Aristote Poetics 8.2

View: By Chapter
C'eſt pourquoy il me ſemble que tous les Poëtes, qui ont fait l'Heracleide, ou la Theſeide, ou pluſieurs autres Poëmes ſemblables, ſe ſont fort trompez, car ils ont crû mal à propos que parce que Theſée eſt un, & qu'Hercule eſt un, toute leur vie ne devoit faire qu'un ſeul ſujet, une ſeule fable, & que l'unité du Héros faiſoit l'unité d'action.

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.) — 8 focus
Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) Perseus (Aristotle, De arte poetica liber. Rudolf Kassel, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Reference edition for passage alignment.) — 8 focus
Poetics, Greek text (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's Greek text of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 8 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.) — 8 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.) — 8 focus
Arabic Poetics (Badawī edition, 1953) (OCR draft) (The ancient Arabic translation of Aristotle's Poetics in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī's 1953 edition.) — 8 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.) — 8 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.) — 8 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.) — 8.2 focus
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.
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.) — 8.2 focus
From mistaking this, the error of those poets who wrote the Heracleid, the Theseid and other poems of that sort, seems to have proceeded: for they imagined as Hercules was one person, a fable that related only to him must consequently possess the proper unity. Homer as he was superior in every thing else, appears, either from art or natural genius, to have had the most excellent idea of this; for in composing the Odyssey he did not comprehend all that happened to Ulysses as his being wounded [B] on Parnassus or feigning 1 2
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.) — 8.2 focus
and such like poems. For they suppose that because Hercules was one person, it was fit that the fable should be one. 1 Homer, however, as he excelled in other things, appears likewise to have seen this clearly, whether from art, or from nature. For in composing the Odyssey, he has not related every thing which happened to Ulysses; such as the being wounded in Parnassus 1, and pretending to be insane at .-the muster of the Greeks; one of which taking place, it was not necessary or probable that the other should happen;
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.) — 8 focus
Poetica d'Aristotile (Bernardo Segni, 1549) (OCR draft) Experimental (Bernardo Segni's 1549 Florentine Italian translation, aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 8 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.) — 8 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.) — 8 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.) — 8 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.) — 8 focus

Commentary

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

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
.

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

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.] 1

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.] 2

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-226

8.3 6. Avec la folie qu'il feignit, lorſque les Grecs aſſembloient leur Armée.] 3

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.] 4

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.] 5

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.] 6

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.] 7

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.] 8

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

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. 1

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. 2

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
.

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

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.