Poetics. Aristotle. ed. Henry James Pye. London. 1792.
The Poetic of Aristotle (Henry James Pye, revised 1792) (OCR draft) (English) (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.)
Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.
Poetics
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
1452b2
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
).
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.
1452b11
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
).
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-267
11.1
A Péripetie est un changement de fortune en une fortune contraire contre ce qu'on avoit attendu.]
1
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.]
2
3.
mvp-aristotle-comment-269
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.]
4
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.]
5
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.]
6
7.
mvp-aristotle-comment-273
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-274
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.]
9
10.
mvp-aristotle-comment-276
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.]
11
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.]
12
13.
mvp-aristotle-comment-279
14.
mvp-aristotle-comment-280
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,
1
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,
V. 1012.
Ἐπείπερ ΕΥΝΟΥΣ ΗΛΘΟΝ, ΕΞΕΛΥΣΑΜΗΝ;
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 [
Othello, Act I. Sc. III.
παθη] by flood, and field."
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
Oed. Tyr. v. 1284.
2
Ἤρασσ᾿, ἐπαιρων βλέφαρα φοινίαι δ᾿ ὁμοῦ
Γλῆναι γενει᾿ ἐτεγγον· οὐδ᾿ ἀνιεσαν
Φονα μύδωσας σταγονας· ἀλλ᾿ ὁμοῦ μελας
Ὄμβρος χαλάζης αιματος ἐτεγγετο. "Thus oft exclaiming, he his eyelids raised,
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,
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." "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,
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.
3
A critic of much more taste and much less prejudice, speaking of the
Philoctetes of Sophocles, has observed,
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." "that the antients thought bodily pains and wounds, &c. (
Dr. Warton's Essay on Pope, vol. i. 73, Note.
4
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.
5
—But, according to Boileau, Dacier, &c. these are all "objets aimables." 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."
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.
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.