121.
mvp-aristotle-comment-121
NOTE 121. P. 96.
16.5
ALL THOSE DISCOVERIES IN WHICH THE SIGN IS PRODUCED BY WAY OF PROOF.
῾Αι πιστεως ἐνεκα
. Well explained by
Dacier after the Italian commentators. Indeed, the very words of
Homer, in the passage alluded to, sufficiently illustrate the meaning of the expression.
Od. φ. 217.
Ει δ'αγε δη και ΣΗΜΑ ἀριφραδες άλλο τι δείξω, Ὀφρα με ἐυ γνωτον, ΠΙΣΤΩΘΗΤΟΝ τ᾽ ἐνι θυμῳ, ΟΥΛΗΝ, &c.
Pope, xxi. 226.
"To give you firmer faith, now trust your eye: "Lo! the broad scar indented on my thigh."
Other instances of signs thus used, not for the purpose of accidental discovery, but as confirmations of a voluntary discovery previously made, may easily be found. Thus, in the
Electra of
Sophocles, when
Electra asks her brother,
η γαρ συ κεινος;
— he answers —
Τηνδε προσβλεψασ᾽ ἐμε Σφραγίδα πατρος, ἐκμαθ᾽ ἐι σαφη λεγω.
122.
mvp-aristotle-comment-122
NOTE 122. P. 96.
16.5
THOSE WHICH----HAPPEN SUDDENLY AND CASUALLY, ARE BETTER.
Εκ περιπετειας
. —
"Non valet hic περιπετεια, mutationem illam ingentem fortunarum, sed, ἐκ περιπετειας, significat, casu, fortuito, et quia ita cecidit."
—
Victorius.
So in the passage from
Polybius quoted by
Suidas, under the words
Περιπετεια
, and
Ευμενης
:
τυχη το πλειον συνεργῳ χρωμενου, οὐκ ΕΚ ΠΕΡΙΠΕΤΕΙΑΣ, ἀλλα δια της ἀγχίνοιας. κ. τ. λ.
Aristotle's using the word thus, adverbially, after having hitherto used it only in its technical, or dramatic, sense, of a sudden change of fortune, produces some ambiguity; and the more so, as the adverbial phrase,
ἐκ περιπετειας
, seems not to be of very common occurrence.
Heinsius, taking
περιπετεια
in the dramatic sense, translates —
"quæ e mutationibus in contrarium oriuntur;"
which, indeed, is the obvious meaning of the expression, if not understood adverbially. But it cannot be
Aristotle's meaning, because the discovery of the fear of
Ulysses was not the consequence of any such
περιπετεια
. Indeed, it was neither the consequence, nor the cause, of any reverse of fortune.
I have sometimes suspected that
Aristotle might write it,
ἐκ ΠΡΟΠΕΤΕΙΑΣ
, by which all ambiguity would have been avoided. But, perhaps, after all, the phrase had no ambiguity to Greek ears, and the passage may be right as it stands.
123.
mvp-aristotle-comment-123
NOTE 123. P. 96.
16.6
DISCOVERIES INVENTED, AT PLEASURE, BY THE POET, AND, ON THAT ACCOUNT, STILL INARTIFICIAL.
Δευτεραι δε, αι πεποιημεναι ὑπο του ποιητου, διο ἀτεχνοι
. — The expression,
πεποιημεναι ὑπο του ποιητου
, must necessarily, I think, be understood emphatically, and must mean, not merely
invented, (for so are the other discoveries also, which follow,) but
arbitrarily invented by the Poet, and obviously so, upon the spur of the occasion; in opposition to such means of discovery and recognition, as, though still indeed of the Poet's invention, are artfully prepared in the very texture of his plot, and appear to arise, necessarily or pro-
bably, from the action itself. And thus I find it well explained by
Piccolomini:
"Chiama Aristotele questa seconda spetie di riconoscimento, fatto dal Poeta e cosi lo chiama, non perche in tutte le spetie il Poeta non sia quello che li riconoscimenti, siccome le altre parti dell' attione e della favola ponga e formi coi versi suoi; ma ha dato à questa spetie più ch' all' altre questo nome, perche in essa, non fondandosi il Poeta, nè nello stesso connettimento delle cose, e nella stessa favola, nè in segno alcuno che la persona stessa, che s'ha da riconoscere, gli offerisca inanzi; egli, per questo, come libero divenuto, à suo mero (quasi) arbitrio, reca, finge, e pone in bocca della persona à voglia sua, quella occasione di riconoscimento che più gli piace,"
&c. [p. 230.] — Yet, as this sense is rather inferred from the explanation subjoined, (
ταυτα γὰρ αυτος λεγει ῾Α ΒΟΥΛΕΤΑΙ Ὁ ΠΟΙΗΤΗΣ, ἀλλ' οὐχ Ὁ ΜΥΘΟΣ
) than expressed by the words themselves, I am much inclined to suppose some omission in the text.
The other reading,
ΟΥΚ ἀτεχνοι
, is very plausibly supported by the
Abbé Batteux, from a passage of
Aristotle's
Rhetoric, which has been already mentioned in NOTE 104.
1
I doubt, however, whether that passage be fairly applicable to this. But though it were, the sense above given, and which I think must be given, to the expression
πεποιημεναι ὑπο του Π.
seems hardly reconcilable with this reading. For can we conceive that
Aristotle would assign as a reason why such discoveries are
not inartificial, that they are arbitrarily (and therefore easily,) invented by the Poet? —
ΔΙΟ οὐκ ἀτεχνοι
.
I must observe, however, that though these two readings are diametrically opposite,
ἀτεχνοι
-
οὐκ ἀτεχνοι
— yet, it is some comfort, that whichever we adopt, the general sense of the passage
will be the same. As such discoveries are of the Poet's invention, they are not
ἀτεχνοι
, in the rhetorical sense: as they require very little invention, compared with those which arise from the action itself, they may, in this view, be denominated,
ἀτεχνοι
. In either reading, therefore,
Aristotle will be found to say the same thing; i. e. that the discoveries of this second species are, in point of art and ingenuity, superior to the first species, and inferior to all the rest.
124.
mvp-aristotle-comment-124
NOTE 124. P. 96.
16.6
ORESTES, AFTER HAVING DISCOVERED HIS SISTER, DISCOVERS HIMSELF TO HER.
The Greek is —
ἀνεγνωρισε την ἀδελφην, ἀνεγνωρισθεις ὑπ᾿ ἐκεινης
: — this, as
Victorius has observed, seems to say the reverse; i. e. that
Orestes discovered his sister after having been discovered by her: which is not the fact. One would rather have expected —
ἀναγνωρισας την ἀδελφην, ἀνεγνωρισθη ὑπ᾿ ἐκεινης
: which would also have been clearer, and not have given occasion to the commentators to suppose, that the discovery of
Iphigenia by the letter was meant to be included in this second and faulty species of discovery; whereas the expression
ΟΙΟΝ Ορ. ΑΝΕΓΝΩΡΙΣΕ την ἀδελφην
, leads very naturally to that idea. But it is easy to see, upon the least reflection, that the discovery of
Orestes
only is the example here intended. This is sufficiently explained by
Dacier after
Victorius. It was natural enough, however, for
Aristotle to mention the other discovery, in passing, as being the counterpart of a double
ἀναγνωρισις
in the same drama. [See
cap. xi.
at the end. Transl. Part II. Sect. 9.] — But this whole passage, I may say, this whole chapter, has undoubtedly been most miserably mangled in transcription.
125.
mvp-aristotle-comment-125
NOTE 125. P. 96.
16.6
BUT ORESTES, BY [VERBAL PROOFS] &c.
The reading which
Victorius regarded as most authentic is this: —
ἐκεινος δε * * * * ταυτα γὰρ αυτος λέγει ἃ βέλεται ὁ ποιητης, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὁ μυθος
. — But four Medicean manuscripts, and, it seems, all those in the King of
France's library, agree in reading —
ἐκεινου δε αυτος λέγει, κ. τ. λ.
2
and, in the latter, we are told, the words are written without any hiatus. This last reading, however, appears to me short and deficient. I cannot but think that the author, after the words
ἐκεινος δε
, — had expressed the means of the discovery, and by them denominated this species, as he has all the others: —
δια σημειων
—
δια μνημης
—
ἐκ συλλογισμου
—. But how the vacancy was filled, it is impossible to determine; and it is of the less consequence to determine, as we are in possession of the Tragedy itself. —
Δια σημείων
, which
Victorius found in one MS. or,
δια τεκμηρίων
, as
Dacier ingeniously conjectured from the words of
Euripides himself, seem most probable.
In point of meaning, it is indifferent by which of these appellations these discoveries were distinguished;
τεκμηριον
being, according to
Aristotle's own definition in his
Rhetoric, only a species of
σημειον
.
Τουτων δε ( . . των σημείων,) το μεν ἀναγκαιον, τεκμηριον
.
3
Σημειον
is a sign, or token:
Τεκμηριον
, a certain, decisive sign, such as puts an end to all doubt, according to the derivation of the word given by
Aristotle in the passage just referred to. We see, therefore, with what strict propriety the word is used by
Euripides, when
Iphigenia demands, and
Orestes professes to give, a decisive proof:
Iphig. in Taur. v. 808.
ἔχεις τι τωνδε μοι ΤΕΚΜΗΡΙΟΝ ;
And
Orestes, presently after, when he produces his last and strongest proof, says —
Iphig. in Taur. v. 822.
῾Αδ᾽ ἐιδον αυτος, ταδε φρασω ΤΕΚΜΗΡΙΑ.
4
It is, indeed, some objection to
δια σημειων
, in this passage of
Aristotle, that it would appear to confound this discovery with the first, by giving it the same denomination. But this, perhaps, would be sufficiently obviated by the explanation immediately subjoined: —
δια σημείων ΤΑΥΤΑ γὰρ αυτος ΛΕΓΕΙ ἃ βέλεται
, &c.
Σημειον
, in the first species of discovery, is used for visible, external proofs: here, it would be used for verbal, argumentative proofs; as it is used, continually, in this treatise. And it may also be observed, that
Aristotle himself, at the end of this chapter, (if the integrity of the text be admitted,) refers to this sort of discovery, among others, under the denomination of
πεποιημενα ΣΗΜΕΙΑ
.
126.
mvp-aristotle-comment-126
NOTE 126. P. 96.
16.6
FOR SOME OF THE THINGS, FROM WHICH THOSE PROOFS ARE DRAWN, ARE EVEN SUCH AS MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AS VISIBLE SIGNS.
Εξην γαρ ἂν ἐνια και ἐνεγκαν
. In the sense which I have given to this obscure sentence, the only sense that I thought could fairly be extracted from the words, I am glad to find myself supported by the judgment of
Victorius.
"Quare propè dictum peccatum est: (ὅ ἐγγυς της ειρημενης ἁμαρτιας ἐστιν.) quia si illa quibus usus est Orestes non omninò signa fuerunt; neque enim ostendi potuerunt; — propè tamen illa accesserunt; atque ita propè ut quædam ex ipsis illius prorsus generis fuerint, quamvis ita ipsis ille usus non sit. Hoc enim arbitror valere, 'licebat enim quædam etiam portare' id est, manu tenere, et jubere ut ipsa videret ac reminisceretur,"
&c.
Ενια
, because all the proofs of
Orestes were not of this kind, but only
Electra's work, and the lance.
127.
mvp-aristotle-comment-127
NOTE 127. P. 96.
16.7
THE DISCOVERY BY THE SOUND OF THE SHUTTLE,
Ἡ της κερκιδος φωνη
—
Dacier, after some other commentators, makes a
speaking shuttle of this; and wonders, as, indeed, he well might, that the great critic should let so monstrous an absurdity pass without a severer censure than that of its wanting art. Others understand, much more reasonably, not the literal, but the metaphorical, voice of the shuttle, in the epistolary web by which
Philomela is said to have conveyed to her sister the dismal tale of her sufferings, —
ἱστῳ ποικίλμασι ΣΤΟΜΑΤΙ χρησαμένη
, in the language of that most curious of all Poets,
John Tzetzes.
5
But as this seems to have been the current traditional story, I do not see how it could be adduced as a circumstance invented at pleasure by the Poet. I should rather suppose, that the discovery in question, whatever it might be, was effected by the
sound of the shuttle, which
Aristotle calls,
φωνη
,
voice, not, probably, in his own language, but in the poetical language of the Tragedy itself to which he alludes. For these
κερκιδες
, it seems, were a very vocal sort of things, nothing like the shuttles of "these degenerate days." Every one recollects the
"arguto pectine"
of
Virgil. But this is nothing to the amplification of some Greek epigrammatists, who scruple not to compare them to swallows, and even to nightingales;
Κερκίδας ὀρθρολαλοισι ΧΕΛΙΔΟΣΙΝ εικελοφωνους
— And,
Κερκίδα δ' εὐποἰητον ΑΗΔΟΝΑ
— .
6
Hence the ridiculous fancy of
Joseph Scaliger, that the metamorphosis of
Procne into a swallow was exhibited in the
Tereus of
Sophocles, and that a shuttle was made use of, instead of a whistle or bird-pipe, to imitate the swallow's voice!
128.
mvp-aristotle-comment-128
NOTE 128. P. 96.
16.8
THUS IN THE CYPRIANS OF DICÆOGENES
That this was a distinct Poem from the
Κυπρια
mentioned afterwards in
cap. xxiii.
seems clear from this single circumstance, observed by
Victorius, that the Epic Poem called
The Cypriacs, —
τα Κυπρια ἐπη
, — is mentioned there by
Aristotle, as it is, generally, by other antient writers, in terms that imply a doubt of its author:
7
whereas here the author is named, without any expression of uncertainty. Whether the Poem was Epic, or Tragic, cannot be determined; nor, from the ambiguity of the case,
τοις Κυπριοις
, whether the title of it was
Τα Κυπρια, or
Κυπριοι —
The Cypriacs, or,
The Cyprians. The latter is, certainly, the most probable title for a Tragedy, and therefore, as
Dicæogenes is recorded only as a Tragic and Dithyrambic Poet, I have ventured to adopt it.
129.
mvp-aristotle-comment-129
NOTE 129. P. 96.
16.8
IN THE TALE OF ALCINOUS.
See
Od. VIII. 521
. There is another discovery of the same kind in the
4th book
, where
Menelaus recognizes
Telemachus by the tears he sheds at the mention of his father. There is not, I think, either in
Homer, or in any other Poet, a more natural and affecting picture of friendly regret on the one hand, and filial affection on the other. "Of all the friends I have lost," says
Menelaus, addressing himself to
Telemachus without knowing who he was — "one there is, whom I lament more than all the rest:"
Od. Δ. 105.
ὅστε μοι ὑπνον ἀπεχθαιρει και ἐδωδην Μνωσμενῳ· ἐπει οὔτις Αχαιων τοσσ᾿ ἐμογησεν Ὁσσ᾽ Ὀδυσευς ἐμογησε και ήρατο — τῳ δ᾽ ἀρ ἔμελλε Αυτῳ κηδε᾽ ἐσεσθαι, ἐμοι δ᾽ ἀχος ἀιεν ἀλαστον Κεινου, ὅπως δη δηρον ἀποιχεται· οὐδε τι ίδμεν, Ζωει ὅγ᾽, η τεθνηκεν. . . . . . . . Οδυρονται νυ που αυτον Λαέρτης θ' ὁ γερων, και ἐχέφρων Πηνελοπεια, Τηλεμαχος θ᾽, ὃν ἐλειπε νεον γεγαωτ᾽ ἐνι οἴκῳ. Ὡς φατο — τῳ δ' ἀρα πατρος ὑφ' ἵμερον ὦρσε γοοιο. Δακρυ δ᾽ ἀπο βλεφαρων χαμάδις βαλε, πατρος ἀκουσας, Χλαιναν πορφυρεην ἀντ᾽ ὀφθαλμοῖν ἀνασχων Αμφοτέρησι χερσι· νοησε δε μιν Μενελαος.
8
That the title,
Αλκινοου
, or
Αλκινου ἀπολογος
, was understood to refer chiefly to the long narration of
Ulysses, which occupies four books of the
Odyssey, seems clear, even from the proverbial
application of the expression.
Απολογος Αλκίνου· ἐπι των φλυαρούντων, και μακρον ἀποτεινοντων λογον
. —
Suidas. And so
Jul. Pollux: —
ἐπι μακρων ῥησεων
.
9
But a passage in
Aristotle's
Rhetoric leaves no doubt. He there expressly mentions
Homer's account of the speech of
Ulysses to
Penelope,
Od. xxiii. 310, &c.
as being the
Αλκινου ἀπολογος
compressed into an abridgment of thirty verses.
Παραδειγμα ὁ Αλκινου ἀπολογος, ὅτι προς την Πηνελοπην ἐν τριακοντα ἐπεσι πεποἰηται
.
10
Now those verses are, in fact, a mere table of contents to the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th books, which contain the narrative of
Ulysses at the court of
Alcinous. This title, therefore, (
Αλκινου Απολογος
) must at least have extended to those four books. But the passage which is the subject of this note, seems to prove that it extended still farther; for here we are referred to the eighth book under that title; though the speech, the
μακρα ῥησις
of
Ulysses, does not commence till the ninth. The editions prefix the title,
Αλκινου ἀπολογΟΙ
, only to the eighth book. The fact seems to be, that the titles, by which the different parts of
Homer's Poems were first distinguished, were applied to parts of very unequal lengths; so that afterwards, when the equal, or nearly equal, division into books took place, it would not always coincide exactly with the other division, formed by the different distinct subjects or episodes of the Poem; but one title would sometimes comprehend several books, and different parts of the same book, would sometimes be distinguished by different titles. Thus, for example, the fifth book of the
Odyssey had two titles,
Καλυψους Αντρον
, and
Σχεδια
, or
Τα περι την σχεδιαν
: and the last book three,
Νέκυιαν
—
Τα ἐν Λαερτου
— and,
Σπονδαι
.
11
And thus, on the other hand, the title,
Αλκινου Απολογος
, is not, I apprehend, to be considered as appropriated to any one book, but, probably, comprehended five books — from the eighth to the twelfth, inclusively;
perhaps, was understood to refer, generally, to the whole Episode of
Alcinous; as indeed the expression
ΑΛΚΙΝΟΥ ἀπολογ.
— the "story OF ALCINOUS" — seems rather to imply. And the different parts of this long Episode were, again, subdistinguished by other titles; such as,
Κυκλωπια, Νέκυια, Τα Κιρκης
, &c. Indeed, the title,
Αλκινου Απολογοι
, though prefixed only to the eighth book, seems evidently extended beyond that book by the title subjoined as its equivalent,
η, τα του Οδυσσεως παρα Αλκινῳ
. But how the word
ἀπολογος
got into the plural number here, I do not well understand. This circumstance, however, together with the idea of its being confined to this single book, has, I think, led
Perizonius and other learned men into mistakes concerning the reason of the appellation.
Perizonius (ubi sup.) thinks the eighth book was so called, "because there are several speeches of
Alcinous in it;" and others suppose, that the title alludes to the songs of
Demodocus.
12
130.
mvp-aristotle-comment-130
NOTE 130. P. 96.
16.9
THE DISCOVERY OCCASIONED BY REASONING, OR INFERENCE; SUCH AS THAT IN THE CHOEPHORA-.
Here is much obscurity and confusion. One thing, however, seems clear; that
ἐκ συλλογισμου
, cannot mean as some interpreters have understood it to mean, "by reasoning or inference in the mind of the person who makes the discovery;" because this is common to all the modes of discovery. When
Electra recognizes her brother, does she not infer, or, in the philosopher's language, syllogize? "This man has seen the lance — nobody could see it but
Orestes — This is
Orestes." And the same may be said of all the other recognitions. Discovery by inference, therefore, on
the part of the discoverer, cannot be made a distinct species. The discovery
Aristotle means, is plainly a discovery, not
made, but
occasioned, by inference. Throughout all his instances, he considers only the means, or occasion, of discovery, as furnished, in some way or other, by the person discovered. With respect to bodily marks, bracelets, &c. the letter of
Iphigenia, and the verbal
τεκμηρια
of
Orestes, this is obvious enough. But the case is the same with the discovery by memory: in both the examples of that species, the persons are discovered, not by recollection in the discoverers, but by the effects of it in themselves. And so here too, in the three last examples of discovery
ἐκ συλλογισμου
, however obscure in other respects, this at least seems clearly enough expressed, that the persons are discovered by their own reasoning, or inference; that is, by something which it leads them to say.
13
But, the difficulty is, that
Aristotle's first example, appears not to accord with this idea, and with the other examples.
14
The inference here, appears to be, even from the words themselves, and, if the
Choephora of
Æschylus be intended, as the commentators suppose, certainly is, — inference in the mind of the person who makes the discovery.
15
But as this, for the reasons already given, cannot, I think, be admitted, we must either leave this knot as it is, or solve it by supposing some other Tragedy, not extant, to be meant, in which the conclusion mentioned was, as in all the other instances that follow, the occasion only of the discovery. Nor will this appear a very improbable supposition, if we recollect the
swarm of Tragic Poets who were continually exercising their invention upon a few popular subjects, and the number of different Tragedies which, in consequence, we find recorded, not only on the same subject, but even with the same title; often with some slight variation only, in the mode of a discovery, and other episodic incidents of the plot, which would still leave a general resemblance, a sort of family likeness, between them, such as, in fact, we find in Tragedies on the same subject now extant; in the
Electra of
Sophocles, and that of
Euripides, and the
Choephora of
Æschylus.
But we may say, farther, that this supposition seems to be favoured by the Tragedy of
Æschylus, itself;
16
with which, what
Aristotle here says, appears to me by no means exactly to correspond. The reader, who will take the trouble to examine the whole passage supposed to be here alluded to, from v. 166, to v. 233, will, I believe, think with me, that the discovery, in that play, cannot with propriety be denominated a discovery made by inference from resemblance. The circumstances of the lock of hair, and the footsteps, produce in
Electra's mind no more than a glimmering of hope —
σαινομαι δ᾽ ὑπ᾿ ἐλπιδος
[v. 192.] and she is so far from discovering
Orestes by them, that even when he appears before her, she is not convinced till he produces the
ὑφασμα
— the vest, or veil. This is justly remarked by
Brumoy;
17
"Tout cela (i. e. the hair, &c.) ne fait que la rendre plus inquiete: Elle demeure donc dans ce trouble jusqu' à ce qu' Oreste paroisse à ses yeux. Il se montre tout à coup, et se fait reconnoitre pour son frere, en lui présentant un voile qu'elle a tissu elle-meme."
This I take to be the true
ἀναγνωρισις
of this drama; and it belongs
rather to
Aristotle's first class —
δια σημειων
; if not even to the worst sort of that class, where the sign is produced
πιστεως ἐνεκα
, — by way of proof. Indeed, even admitting that
Electra may be considered as recognizing her brother by inference from the resemblance of the lock of hair and the footsteps only, still, as
Piccolomini acutely and solidly observes, this instance would belong to the first species of discovery by signs.
"Questo riconoscimento non è della quarta specie, ma della prima; nato, non da sillogismo, ma da segno: posciache Elettra, preso per segno d'Oreste la capigliatura, sopra tal segno, quasi sopra mezzo termine, fabrica il sillogismo che ella fa in se stessa, argomentando, che colui fusse Oreste: havendo io già detto, ch' in ogni riconoscimento suol intervenir sillogismo ed argomentatione dentro all'animo della persona riconoscente."
p. 236.
131.
mvp-aristotle-comment-131
NOTE 131. P. 97.
16.9
"HE CAME TO FIND HIS SON, AND HE HIMSELF MUST PERISH."It is not very obvious, how these words are to be brought to any thing like, reasoning, or inference. But all here is darkness. The far-fetched explanation which
Dacier has condescended to borrow, without notice, from
Castelvetro, for whom, in his preface, he expresses so much contempt, only serves to make the "darkness" more "visible."
I know not whether it be worth while to remark a mere resemblance of expression, but a very close one, in
Homer:
Od. Ο. 90.
Μη πατερ᾿ ἀντίθεον ΔΙΖΗΜΕΝΟΣ, ΑΥΤΟΣ ΟΛΩΜΑΙ.
132.
mvp-aristotle-comment-132
NOTE 132. P. 97.
16.10
THERE IS ALSO A COMPOUND SORT, &C.When the meaning of an author cannot be satisfactorily explained, all that a translator can do, is, to be particularly careful to render faithfully his words. This I have endeavoured to do here: but whether I have done even this, the manifest corruption of the text must leave uncertain. Whatever sense may be enveloped in the Greek, I hope remains enveloped in the English. But what that is, I will not undertake to say.
With respect to the title of the drama,
Οδυσσευς Ψευδαγγελος
, if I have not given it its only possible sense, I have, surely, given it its most natural and obvious sense: —
Ulysses in the disguise of a messenger. For I am really not able to see, how the words, without violent twisting, can be made to signify passively, as
Castelvetro would have it,
"Ulisse di cui sono recate false novelle;"
though
Victorius has pronounced a man to be a fool, who pretends to determine which of these two meanings is the right one.
18
Had a false
Ulysses been meant, it seems probable, that the word
Ψευδοδυσσευς
would rather have been used; as
Ψευδηράκλης
,
The false Hercules, was the title of a Comedy of
Menander.
Αναγνωριεντα . . τε θεατρου
: I see no other construction, as the text stands. And so
Victorius:
"Spectatores ita accepisse illam vocem, tanquam si ipsi, rei illius auxilio, ipsum agnituri essent."
Ulysses seems to have been a rich and valuable resource to the dramatic writers. His history furnished the subjects of many Comedies, as well as Tragedies. See
Cassaubon upon Athenæus, p. 297
. There were,
Ulysses Wounded —
Ulysses Mad —
Ulysses the Deserter —
Ulysses Shipwrecked —
Ulysses Weaving, &c. — The subject
of the play here mentioned seems to have been suggested by
Homer, Od. Τ. 120
. But, what it was — how this discovery was compound (
συνθετος
) — or how, indeed, it was a discovery at all — what the precise paralogism was, &c. I confess myself totally unable, from the short, perplexed, and probably corrupt words of the text, to make out. The reader may see, however, a great variety of different conjectures in the commentators; and I believe when he has read them all he will find himself just where he was. For my part, I leave this bow of
Ulysses to be bent by stronger arms than mine: —
Ω φίλοι, οὐ μεν ἐγω τανυω — λαβετω δε και άλλος.
133.
mvp-aristotle-comment-133
NOTE 133. P. 97.
16.11
BUT OF ALL DISCOVERIES, THE BEST IS THAT WHICH ARISES FROM THE ACTION ITSELF--.I agree with those commentators, who understand this to be given by
Aristotle as a species of
ἀναγνωρισις
distinct from any of the preceding. This appears, 1. From his examples, which are very different from all those before produced, and not reducible, I think, to any of his classes. The discovery of
Iphigenia by the letter, is, indeed, mentioned under his second class, but not as an instance of that species. — See NOTE 124. 2dly, and principally, from his saying, "After these, the next best are the discoveries by inference" naming an entire species; which he would not, surely, have done, had his best of all discoveries been such, as might be found equally in the other species; had he been speaking, as some understand him, only of the best way of using the discoveries already enumerated.
134.
mvp-aristotle-comment-134
NOTE 134. P. 98.
16.11
SUCH DISCOVERIES ARE THE BEST, BECAUSE THEY ALONE ARE EFFECTED WITHOUT INVENTED PROOFS, OR BRACELETS, &C. NEXT TO THESE ARE THE DISCOVERIES BY INFERENCE.If the words,
πεποιημένων σημείων
, refer, as it is generally understood, to the second sort of discoveries exclusively, it is not easy to see how it can be true, that the fifth and best sort of discoveries, that
ἐκ πραγματων
, is the only one that is effected without invented signs, bracelets, &c. for, on this supposition, the same may evidently be said of the third and fourth classes, those by memory, and by inference, which are expressly distinguished from the two first classes.
This inconsistence is not, I think, to be removed, but by understanding the words
πεποιημενα σημεια
, here, to be used in a wider sense, as including the third and fourth species, and, in general, all discoveries that have any degree of the defect which
Aristotle means to point out by the expression
πεποιημεναι ὑπο του ποιητου
, used in describing the second species, as opposed to what he calls,
ἐξ ἀυτων πραγματων
;
19
though that second species only is expressly so denominated, because it had this fault in the most glaring degree.
Any incident, or single action, of that combination of actions that compose a fable, is said, I think, to be
ἐξ αυτων πραγματων
, when it is prepared in the texture of the plot, and appears to follow so naturally and of course (
κατα το ἀναγκαιον ἢ το ἐικος
) from the incidents which precede it, that the spectator does not see how it could have been otherwise.
20
On the contrary, those incidents
are not
ἐξ ἀυτων πραγματων
, which are not thus gradually prepared, but have, more or less, the appearance of expedients brought in to answer the purpose of the moment; which suggest the idea of occasional and easy contrivance; which, though not, perhaps, improbable, yet have not such a degree of probability, as answers fully the purpose of dramatic illusion, by acting upon the mind of the spectator as necessity, and keeping his attention rivetted to the action, without suffering him, as it were, to turn his eyes a moment from it, to the resources of the Poet’s invention.
Now the third and fourth sorts of discovery appear, when we examine them, to be of this kind. They are not prepared and brought on gradually by the previous circumstances of the fable, as in the examples given from the
Oedipus, and
Iphigenia in Tauris, but effected by contrivances, more or less naturally introduced by the Poet, at the moment when they are wanted; by tears suddenly shed at the sight of a picture, by an exclamation suddenly uttered. These, therefore, are not improperly included under the denomination of
πεποιημενα
(
ὑπο του ποιητου
); and they are, also, in the proper and logical sense of the word,
σημεια
; the tears, in the one case, and the illative reflection, or exclamation, in the other, being tokens, by which the persons are recognized. And thus, what
Aristotle here says seems true that the discovery which arises out of the action itself, is the only sort that is entirely effected
ἀνευ των πεποιημενων σημείων και περιδεραιων
: by
περιδεραια
, meaning the first class of discoveries, and under
πεποιημενα σημεια
comprehending the three other classes.
He has, plainly, arranged his modes of discovery, as he had before arranged the modes of managing the
παθη
, or disastrous incidents, of Tragedy (
cap. xiv.
) — in the order of their comparative excellence; beginning with the worst, and proceeding gradually to the best. When he tells us, that the discoveries by inference are the next best, he evidently considers them, as not being, strictly at least,
ἐξ ἀυτων πραγματων
; and so far, I think, is intelligible: but, in what respect they are better than the preceding species,
δια μνημης
, he has not told us. The discovery by recollection may, perhaps, in this respect be regarded as less
ἐξ ἀυτων πραγματων
, more of the "Poet’s making," as it seems to require the introduction of something accidental and extraneous, such as the picture in his first instance, and the Bard and his performance, in the second; circumstances, which have more the appearance of expedients than the reflection of
Orestes, for example, in the Tragedy of
Polyides. For that reflection arose, at least, naturally, and solely, from his situation, and that situation was essential to the fable.
But it is time to release the reader, and myself, from the embarrassments of one of the most corrupt, confused, and ambiguous chapters of this mutilated and disfigured work.
