζουσαν τὸν Τήλεφον γράφουσι καὶ πλάττουσιν.
10.
mvp-aristotle-comment-989
1460b32
ἀμιμήτως
is the opposite of
μιμητικῶς. In
Probl. 29. 10, 951 a 6
(the only Aristotelian passage in which it recurs)
ἀμίμητος is the opposite of
μιμητός; but it is not uncommon with negative words of this type to have two senses, an active as well as a passive;
ἀναίσθητος, for instance, is the opposite not only of
αἰσθητός but also of
αἰσθητικός. The negative idea in this and similar privative terms must not be pressed too far (see on
ἀήθεις
6, 1450a25
);
ἀμιμήτως ἔγραψεν only means that the picture did not adequately express the artist's meaning, i. e. did not express it in a way to be understood by others. A failure of this kind, which arises
δι' ἀδυναμίαν, through lack of artistic capacity (see above on
b 17
), is inexcusable in a
μιμητής, whose work must be intelligible, if it is to give us the pleasure of a
μίμημα (
v.
4, 1448 a 15
).
14.
mvp-aristotle-comment-609
25.10
14. Il faut encore bien examiner ſi la faute, dont il eſt queftion, est faite contre l'art du Poëte, ou ſic'est une faute par quelqu'autre accident que ce foit. ]
1
15.
mvp-aristotle-comment-610
25.10
15. Et on excufera bien plus volontiers un Poëte qui aura igno-ré que les biches n'ont point de cornes, que celuy qui aura fait une méchante imitation.]
2
235.
mvp-aristotle-comment-235
NOTE 235.
25.10
P. 124. WHETHER A FAULT BE, &C.
Ποτέρων ἐστὶ τὸ ἁμάρτημα τῶν κατὰ τὴν τέχνην, ἢ κατ’ ἄλλο συμβεβηκός. —I cannot perceive, that this wants any emendation; much less, that it is, as
Mr. Winstanley
says,
"nullo sensu." He contends for the certainty of
ΑΤΟΠΩΤΕΡΟΝ—a reading, which Robortelli says he found in all the manuscripts he consulted. I would only ask, whether Aristotle can be conceived to have written such a sentence as this?
"A fault in the Poetry itself is a more absurd thing than a fault in some other incidental matter; FOR it is a less fault," &c. Yet this, I think, is the plain English of the Greek—
Ἔτι, ἀτοπώτερόν ἐστι τὸ ἁμάρτημα τῶν κατὰ τὴν τέχνην, ἢ κατ’ ἄλλο συμβεβηκός· ἔλαττον ΓΑΡ κ. τ. λ.
Victorius contends strongly, and, I think, with much better reason, for
ποτέρων. He says well—
"Nam quæ adjunguntur videntur significare ita prorsus legi debere: duo enim genera peccatorum contraria inter se indicant. Utrorum igitur peccatorum id, cujus arguitur poeta, videndum esse præcipit: alterum enim eorum genus faciliorem excusationem habet."
p. 274.
25.6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-114
25.10
THE WORD MAY BE FOREIGN.
WE have already taken notice of the impoffibility of giving modern examples in serious compofition of this property of language, which confifted in transferring a word from one Grecian dialect to another. We may however illustrate in some degree this objection and its answer from what might happen in common difcourse. We will suppose a perfon to say, ، I would rather want my dinner than have it.' This is objected to as a contradiction. But the objector is answered, The • speaker is a Scotsiman, and to want, in the Scottish dialect, signifies simply to be without, and conveys no idea of wishing to possess, as it does in • English.' [P] This is fomething like the doctrine of Xenophanes, mentioned in this chapter. [2] For farther observations on this subject, see Note xvI. on this chapter. The
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. The examples in the text are fufficiently clear; especially that of Dolon. Had he been deformed in body he could not have poffibly been so active as he is represented. The same objection may be made to the deformity of Richard 111. as he is described by Shakespear and the historians friendly to the house of Tudor; and goes far to justify the historic doubts of Walpole and (R) Buck. A modern general may command an army, however deficient in bodily strength and activity, provided he has good health. And an adımiral may command a fleet in an armed chair on the quarter deck; but a warrior with a withered arm and a distorted body, was ill calculated to turn the tide of battle in the wars between the houses of York and Lancaster; or to make the personal exertions Richard is said to have made in Bosworth-field.
5.
mvp-aristotle-comment-188
Ritter, cap. 25 § 5
ὥστε δεῖ- λύειν: si reprehenduntur nonnulla in quodam artis poeticae opere a quaestionum subtilium captatoribus, ad diluendas reprehensiones quaerere convenit, utrum ars (poetica) ipsa peccaverit an peccatum ab alia arte acceptum propagaverit. quid excusationis et quando proferendum sit, ubi ars ipsa
ἀδύνατα commiserit, continuo docet verbis
πρῶτον μέν -Ἕκτορος δίωξις.
τὸ γὰρ τέλος –
ποιεῖ μέρος: respicit quae paulo ante (c. 24, 8) apud verum Aristotelem legit, unde perperam colligit epicae poesis finem esse ut admirationem faciat (
τὸ ἐκπλήττειν), id quod Aristoteles nusquam dixit neque dicere potuit. idem falsus auctor ex loco indicato exemplum illud suum sumpsit, sed tam obscure breviterque, ut hominem decet in exemplis unice versantem et nihil ultra exempla sapientem. —
εἰ μέντοι τὸ τέλος - περὶ τούτων τέχνην: in his primum friget 5) Noli defendere falsum auctorem eiusmodi locis, qualis est in Topicis VI, 4 init.
πρῶτον μὲν εἰ μὴ διὰ προτέρων καὶ γνωριμωτέρων πεποίηται τὸν ὁρισμόν.additum
ἢ μᾶλλον ἢ ἧττον, tum subobscurum est quid sibi velint illa
καὶ κατὰ τὴν περὶ τούτων τέχνην, quibus idem significari videtur quod modo monitum est,
εἰ οὕτως ἐκπληκτικώτερον ἢ αὐτὸ ἢ ἄλλο ποιεῖ μέρος, h. e. si ne id quidem excusationis gratia dici potest,
οὕτω ἐκπληκτικώτερον γίγνεσθαι ἢ αὐτὸ ἢ ἄλλο μέρος. nimirum technicus hic noster ubique artes loquitur. cf. Commentar. ad c. 20, 4.
ἔτι ποτέρων - κακομιμήτως ἔγραψεν: alteram illam levioremque peccandi rationem interrogando et lectorem quasi excitando proponit, postquam priorem absolvit. si poeta
κατὰ συμβεβηκός peccavit, illum peccasse quidem sed levius esse peccatum excusantes dicemus. illa
ἔλαττον γὰρ –
κακομιμήτως ἔγραψεν exempli gratia afferuntur. si quis cervae cornua tribuit (id quod et alii poetae fecerunt et Pindarus Ol. III, 29. vid. Boeckhii Explicationes ad h. 1.), is eam non
κακομιμήτως γράφει, interpolatore quippe iudice: non enim quae sunt male describit (
κακομιμήτως γράφει), sed quae non sunt, eorum unum aliquid admisit, ut magis peccaverit in
ἱστορίαν τῶν ζῴων quam in ipsam artem poeticam. hem astutias. similiter, ut poetae cornutas cervas producentes, Aristophanes peccavit, dum scribit in Nubibus 151.
ἐνέβαψεν εἰς τὸν κηρὸν αὐτῆς (pulicis)
τώ πόδε, ubi scholiasta:
δυϊκὸν τὼ πόδε ἐπὶ τῆς ψύλλης κακῶς·
λέγεται γὰρ ἓξ ἔχειν πόδας.