Aristotle Poetics 18.15

ed. Henry James Pye

View: By Chapter
those have either totally failed in the attempt or been unfavourably received, who have endeavoured to represent the whole destruction of Troy and not divided it into parts; (I [G] do not mean in the manner of Æschylus

Poetics. Aristotle. ed. Henry James Pye. London. 1792.

Current edition Experimental

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.

Editions (4)
Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) (Aristotle, Poetics. Immanuel Bekker, editor, Aristotelis Opera, volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1837.) — 18 focus
Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) Perseus (Aristotle, De arte poetica liber. Rudolf Kassel, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Reference edition for passage alignment.) — 18 focus
Poetics, Greek text (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's Greek text of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 18 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.) — 18 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.) — 18 focus
Arabic Poetics (Badawī edition, 1953) (OCR draft) (The ancient Arabic translation of Aristotle's Poetics in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī's 1953 edition.) — 18 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.) — 18 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.) — 18 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.) — 18.15 focus
As a proof of this, those Poets, who have formed the whole of the destruction of Troy into a Tragedy, instead of confining themselves (as Euripides, but not Aeschylus, has done, in the story of Niobe,) to a part, have either been condemned in the representation, or have contended without success.
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.) — 18.15 focus
This, 1 however, takes place when a wise but a depraved man, such as Sisyphus, is deceived; and a brave but unjust man is vanquished. But this is probable,
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.) — 18 focus
La poëtique d'Aristote (André Dacier, 1692) (OCR draft) Experimental (André Dacier's French translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1692.) — 18.15 focus
& l'on peut ſe convaincre de cette verité par le mauvais ſuccez qu'ont eu tous ceux qui ont mis, par exemple, toute la ruine de Troye dans une ſeule piece, & qui n'ont pas traitté ce ſujet là par parties, comme Euripide a traitté ſa Niobe ou ſa Medée, ou comme Eſchyle. Car ou ils ont vû tomber leurs pieces, ou ils ont été toûjours vaincus.
Poetica d'Aristotile (Bernardo Segni, 1549) (OCR draft) Experimental (Bernardo Segni's 1549 Florentine Italian translation, aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 18 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.) — 18 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.) — 18 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.) — 18 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.) — 18 focus

Commentary

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

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-674

ὅσοι πέρσιν Ἰλίου ὅλην ἐποίησαν. We do not know to whom Aristotle is referring; it is just possible that Agathon may have been one of the number. For the tragedies entitled Ιλίου πέρσις (or simply Πέρσις) see on 23, 1459 b6 .

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-675

Ἀγάθων. Aristotle's sense of the importance of Agathon is shown by his many quotations from him ( Bon. Ind. 4 b5 ), as well as by the present and other references in the Poetics ( 9, 1451 b 21 ; 15, 1454 b14 ). The context (-21) implies that the pathos in Agathon's situations was not always of the most legitimate kind; and in the next paragraph (29) he is said to have set a bad precedent in the treatment of the Chorus. But whatever his artistic shortcomings may have been, we have evidence enough even in Aristophanes of his success with his own generation. There is a good deal of point, therefore, in what Aristotle is saying in support of his rule ( μὴ ποιεῖν ἐποποικὸν σύστημα τραγῳδίαν), that
‘even Agathon failed’
when he neglected it.

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-676

ἐν τούτῳ μόνῳ,
‘in this, and in this alone’
—a pregnant use of μόνος like that in De somno2, 455 a27
διὸ καὶ πᾶσιν ὑπάρχει τοῖς ζώοις καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἁφὴ μόνη πᾶσιν.

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

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-443

18.15 18. Et l'on peut se convaincre de cette verité par le mauvais fuccez qu'ont eu tous ceux qui ont mis, par exemple, toute la ruine de Troye dans une seule piece, & qui n'ont pas traité ce fujet-là par parties.] 1

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-444

18.15 19. Comme Euripide a fait ſa Niobe on ſa Medée, ou comme Efchyle.] 2

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-445

18.15 20. Car ou ils ont vû tomber leurs pieces, ou ils ont été vaincus.] 3

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

154. mvp-aristotle-comment-154

NOTE 154. P. 102.

18.15 As EURIPIDES, BUT NOT ÆSCHYLUS, HAS DONE &c.
This passage affords a good specimen of the distressing ambiguity that prevails so remarkably throughout this work. It fairly admits of two different constructions, and two different senses. It may be thus:
οσοι περσιν Ιλιου ολην εποιησαν και μη κατα μερος, (ωσπερ Ευριπιδης Νιοβην, η Μηδειαν, και μη ωσπερ Αισχυλος,) εκπιπτουσιν
κ. τ. αλ. Or thus:
οσοι περσιν Ιλιου ολην εποιησαν, και μη κατα μερος (ωσπερ Ευρ. Ν. η Μ. [sc. κατα μερος εποιησε,] και μη ωσπερ Αισχ. [sc. ολην εποιησε.]) εκπιπ.
κ. τ. αλ.—In the first of these ways, the censure will fall on Euripides; in the other, on Æschylus. Victorius contends for the first, but his reasons, though plausible, seem not decisive. The whole, as he observes, turns upon this—whether the
ωσπερ
refers to the whole sentence—
ολην εποιησαν και μη κατα μερος
,—or, only to the words immediately preceding, i. e.
κατα μερος
. On the whole, the last construction, I think, offers itself most naturally; and it seems rather favoured, too, by the similar application of
μη ωσπερ
, to the Poet censured, presently after; where, speaking of the Chorus, he says it should
συναγωνιζεσθαι, ΜΗ ΩΣΠΕΡ παρ Ευριπιδη, αλλ' ΩΣΠΕΡ παρα Σοφοκλει
.—But this, after all, is one of those passages, where the
"æquato examine lances"
are so nicely balanced, that a commentator might continue in suspense for ever, if the necessity of going on did not oblige him to turn the scale by a touch of his own hand. 1

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

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-127

Ritter, cap. 18 § 5

ὅσοι πέρσιν Ἰλίου ὅλην ἐποίησαν: qui eversionem Iliacae urbis totam tragoediae argumentum fecerunt. varia illa quae acciderunt, cum Ilium devastaretur, una tragoedia comprehendi salva lege dramaticae unitatis non possunt, quam ob causam eae fabulae displicuerunt quae id praestare conarentur. ceterum de certo tragoediae cuiusdam nomine ( Πέρσις Ἰλίου) ne cogitemus, vel collocatio verborum ( πέρσις Ἰλίου) impedit. carmen illud epicum Arctini et Leschis (v. ad c. 23, 4) non πέρσις Ἰλίου, sed Ἰλίου πέρσις 1) vocatur, eodemque modo tragoedia appellanda erit, si quidem unquam eo titulo tragoedia exstitit, vid. Commentar. ad c. 23, 4. καὶ μὴ κατὰ μέρος [, ὥσπερ Εὐριπίδης Νιόβην, καὶ μὴ ὥσπερ Αἰσχύλος]: haec est constans co- 1) Conf. c. 23, 4. Pausan. X, 25 et 27. Proculi Chrestom. excerpta apud Gaisfordium ad Hephaest. p. 483., alii,dicum scriptura, unde qui discessere huius loci auctorem et doctiorem et prudentiorem fecerunt quam re vera fuit. Aristotelem non scripsisse verba uncis circumdata plura sunt quae ostendant. Euripidi fabula tribuitur quam non conscripsit; eadem ad devastationem Ilii a vero auctore memoratam nihil pertinet; Euripides laudatur quod fabulam Niobiam κατά μέρος tractaverit, Aeschylus reprehenditur quod eadem solertia non usus sit. haec ego ne antiquo quidem interpolatori tribuo, quippe in ipso verborum contextu nimis absurda sunt, sed ex nota marginali nata esse puto. scilicet cum in extremo codicis antiqui versu collocata essent verba illa καὶ μὴ κατὰ μέρος, aliquis in margine adscripsit ὥσπερ Εὐριπίδης Νιόβην, intelligens κατὰ μέρος ἐποίησε, illisque καὶ μὴ ὥσπερ Αἰσχύλος adiectis significavit Aeschylum Niobae fabulam deterius in rem suam convertisse. iam, si pro Euripidis nomine interim Sophoclis admiserimus, quae in ipso operis contextu et sensu carent et disputationis ordinem turbant, ea hanc si minus veram at tolerabilem sententiam offerunt, Sophoclem (Euripidem) in Nioba sua fabulae Niobiae particulam, Aeschylum eandem totam (in trilogia) pertractandam sibi sumpsisse. sed nihilo minus Euripidem de loco per scribentis errorem benigne concesso non movendum esse censeo. qui coniecturis hanc difficultatem tollere conati sunt, operam me iudice perdiderunt. Valla convertit Hecubam, non Niobam, unde Tyrwhittus Εκάβην sumpsit, sed ne Hecuba quidem ad Ilii eversionem pertinet, sed ad illa quae secuta sunt eversionem, ut omittam sic iniuste laudari fabulam illam pessimam et duplice argumento vitiosam, neque adesse quo referantur καὶ μὴ ὥσπερ Αἰσχύλος. Aldus ex coniectura vel sua vel alius dedit νιόβην ἢ μήδειαν, quibus loci difficultas magis etiam augetur. alii alia tentaverunt. ἢ ἐκπίπτουσιν ἢ κακῶς ἀγωνίζονται: aut exiguntur aut male certant, h. e. aut fabulam peragere non possunt aut ita certant ut nonnisi secundo tertiove loco nominentur. conf. c. 17, 1. ἐπεὶ καὶ ᾿Αγάθων ἐξέ - πεσεν ἐν τούτῳ μόνῳ: Agatho in tragoedia quadam ase edita ( Ἰλίου πέρσιν inscriptam fuisse neque hinc neque alio indicio constat) totam excidii urbis Troiae historiam videtur comprehendisse, verbi causa illa quae Priamo indigna acciderunt, quae Cassandra et Astyanax aliique perpessi sunt, quae Ulixes et Aiax et Agamemno perpatraverunt. ex verbis ἐξέπεσεν ἐν τούτῳ μόνῳ ne colligas Agathonem vicisse in ceteris suis fabulis omnibus: quippe potuit in nonnullis κακῶς ἀγωνίζεσθαι. ἐν δὲ ταῖς περιπετείαις - ὧν βούλονται θαν - μαστῶς: si rerum conversiones ( αἱ περιπέτειαι) sunt eiusmodi ut simplicibus factis ( ἁπλοῖς πράγμασιν) eveniant, quod fit ubi necessario vel probabiliter accidunt, poetae tragici propositum suum optime consequuntur. intelligit igitur eas περιπετείας quae ἁπλοῖς πράγμασι, non συστήματι πολυμύθῳ, continentur, atque haec ipsa ἁπλᾶ πράγματα non μύθῳ πεπλεγμένῳ sed συστήματι πολυμύθῳ opposita cogitari debent. noli igitur confundere ἁπλᾶ πράγματα cum ἁπλῇ πράξει sive ἁπλῷ μύθῳ (vide c. 10 et 11) neque statuere Aristotelem contra loqui c. 13, 2., ubi pronuntiat pulcherrimae tragoediae fabulam ( μύθον) implexam esse, non simplicem. - τραγικὸν γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ φιλάνθρωπον : tragicum hoc est, quia eiusmodi facta timorem miserationemque movent. nam simplicia cum naturae convenienter fieri soleant, similia cuivis accidere possunt. inde timor in nobis et simul aliorum miseratio nascitur; sin minus, certe sensus humanus tangitur.