Aristote Poetics 25.20

Table of Contents

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

View: By Chapter
← Previous Next →
On ſauve auſſi beaucoup d'endroits par une differente ponctuation, & c'eſt ce qui a juſtifié Empedocle, qu'on avoit accuſé de s'être contredit dans les vers, où il expliquoit les principes des choſes.

Poetics. Aristote. Paris. 1692.

Current edition Experimental

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.

Editions (4)
Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) (Aristotle, Poetics. Immanuel Bekker, editor, Aristotelis Opera, volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1837.) — 25 focus
Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) Perseus (Aristotle, De arte poetica liber. Rudolf Kassel, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Reference edition for passage alignment.) — 25 focus
Poetics, Greek text (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's Greek text of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 25 focus
Poetics, Greek text (Franz Ritter, 1839) (OCR draft) Experimental (Franz Ritter's 1839 Greek edition, corrected against OCR of the represented copy and aligned to the conventional Perseus chapter-and-subchapter sequence.) — 25 focus
Translations (13)
Poetics (W. H. Fyfe) (OCR draft) Perseus (William Hamilton Fyfe's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, Loeb Classical Library, 1939 printing.) — 25 focus
Arabic Poetics (Badawī edition, 1953) (OCR draft) (The ancient Arabic translation of Aristotle's Poetics in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī's 1953 edition.) — 25 focus
Poetics (S. H. Butcher, 1911) (OCR draft) Experimental (S. H. Butcher's English translation from Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, fourth edition, 1911.) — 25 focus
Aristotle on the Art of Poetry (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 25 focus
Poetics (Thomas Twining, 1789) (OCR draft) Experimental (Thomas Twining's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1789 and aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 25.20 focus
5. To AMBIGUITY; as in παρωχηκεν δε ΠΛΕΩΝ νυξ 1 where the word ΠΛΕΩΝ is ambiguous.
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.) — 25.20 focus
or to excellence of character or as being agreeable to received opinion. For as to the chief end of poetry, it is better to chuse probable impossibility, than improbable possibility. And (T) as to excellence of character, it may be proper as in the paintings of Zeuxis, to give examples of perfection. And as to the seeming absurdities that are received from common opinion, they may not, perhaps, be contrary to reason;
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.) — 25.20 focus
as,
τῇ ῥ᾽ ἔσχετο χάλκεον ἔγχος
There stuck the lance20 :
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.) — 25 focus
Poetica d'Aristotile (Bernardo Segni, 1549) (OCR draft) Experimental (Bernardo Segni's 1549 Florentine Italian translation, aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 25 focus
De poetica (Antonio Riccobono, 1587) (OCR draft) Experimental (Antonio Riccobono's Latin translation, first published in 1587; text represented from Immanuel Bekker's 1831 edition.) — 25 focus
De arte poetica liber (William of Moerbeke, ca. 1277) (OCR draft) Experimental (William of Moerbeke's medieval Latin translation, represented by the 1953 Aristoteles Latinus edition.) — 25 focus
Arabic Poetics (Abū Bishr Mattā; Tkatsch edition) (OCR draft) Experimental (The Arabic translation attributed to Abū Bishr Mattā, edited by Jaroslaus Tkatsch in 1928 and aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 25 focus
Arabic Poetics (Abū Bishr Mattā; Tkatsch edition, unaligned) (OCR draft) Experimental (Tkatsch's edition of the medieval Arabic translation in its original, unaligned segmentation.) — 25 focus

Commentary

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

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-1011

1461a16 ἄλλοι μέν ῥα κτέ.: Il. 10. 1
ἄλλοι μὲν παρὰ νηυσὶν ἀριστῆες Παναχαιῶν εἶδον παννύχιοι
 must be the passage Aristotle had in mind; but he seems to have mixed it up with that in Il. 2. 1
ἄλροι μέν ῥα θεοί τε καὶ ἀνέρες ἱπποκορυσταὶ εἶδον παννύχιοι.
 The difficulty in the passage was its inconsistency with Il. 10. 11-13 (on the revelry and other signs of life among the Trojans), ἤτοι ὅτ᾽ ἐς πεδίον τὸ Τρωικὸν ἀθρήσειε, θαύμαζεν πυρὰ πολλά, τὰ καίετο Ἰλιόθι Public Domain In the United States, Google digitized Generated at Tufts University through HathiTrust on 2026-05-18 19:55 GMT Digitized by Google Original from UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 25. 1461a13-20 335 1461a16 πρό, αὐλῶν συρίγγων τ᾽ ἐνοπὴν ὅμαδόν τ᾿ ἀνθρώπων. Aristotle's solution, it will be observed, consists in saying that πάντες may mean practically no more than 'many', and be an instance of the metaphorical substitution of a specific in lieu of a generic term (v. 21, 1457b8 ). The word πάντες, therefore, must have appeared somewhere or other in the text of the Aristotelian quotation (comp. Tyrwhitt ad loc.). Gräfenhan found a place for it by writing πάντες instead of ἄλροι, and Tyrwhitt by restoring πάντες ὁμοῦ for παννύχιοι. A simpler expedient would perhaps be to suppose the passage, as Aristotle remembered it, to have run thus: ἄλροι μέν ῥα θεοί τε καὶ ἀνέρες εἶδον (ἅπαντες) | παννύχιοι.

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-1012

1461a18 τοι ὅτ᾽ ἐς πεδίον κτέ.: Il. 10. 11-13 (quoted above). The omission of the line θαύμαζεν πυρὰ πολλά, τὰ καίετο Ιλιόθι πρό may very well be due to Aristotle himself; it is difficult, however, to hold him responsible for the form the next line has in the MS., αὐλῶν συρίγγων τε ὁμαδόν—which the editors (following Sylburg) have made into αὐλῶν συρίγγων θ᾽ ὁμαδόν (or ὅμαδον); he must have known that the meaning thus given to ὅμαδος was not in accordance with Homeric usage. The accentuation too of the word in the manuscript (ὁμαδόν) is difficult to account for. I think that it may perhaps represent ὅμαδόν, i. e. ὅμαδον with an enclitic after it; so that the reading in the MS. may be the wreckage of an older reading, αὐλῶν συρίγγων τ᾽ ἐ(νοπὴν) ὅμαδόν (τ᾿ ἀνθρώπων), in other words, of the line as it appears in the ordinary text of Homer.
1461a19

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-1013

τὸ γὰρ πάντες ἀντὶ τοῦ πολλοί. Porphyry on Od. 12. 374 (p. 113 Schrader) records a similar interpretation of πάντα in Il. 3. 277 : ἐναντίον τοῦτο [scil. Od. 12. 374] τῷ Ἠέλιός θ᾽ ὃς πάντ᾽ ἐφορᾶς καὶ πάντ᾽ ἐπακούεις· ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ γὰρ ἐχρῆν ἐγνωκέναι τὸν πάντα ἐφορῶντα. λύοιτο δ᾽ ἂν ἢ τῇ λέξει· τὸ γὰρ πάντα δηλοῖ τὰ πλεῖστα κτέ.

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-1014

1461a20 οἴη δ᾽ ἄμμορος: Il. 18. 489 (= Od. 5. 275 ) οἴη δ᾽ ἄμμορός ἐστι λοετρῶν Ὠκεανοῖο (said of the Great Bear). The astronomical difficulty in the line, which even led some of the Homeric critics of antiquity to alter the text (v. Strabo p. 3 Cas. and Apollonius Lex. p. 29 Bekk.), is thus stated by Porphyry ad loc. (p. 225 Schrader): ἀνιστόρητόν ἐστι τοῦτο· κατηγοροῦσι μὲν γὰρ κατὰ τὸν περὶ τῆς Ἀρκτου λόγον φάσκοντος οἴη δ᾽ ἄμμορός ἐστι λοετρῶν Ὠκεανοῖο· καθόλου γὰρ πάντα τὰ ἐν τῷ ἀρκτικῷ μὴ δύνειν. Aristotle's solution (which is not mentioned in the Scholia or elsewhere) is to take οἴη as a generic in the place of a specific word, i. e. as an Public Generated at Tufts University through HathiTrust on 2026-05-16 19:55 GMT Domain in the United States, Google-digitized Digitized by Google Original from UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 336 COMMENTARY 1461a20 instance of a kind of metaphor already recognized in 21, 1457b7
(ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ἐπὶ εἶδος).

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-1015

1461a21 τὸ γὰρ γνωριμώτατον μόνον. Vahlen quotes Eth. N. 7. 14, 1153b35
διὰ τὸ μόνας οὖν γνωρίμους εἶναι ταύτας [scil. τὰς ἡδονάς] μόνας οἴονται εἶναι.
 For the substitution of μόνον, as a synonym for πάντες, compare the use of κωλυθῆναι in 26 to represent Homer's ἔσχετο.

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

31. mvp-aristotle-comment-627

25.17 31. On les juftifie encore tres ſouvent, en faiſant voir qu'ils parlent par metaphore, & c'est ainsi qu'on ſauve tous ces en-droit d' Homere, quand il dit, que tous les Dieux & tous les hommes dormoient hors Jupiter.] 1

32. mvp-aristotle-comment-628

25.17 32. Quand il dit d' Agamemnon enfermé la nuit dans ſa tente au milieu de fon camp, qu'il jettoit les yeux fur le camp des Troyens.] 2

33. mvp-aristotle-comment-629

25.17 33. Enfin quand il dit en parlant de l'Ourse, qu'elle est la seule constellation qui ne ſe baigne pas dans l'Ocean, la seule, c'est-à-dire, la principale, la plus connue.] 3

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

242. mvp-aristotle-comment-242

NOTE 242.

25.17
Αὐλῶν συρίγγωνθ’ ὅμαδον.
 — Il. Χ. [Κ.] v. 13. —So Aristotle. In our editions of Homer, the whole line is—
Αὐλῶν συρίγγων τ’ ἐνοπὴν, ὅμαδόν τ’ ἀνθρώπων.
I cannot agree with those commentators who take the objection here to fall upon the word
ἐνοπὴν
, which means, voice,
"& ne se dit proprement,"
says Dacier ,
"que des hommes."
This would be a mere verbal objection; for the meaning is plain enough. But Aristotle, as I have already observed, is not here considering criticisms on the diction, but, such criticisms on the
διάνοια
, or thoughts, as may be obviated by means of the diction.
Farther; he is here shewing, how objections may be removed by having recourse to metaphor—by saying,
"the expression is not to be taken in its proper, but, in its metaphorical sense."
But Dacier's explanation makes the objection to be, not the impropriety of the literal sense, (for that was out of the question here), but only the impropriety, or harshness, of the metaphor; and the answer, according to him, is no other, than a denial of the charge, and a justification of the metaphor. And this will be equally the case, whether we take Aristotle's quotation as it stands—
συρίγγων θ’ ὅμαδον
—or suppose him to mean,
συρίγγων τ’ ἐνοπὴν
, as we read it in our editions: except, that the former would be much the bolder and harsher metaphor of the two.
So much then for, what the criticism was not. What it was, must always, I fear, in the present condition of the text, remain a problem. One conjecture only occurs to me, and that, such as I cannot take upon me to offer with any degree of confidence. Perhaps Aristotle had, originally, quoted, or meant, at least, to refer to, the whole verse, as we read it; and the censure might be pointed at the expression—
ὍΜΑΔΟΝ τ’ ἀνθρώπων
. The proper and derivative sense of
ὅμαδος
seems to be that of a crowd, a multitude, a heap; 1 its secondary sense, by a common metonymy of cause for effect, the murmur, or tumult, occasioned by a multitude. So Hesychius:
Ὅμαδος· (1.) ΑΘΡΟΙΣΙΣ, (2.) ΘΟΡΥΒΟΣ. (1.) ΟΧΛΟΣ, (2.) ΤΑΡΑΧΟΣ. ΣΤΡΑΤΟΣ, ἀπὸ τοῦ, ὁμοῦ.
— Perhaps, then, some hypercritic might take, or chuse to take, the word here in its primary sense, of multitude, and ask, how Agamemnon could, by night, perceive, and
"wonder at,"
the multitude of men?
θαύμαζεν—ὅμαδον ἀνθρώπων.
To this it would be a proper answer, to say—you mistake the meaning of the word
ὅμαδον
: it is not used here in its proper sense, of a multitude, but, in its metaphorical sense, for the effect produced by the voices and the bustle of a multitude. The criticism, I confess, would be frivolous enough; yet not more so than many others, to which Aristotle has condescended to furnish answers. It will perhaps be thought a more solid objection to my conjecture, that the word,
ὅμαδος
, seems to be constantly used by Homer in the secondary sense. So, Il. Μ. 471. — Β. 96. Od. Κ. 556 :
Κινυμένων δ’ ἑτάρων ΟΜΑΔΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΔΟΥΠΟΝ ΑΚΟΥΣΑΣ.
Nor can I say, that I have found any instance in Homer, of this word used in its primary sense. The other sense may, therefore, appear too common and established to have admitted of any difficulty. But to this circumstance, a critic, disposed to cavil, and furnished with sufficient authorities for the primary sense from other authors, may easily be imagined to have paid no regard.

243. mvp-aristotle-comment-243

NOTE 243.

25.17 P. 127. ALL, IS PUT FOR MANY—.
Τὸ γὰρ ΠΑΝΤΕΣ, ἀντὶ τοῦ ΠΟΛΛΟΥ, κατὰ μεταφορὰν εἴρηται.
The word,
πάντες
, does not occur in any of the preceding examples. But, says M. Batteux , it is virtually contained in the first example—
ἌΛΛΟΙ μέν ῥα θεοἰ τε καὶ ἀνέρες,
&c. —for
ἄλλοι
means
ΠΑΝΤΕΣ ἄλλοι.
"Aristote traduit l'idée, & non le mot."
Dacier understands the passage in the same manner. This explanation appears to me forced and improbable. Aristotle says plainly,
Τὸ πάντες εἴρηται
i. e.
"the word
πάντες
;"
and I believe, with Victorius, Piccolomini, and Heinsius, that some corresponding example is lost, as the explanations of the other examples appear to be likewise.

Commentary on the Poetics (Henry James Pye, 1792) (OCR draft) (Henry James Pye's 1792 English commentary, aligned to the Kassel reference edition.) focus

25.13. mvp-aristotle-comment-121 25.17

SOME MEN TAKING UP AN OPINION HASTILY, AND THEN REA- SONING FROM PREJUDICE IN FAVOUR OF THAT OPINION, WILL BLAME ANY THING THAT IS CONTRARY TO WHAT THEY HAVE PRE-SUPPOSED.

THIS position of Glauco is compleatly illustrated by the example in the text. Most of the erroneous opinions of the commentators on the work before us arise from the fame cause; especially many of the French dramatic rules, which are said to be taken from Aristotle, when in fact they are not. The depreciating the valor of Achilles, as if Homer had made him invulnerable, comes under this predicament [c].

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

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-193

Ritter, cap. 25 § 10

τὸ δὲ κατὰ μεταφορὰν εἴρηται - τὸ γὰρ πᾶν πολύ τι: alias ἀπορίας ita solvere licet, ut metaphorice poetam locutum esse statuamus. ceterum insignem hunc locum ab interpretibus nondum illustratum paulo copiosius explicare opus est. nimirum interpolator exemplo a se allato lectores suos decipere conatus est: nam cum Iliadis rhapsodia B sic incipiat ἄλλοι μέν ῥα θεοί τε καὶ ἀνέρες ἱπποκορυσταὶ εἶδον παννύχιοι, cumque rhapsodia K hoc exordio inchoetur ἄλλοι μὲν παρὰ νηυσὶν ἀριστῆες Παναχαιῶν εἶδον παννύχιοι, ille praeproperus et legentium sive imprudentia sive tarditateingenii confisus, translato secundi libri principio ad decimum, tamquam hoc initium ἄλλοι μέν ῥα θεοί τε καὶ ἀνέρες ἱπποκορυσταὶ εἶδον παννύχιοι, μαλακῷ δεδμημένοι ὕπνῳ, libro decimo Homerus posuisset, hoc igitur falsi admittens et ex παννύχιοι nomen πάντες sibi extorquens, tandem insigni libidine hoc iste sibi videbatur assecutus esse, ut eiusdem libri (K) versus 11-13., ubi de Agamemnone hoc refertur ἤτοι ὅτ᾽ ἐς πεδίον τὸ Τρωϊκὸν ἀθρήσειεν, θαύμαζεν πυρὰ πολλά, τὰ καίετο Ἰλιόθι πρό, αὐλῶν συρίγγων τ' ἐνοπὴν ὁμαδόν τ' ἀνθρώπων, illi principio quod finxerat repugnare imperitos et incautos lectores docere posset. scilicet si excepto Agamemnone ceteri et di et homines dormitabant, quî fieri poterat, ut ille tibiarum fistularumque in castris Troianis vocem atque clamorem hominum audiret? iam aderat ἀπορία miro artificio procreata, quam ita solvit ut nomen πάντες in versu illo (K. 2) ab ipso ex nav- νύχιοι factum et fictum non fungi solito suo munere sed idem esse quod πολλοί statueret. totum igitur quo ille usus est artificium eo recurrit, ut in exordio libri decimi poneret ça θεοί τε καὶ ἀνέρες ἱπποκορυσταὶ sumptum ex B. 1., ubi debuit παρὰ νηυσὶν ἀριστῆες Παναχαιῶν. sed si cui haec grammaticorum sive astutia sive impudentia nimis mira videatur, is magis etiam mirabitur, si resciverit quae illi in Homeri carminibus ausi sint, ut ἀπορίας suas et λύσεις possent expromere. nam unus aliquis eorum adeo versus Iliadis T. 269-272. inseruit, ut tradit Aristonicus in Scholiis ad h. 1. ἀθετοῦνται στίχοι δ', ὅτι διεσκευασμένοι εἰσὶν ὑπό τινος τῶν βουλομένων πρόβλημα ποιεῖν. sed plane ad hanc nostram causam accedit quod idem Aristonicus narrat ad Il. K. 372. ἡ διπλῆ, ὅτι θέλοντες ζήτημα ποιεῖν μεταγράφουσι τὸ ἡμιστίχιον οὕτως “ καὶ βάλεν οὐδ' ἀφάμαρτεν, ἑκὼν δ᾽ ἡμάρτανε φωτός.” apud Homerum est ἢ ῥα, καὶ ἔγχος ἀφῆκεν, ἑκὼν δ᾽ ἡμάρτανε φωτός. conf. Lehrsius de Aristarchi studiis Homericis p. 210 sq. ut vero omnis de explicationis meae veritate dubitatio removeatur, tertium afferam exemplumquo illustrius produci vix poterit. Mercurius Priamum ob Hectoris corpus non humatum et ab Achille contumeliose tractatum graviter maerentem apud Homerum (I Ι. Ω. 418-421) ita consolatur, ut ab Achille quamvis cupiente Hectoris cadaver non deformatum iri hisce verbis spondeat οὐδέ μιν αἰσχύνει· θηοῖό κεν αὐτὸς ἐπελθών, οἷον ἐερσήεις κεῖται, περὶ δ' αἷμα νένιπται, οὐδέ ποθι μιαρός· σὺν δ᾽ ἕλκεα πάντα μέμυκεν, ὅσσ᾽ ἐτύπη. grammaticus aliquis magni Aristotelis nomen mentitus (idem ille qui Problemata Homerica composuit) hic haerebat, ἀδύνατον esse dicens, quod mortui hominis vulnera concrevisse dicantur. eius rei memoriam conservavit scholiasta Victorianus in Scholiis in Homeri Il. p. 642 a 30 ed. Bekk. ἀδύ νατον νεκρῶν θραύματα μύειν· ὥς φησιν ᾿Αριστοτέλης εἰρηκέναι 8) Ὅμηρον “ μῦσεν δὲ περιβροτόεσσα ωτειλή.” τοῦτο δὲ τὸ ἡμιστίχιον οὐδὲ φέρεται. nimirum personatus Aristoteles in istis Problematis Homericis suo ingenio versum 420. in hunc modum immutavit pro οὐδέ ποθι μῦσεν δὲ περιβροτόεσσ᾽ ὦτειλή οὐδέ ποθι μιαρός· σὺν δ᾽ ἕλκεα πάντα μέμυκεν. iam iste pro ἀδυνάτῳ concinnavit δυνατόν. nunc enim habemus non concrevit vulnus sanguine circumfusum pro eo quod erat omnia vulnera concreverunt. hem argutias. nune demum vera difficultas in locum Homericum illata est. i puer, et haec adscribe recensioni illi operum Homericorum, quam Aristoteli liberalius quam verius vulgo tribuunt. vid. Wolfii Prolegomena ad Hom. p. CLXXXIII sqq. quartum illarum nugarum exemplum ad §. 11. indicabimus. καὶ τὸ οἴη δ᾽ ἄμμορος” κατὰ μεταφοράν: intelligit Iliadis locum Σ. 489. ubi Vulcanus effingere dicitur in Achillis scuto Pleiades et Hyades, postremo Arcton de 8) Hoc est ὡς φησιν ᾿Αριστοτέλης, εἴρηκεν Ὅμηρος.qua ibidem praedicatur οἴη δ' ἄμμορός ἐστὶ λοετρῶν ᾿Ὠκεα- vo ῖο. conf. Odyss. E. 275. in his verbis haerere se simulabant quaestionum captatores, tamquam Homerum in astronomicis non satis peritum deprehendissent, ut in excogitandis solutionibus ingenii acumen ostentare possent. nonnulli igitur nomen οἴη nonnisi ad stellarum nomina ante posita, non ad omnes stellas, referri putabant. conf. Schol. ad h. 1. οἴη, ὡς πρὸς τὰ προειρημένα ἄστρα, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἄλλα ἐστὶ μὴ δύνοντα. falsus Aristoteles οἴην pro insigni dictam esse statuit, solutionem κατά μεταφορὰν ( ἀπὸ γένους ἐπὶ εἶδος c. 21, 5) probando.