Aristotle Poetics 22.12

The merit of diction is to be clear and not commonplace. The clearest diction is that made up of ordinary words, but it is commonplace.

20 An example is the poetry of Cleophon and of Sthenelus. ¹

That which employs unfamiliar words is dignified and outside the common usage. By unfamiliar I mean a rare word, a metaphor, a lengthening, ² and anything beyond the ordinary use.

But if a poet writes entirely in such words, the result will be either a riddle or jargon; if made up of metaphors, a riddle and if of rare words, jargon.

The essence of a riddle consists in describing a fact by an impossible combination of words. By merely combining the ordinary names of things this cannot be done, but it is made possible by combining metaphors. For instance, I saw a man weld bronze upon a man with fire, and so on. ³

A medley of rare words is jargon.

We need then a sort of mixture of the two. For the one kind will save the diction from being prosaic and commonplace, the rare word, for example, and the metaphor and the ornament, whereas the ordinary words give clarity.

1458b 1 A considerable aid to clarity and distinction are the lengthening and abbreviation and alteration of words. Being otherwise than in the ordinary form and thus unusual, these will produce the effect of distinction, and clarity will be preserved by retaining part of the usual form.

Those critics are therefore wrong who censure this manner of idiom and poke fun at the poet, as did the elder Eucleides ⁴ who said it was easy to write poetry, granted the right to lengthen syllables at will. He had made a burlesque in this very style: ⁵

Now to make an obtrusive use of this licence is ridiculous;

but moderation is a requisite common to all kinds of writing. The same effect could be got by using metaphors and rare words and the rest unsuitably for the express purpose of raising a laugh.

What a difference is made by the proper use of such licence may be seen in epic poetry, if you substitute in the verse the ordinary forms.

Take a rare word or metaphor or any of the others and substitute the ordinary word; the truth of our contention will then be obvious. 20 For instance, Aeschylus and Euripides wrote the same iambic line with the change of one word only, a rare word in place of one made ordinary by custom, yet the one line seems beautiful and the other trivial. Aeschylus in the Philoctetes wrote, and Euripides instead of eats put feasts upon. Or take suppose one were to read the line substituting the ordinary words, Or compare with or the sea-shore is roaring with the sea-shore is shrieking. ⁶

Ariphrades ⁷ again made fun of the tragedians because they employ phrases which no one would use in conversation, like δωμάτων ἄπο instead of ἀπὸ δωμάτων and their σέθεν and ἐγὼ δέ νιν and Ἀχιλλέως πέρι for περὶ Ἀχιλλέως, and so on.

1459a 1 All that sort of thing, not being in the ordinary form, gives distinction to the diction, which was what he failed to understand.

It is a great thing to make a proper use of each of the elements mentioned, and of double words and rare words too, but by far the greatest thing is the use of metaphor.

That alone cannot be learnt; it is the token of genius. For the right use of metaphor means an eye for resemblances. ⁸

Of the various kinds of words the double forms are most suited for dithyrambs, rare words for heroic verse and metaphors for iambics.

And indeed in heroic verse they are all useful; but since iambic verse is largely an imitation of speech, only those nouns are suitable which might be used in talking. These are the ordinary word, metaphor, and ornament.

Now concerning tragedy and the art of representing life in action, what we have said already must suffice.

The perfection of style is to be clear without being
mean.

The clearest style is that which uses only current
or proper words;
at the same time it is mean :—witness
the poetry of Cleophon and of Sthenelus.

That diction, on the other hand, is lofty and raised above the common-
place which employs unusual words.
By unusual, I
mean strange (or rare) words, metaphorical, lengthened,—
anything, in short, that differs from the normal idiom.

Yet a style wholly composed of such words is either a
riddle or a jargon;
a riddle, if it consists of metaphors;
a jargon, if it consists of strange (or rare) words.

For the
essence of a riddle is to express true facts under im-
possible combinations.
Now this cannot be done by any
arrangement of ordinary words, but by the use of meta-
phor it can.
Such is the riddle: 'A man I saw who
on another man had glued the bronze by aid of fire,' and
others of the same kind.

A diction that is made up of
strange (or rare) terms is a jargon.

A certain infusion,
therefore, of these elements is necessary to style;
for the
strange (or rare) word, the metaphorical, the ornamental,
and the other kinds above mentioned, will raise it above
the commonplace and mean, while the use of proper
words will make it perspicuous.

But nothing contributes
more to produce a clearness of diction that is remote
from commonness than the lengthening, contraction, and
alteration of words.
For by deviating in exceptional
cases from the normal idiom, the language will gain
distinction;
while, at the same time, the partial con-
formity with usage will give perspicuity.

The critics,
therefore, are in error who censure these licenses of
speech, and hold the author up to ridicule.
Thus
Eucleides, the elder, declared that it would be an easy
matter to be a poet if you might lengthen syllables at
will.
He caricatured the practice in the very form of
his diction, as in the verse:
Ἐπιχάρην εἶδον Μαραθῶνάδε βαδίζοντα,
or,
οὐκ ἄν ἐράμενος τὸν ἐκείνου ἐλλέβορον.

To employ such license at all obtrusively is, no doubt,
grotesque;
but in any mode of poetic diction there
must be moderation.

Even metaphors, strange (or rare)
words, or any similar forms of speech, would produce
the like effect if used without propriety and with the
express purpose of being ludicrous.

How great a differ-
ence is made by the appropriate use of lengthening, may
be seen in Epic poetry by the insertion of ordinary forms
in the verse.

So, again, if we take a strange (or rare)
word, a metaphor, or any similar mode of expression,
and replace it by the current or proper term, the truth
of our observation will be manifest.
For example
Aeschylus and Euripides each composed the same iambic
line.
But the alteration of a single word by Euripides,
who employed the rarer term instead of the ordinary
one, makes one verse appear beautiful and the other
trivial.
Aeschylus in his Philoctetes says:
φαγέδαινα <δ᾽> μου σάρκας ἐσθίει ποδός·
Euripides substitutes θοινᾶται 'feasts on' for ἐσθίει
'feeds on.'
Again, in the line,
νῦν δὲ μ᾽ ἐὼν ὀλίγος τε καὶ οὐτιδανὸς καὶ ἀεικής,
the difference will be felt if we substitute the common
words,
νῦν δὲ μ᾽ ἐὼν μικρός τε καὶ ἀσθενικὸς καὶ ἀειδής.
Or, if for the line,
δίφρον ἀεικέλιον καταθεὶς ὀλίγην τε τράπεζαν,
we read,
δίφρον μοχθηρὸν καταθεὶς μικράν τε τράπεζαν.
Or, for ἠμόνες βοόωσιν, ἠιόνες κράζουσιν.

Again, Ariphrades ridiculed the tragedians for using
phrases which no one would employ in ordinary speech :
for example, δωμάτων ἄπο instead of ἀπὸ δωμάτων,
σέθεν, ἐγὼ δὲ νιν, ᾿Αχιλλέως πέρι instead of περὶ
᾿Αχιλλέως, and the like.

It is precisely because such
phrases are not part of the current idiom that they
give distinction to the style.
This, however, he failed
to see.

It is a great matter to observe propriety in these
several modes of expression, as also in compound words,
strange (or rare) words, and so forth.
But the greatest
thing by far is to have a command of metaphor.

This
alone cannot be imparted by another;
it is the mark of
genius, for to make good metaphors implies an eye for
resemblances.

Of the various kinds of words, the compound are
best adapted to dithyrambs, rare words to heroic poetry,
metaphors to iambic.

In heroic poetry, indeed, all
these varieties are serviceable.
But in iambic verse,
which reproduces, as far as may be, familiar speech, the
most appropriate words are those which are found even
in prose.
These are, the current or proper, the meta-
phorical, the ornamental.

Concerning Tragedy and imitation by means of
action this may suffice.

The perfection of Diction is for it to be at once clear
and not mean.

The clearest indeed is that made up of
the ordinary words for things, but it is mean, as is shown
by the poetry of Cleophon and Sthenelus.

On the other
hand the Diction becomes distinguished and non-prosaic
by the use of unfamiliar terms, i. e. strange words, metaphors,
lengthened forms, and everything that deviates from the
ordinary modes of speech.

But a whole statement in such
terms will be either a riddle or a barbarism, a riddle, if made
up of metaphors, a barbarism, if made up of strange words.

The very nature indeed of a riddle is this, to describe a
fact in an impossible combination of words (which cannot
be done with the real names for things, but can be with
their metaphorical substitutes); e.g. 'I saw a man glue brass
on another with fire,' and the like.

The corresponding
use of strange words results in a barbarism.

A certain
admixture, accordingly, of unfamiliar terms is necessary.
These, the strange word, the metaphor, the ornamental
equivalent, etc., will save the language from seeming mean
and prosaic, while the ordinary words in it will secure the
requisite clearness.

What helps most, however, to render
the Diction at once clear and non-prosaic is the use of the
lengthened, curtailed, and altered forms of words.

It is not right, then, to condemn these modes of speech,
and ridicule the poet for using them, as some have done;
e. g. the elder Euclid, who said it was easy to make poetry
if one were to be allowed to lengthen the words in the
statement itself as much as one likes—a procedure he
caricatured by reading
and as verses.

A too
apparent use of these licences has certainly a ludicrous
effect,

but they are not alone in that; the rule of moderation
applies to all the constituents of the poetic vocabulary;
even with metaphors, strange words, and the rest, the effect
will be the same, if one uses them improperly and with a view
to provoking laughter.

The proper use of them is a very
different thing.

To realize the difference one should take
an epic verse and see how it reads when the normal words
are introduced. The same should be done too with the
strange word, the metaphor, and the rest; for one has
only to put the ordinary words in their place to see the
truth of what we are saying. The same iambic, for instance,
is found in Aeschylus and Euripides, and as it stands in
the former it is a poor line; whereas Euripides, by the
change of a single word, the substitution of a strange for
what is by usage the ordinary word, has made it seem a fine
one. Aeschylus having said in his Philoctetes:

Euripides has merely altered the ἐσθίει here into θοινᾶται.
Or suppose
to be altered by the substitution of the ordinary words into

Or the line
into
Or into

Add to this that
Ariphrades used to ridicule the tragedians for introducing ex-
pressions unknown in the language of common life, (for ), , , (for ), and the like.

The mere fact of their not being in
ordinary speech gives the Diction a non-prosaic character;
but Ariphrades was unaware of that.

It is a great thing,
indeed, to make a proper use of these poetical forms, as
also of compounds and strange words.
But the greatest
thing by far is to be a master of metaphor.

It is the one
thing that cannot be learnt from others; and it is also
a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies an intuitive
perception of the similarity in dissimilars.

Of the kinds of words we have enumerated it may be
observed that compounds are most in place in the dithyramb,
strange words in heroic, and metaphors in iambic poetry.

Heroic poetry, indeed, may avail itself of them all. But in
iambic verse, which models itself as far as possible on the
spoken language, only those kinds of words are in place
which are allowable also in an oration, i. e. the ordinary
word, the metaphor, and the ornamental equivalent.

Let this, then, suffice as an account of Tragedy, the art
imitating by means of action on the stage.

Dictionis autem virtus est ut perspicua neque exis lis sit.

maxime quidem perspicua est quae ex propriis nominibus, sed exilis: exemplo est Cleophontis poesis et Stheneli.

gravis autem et vulgaria devitans quae peregrinis utitur. in peregrinis refero glossam et translationem et extensionem et quidquid a proprio discedit.

sed si quis omnia eiusmodi posuerit, aut aenigma erit aut barbarismus. si quidem ex translationibus, aenigma, sin ex glossis, barbarisinus.

aenigmatis enim forma haec est ut, quae sunt dum dicis, coniungas quae non possunt esse. atque per nominum coniunctionem hoc fieri non potest, sed per translationem potest, velut "virum vidi igne aes viro adglutinantem,” et quae sunt eiusdem generis.

[ex glossis barbarismus.]

oportet igitur mixtam esse orationem ex his quodammodo: nam quod non est vulgare neque exile, id glossa afferet et translatio [et ornatus] et ceterae formae quas enumeravimus, proprium autem perspicuitatem.

nec minimam partem conferunt ad perspicuitatem orationis et amovenda vulgaria extensiones et abscissiones et commutationes nominum: nam eo quo aliter se habent ac propria, id quod fit praeter consuetum faciet ad vitanda vulgaria, sed eo quod commune habent cum vulgaribus afferent perspicuitatem.

quamobrem non recte vituperant qui reprehendunt hoc genus dictionis et irrident poetam, ut Euclides ille antiquus, quasi facile sit poema condere, si quis dederit extendere in quantum velit, irridens ipsa dictione: ἤτοι ῎Αρην εἶδον Μαραθῶν δε βαδίζοντα, et οὐκ ἄν γ' ἐράμενος τὸν ἐκείνου ἐλλέβορον.

ac deprehendi quodammodo utentem hoc genere ridiculum est [metrum autem commune omnium est partium];

quippe etiam translationibus et glossis et ceteris formis qui utitur inepte et accommodate ad risum, is idem efficeret.

sed iustus modus quantum excellat, in epicis consideretur, eo quod nomina metro adstringantur.

et in glossa et in translationibus et in aliis formis si quis reposuerit propria nomina, invenerit vera nos dicere; veluti cum cundem trimetrum fecerit Aeschylus atque Euripides, sed hic unum tantum nomen mutaret, pro proprio solitoque glossam, alter versus pulcher apparet alter exilis. Aeschylus enim in Philocteta posuit „phagedaena quae mei comedit carnem pedis," ille autem pro comedit posuit epulatur. atque νῦν δέ μ᾽ ἐὼν ὀλίγος τε καὶ οὐτιδανὸς καὶ ἄκικυς, si quis repositis propriis diceret νῦν δέ μ᾽ ἐὼν μικρός τε καὶ ἀσθενικὸς καὶ ἀειδής. atque δίφρον ἀεικέλιον καταθεὶς ὀλίγην τε τράπεζαν. δίφρον μοχθηρὸν καταθεὶς μικράν τε τράπεζαν. atque “littora clamant” littora crociunt.

[Praeterea Ariphrades tragoedos irridebat, quod quae nemo diceret in sermone, iis uterentur, veluti illud δωμά των ἄπο ac non ἀπὸ δωμάτων, et σέθεν, et ἐγὼ δέ νιν, et Ἀχιλλέως πέρι ac non περὶ Ἀχιλλέως, et quae sunt alia huiusmodi.

nam quia non sunt in propriis, faciunt haec omnia ne vulgaris sit dictio:

ille autem hoc ignorabat.] Est vero magnum unoquoque eorum quae diximus uti quemadmodum decet, tam duplicibus nominibus quam glossis, multo autem maximum ad translationes promptum esse.

hoc enim unum neque ab alio sumere licet felicisque ingenii signum est: bene enim transferre est similia animadvertere.

ex nominibus autem duplicia potissimum conveniunt dithyrambis, glossae heroicis, translationes iambicis carminibus.

atque in heroicis omnia quae dixi utilia sunt; sed in iambicis, quippe quae maxime sermonem imitentur, ea apta sunt nomina quibus etiam in orationibus quis utatur: sunt vero eiusmodi nomina propria et translationes [et ornatus].

iam de tragoedia et per agendum imitatione sufficiant nobis quae dicta sunt.

Della bontà della Locutione. C A bontà della Locutione è, ch'ella ſia chiara, & non humile; La chiarezza s'acquiſta vſando i nomi propii,ma ella ſi fa baſſa,Sieci in eſſempio di ciò la Poefia di Cleofonte, & di Stenelo.

Grandezza ha ella, & eſce fuori del plebeo, vſando nomi foreſtieri.

Io chiamo nome foreftiero la Confuſione delle Lingue, la Metafora, l'Allungamento; & tutto quello che fi diparte dal propio.

Ma doue vno inſieme vſerà tutti que ſti nomi, e' farà ò vno Enigma, o vno Barbarifmo. E farà lo Enigma componendo il ſuo parlare di Metafore; & farallo Barbariſmo componendolo di varie Lingue.

Perchè quel parlare hara forma Enigmatica, che farà compoſto di coſe impoſsibili. La quale forma non ſi può fare per via de Nomi compoſti, ma fi ben per via delle Metafore, come è quella.

Io vidi vn huomo, clia vn'altro huomo appiccaua il bronzo col fuoco, ô altre fimili coſe.

Et il Barbariſmo è compoſto di con fuſione di lingue, onde auuiene, che in vn certo modo, e' fi meſcola in ſimil ſorte di parlare.

La Confufione delle lingue adunche, & la Metafora,& il Nome ornato, & altri nomi di ſimil forte fanno l'Oratione grande, & rilieuonla da'l modo plebeo; & il Nome propio le dà la chiarezza, alla quale medeſimamente giouano in non piccola parte:& anchora à rileuarla dal parlare.

ordinario gli Allungamenti, le Conciſioni, &i Cambiamenti del Nome, Conciofia, che per iſtar' tal parlare fuori dell'uſo, come effendo diuerfo dal propio, e faccia percio il parlare rileuato:et per communicare in parte col parlare cófueto, ch'egli habbia in ſe la chiarez za. Onde à ragione non è biaſimato vn'ſimil modo di parlare, ne con ragione ardiſcono in ciò quegli, che accufano il Poeta. Ilche fece Euclide Prifco, dicendo che vno ageuolmete potrebbe fingere il ſuo Poema, ſe e gli fuffe lecito allungare i Nomi quanto gli pare; & egli poi in queſti Iambi vso tal Locutione.

ὅτι χάριν εἶσιον μαραθῶνάλε βαδίζοντα οὐκ ἄν γλνάμενος τὸν ἐκείνου ἐξελλέβορον..

τουτου L'uſare adunche in tal modo hà del ridiculo; ma la me diocrità da uſarci è parimente commune à tutte le parti dette.

Perchè chi vſerale Metafore, la uarietà delle lingue, & altre ſpetie racconte inconuenientemente, & à ſtudio; queſti andrà procacciando il ſuo parlare in maniera da effer derifo.

Ma quanto il conue neuole riſplenda ne' verſi, confideriſi diqui, che ſe uno harà poſto i Nomi con miſura nella varietà delle lin gue, & nelle Metafore, & in altre fimili ſpetie, & dipoi cambiatigli, vi hara i propii Nomi ripoſto; conoſcera che io harò detto il vero; Si come appariſce per effempio di Efchilo, & d'Euripide in vn' Iambo medefimo fatto da l'uno, & da l'altro. Imperochè hauendo l'uno - in cambio del propio Nome vſatone vn'altro foreſtiero, fè, che gli appari tanto bello, quanto quell'altro brutto, & baffo; perchè nel Filoctete Eſchilo coſi parlò. Mangiasi,ohime, de pie la carne mia. - V na Lupa crudele. Doue Euripide in cambio di quella parola Mangiafi, Odiß. Hom diſſe Trionfa della mia carne. Et queſt'altro che dice. Ma hor ch'un brutto, piccolo, poc atto. Doue ſe vno uoleſſe mettere per efprimere tal concetto nomi piu propii direbbe. Ma hor ch'un brutto, debole, piccino Et queſt'altro, che dice, 11 carro indegno, le uiuande parche Dirlo altramente, cioè Il carro triſto, le uiuande triſte. Et quello che dice. E' litti intorno mettono alte ſtrida. در Dire in quel cambio Gridano.

Arifade oltra di que fto biafimaua i Poeti Tragici perche nelle Tragedie egli vſauano nomi non confueti d'uſarſi da gli altri;nel parlar'ſciolto come dire λωμάτων ἀπὸ, et non ἀπὸ Αωμάτων cioè dıre Cafe dalle, in cambio di dire Dalle cafe. Et σέθεν in cambio di σοῦ Et viv in cambio di dire ἀντὸν, Ετ᾿ ἀχιλλέωσ περὶ in cambio di dire περὶ ἀχιλλέωσ.

Ετ altre fimili coſe, non ſappiendo, che eglinomentre che tali modi di dire uanno ſeguendo sfuggono allhora il modo del parlare plebeo.

Ma egli importa aſſai l'uſare il conueneuole in ciascuna delle coſe dette, & ne' nomi detti, & nella varieta delle lingue; & quello che ſopra tutte l'altre coſe uale, è il ſaper vfar'bene le Metafo re.

La qual coſa nó ſi può trar' da altri, anzi è inditio in -chi la fa bene di acuto ingegno; imperochê il traſportare ben' le coſe non è altro che vn' poter' ben' contemplare le fimilitudini d'effe.

Infra' Nomi quei, che fo no doppi, ſtanno ben' a' verſi Ditirambi ; & la varietà delle lingue a i verfi Heroici, & le metafore a Iambi.

Ma negli Heroici tutte le forti dette de Nomi vi fi accomodan' anchor bene & ne verſi Iambi, perchè efsi imitano mitano il parlare ordinario, e' ui ſtan' bene tutti quei Nomi, che nella proſa ſi parlano : & tali ſono i Nomi propii, le Metafore, & i Nomi ornati. Et in quanto alla Tragedia, & à quella imitatione, che conſiſte nella atti one fieſene detto infin qui à baſtanza.

Auuertiſcha qui il lettore che'l commento meſſo innanzi ha ad ire qui ilche è e nato per difetto degli stampatori. E

Elocutionis autem virtus est, ut sit perspicua et non humilis. ac maxime quidem perspicua est quae ex propriis nominibus constat, sed humilis. exemplum est Cleophontis poesis et Stheneli.

at grandis et immutans id quod vulgare est,

quae peregrinis utitur, peregrinum autem voco linguam et translationem et protractionem, et quidquid praeter proprium est.

sed si quis simul omnia talia fecerit, aut aenigma erit aut barbarismus. si igitur ex translationibus, aenigma, si ex linguis, etiam barbarismus.

aenigmatis autem forma est, ut qui dicit, copulet ea quae fieri non possunt. at secundum compositionem quidem nominum id fieri non potest: verum secundum translationem contingit,

ut "virum vidi igne aes viro aggluti- nantem agglutinantem" et talia.

ex linguis vero barbarismus. quamobrem aliquo modo his temperatur;

ac non vulgare quidem efficiet humile neque lingua et translatio et ornatus et aliae formae quae dictae sunt, perspicuitatem vero proprium. at non minimam partem conferunt ad perspicuam elocutionem et non vulgarem protractiones et subtractiones et immutationes nominum:

nam quoniam hoc aliter se habet Bbbbb ac proprium, quod factum est praeter consuetum, non vulgare efficiet; quoniam autem commune aliquid habet cum eo quod est consuetam, erit perspicuum. quare non recte vituperant, qui reprehendont talem modum locutionis ac maledictis poetam insectantur, ut Euclides ille antiquus, quod facile sit poetice agere, si quis concesserit protrahere, quantum velit, eum qui iambis usus sit in eadem locutione, ut ἠτίχαριν εἶδον Μαραθῶνα βαδίζοντα,

εἰ οὐκ ἂν γεινάμενος τὸν ἐκείνου ἐξ ἐλλέβορον.

ac cum appareat quidem aliquo modo aliquem sequi hunc ipsum nsum, id ridicnlum est. mensura vero communis est omnium partium.

etenim qui translationibus et linguis et aliis formis uteretur indecore et studiose ad ridicula, idem efficeret.

id autem quod congruit, quantum excellat in heroico carmine, consideretur iniectis nominibus in metrum. et certe in linguis et in translationibus et in aliis formis, si quis posuerit propria nomina, videbit a nobis dici ea quae vera sunt, ut cum eundem iambicum fecit Aeschylus et Euripides, et unum solum nomen immutavit, et posnit linguam pro proprio consueto. atque unum quidem apparet pulchrum, alterum vero humile. nam Aeschylus in Philoctete fecit "phagedaena, quae mei carnes comedit pedis," hic vero pro obis posuit fotvarat, epulatur. et nunc autem me, qui est parvusque et nihili et indecens."

si quis dicit positis propriis "nunc autem me, qui est parvusque et imbecillis et deformis." et "sedile non conveniens cum posuisset, paucamque mensam." et illud "littora vociferantur," littora clamant. praeterea vero Ariphrades tragoedis maledicebat, quod quae nemo diceret in sermone, iis uterentur, quale illud est, δωμάτων απο domibus ab, sed non ἀπὸ δωμάτων a domibus; et illud v tui; et illud y di viv ego autem ipsum;

et il lnd ᾿Αχιλλέως πέρι Achille de, sed non περὶ ᾿Αχιλλέως de Achille; et quaecunque alia talia.

nam quoniam non sunt in propriis, faciunt id quod non vulgare est haec omnia in elocutione: ille vero hoc nesciebat. iam magnum est uti congruenter unoquoque de iis quae dicta sunt, et duplicibus nominibus et linguis.

at maximum est metaphoricum esse: solum enim hoc neque ab alio licet assnmere, et boni ingenii signum est. bene enim transferre est simile intueri.

ex nominibus autem duplicia quidem maxime conveniunt dithyrambis, linguae vero heroicis, at translationes iambicis.

et in heroicis quidem omnia utilia quae dicta sunt: verum in iambicis, quia quam maxime collocutionem imitantur, ex nominibus illa congruunt quibuscunque etiam in sermonibus aliquis uteretur. sunt antem autem talia proprium et translatio et ornatus.

ac de tragoedia quidem, et de imitatione quae in agendo posita est, nobis satis sint quae exposita sunt.

Locutionis autem virtus planam et non humilem esse.

Planissima quidem igitur est que ex propriis nominibus, sed humilis. Exemplum autem que Cleofontis poesis et que Sthenelli. —

Venerabilis autem et permutans quod idioticale que extraneis utitur. 'Extraneale' autem dico linguam et metaforam et superextensionem et omne quod preter proprium.

Sed si quis utique omnia talia faciat, aut enigma erit aut barbarismus ; si quidem igitur ex metaforis, enigma ; si autem ex linguis, barba- rismus.

Enigmatis enim species hec est, dicentem existentia inpossibilia copulare. — Secundum quidem igitur nominum compositionem non est possibile hoc facere, secundum metaforam autem contingit, puta « virilem rubicundum ut es ignitum super virum adherentem » et que talia ex linguis ;

barbarismus autem. Oportet ergo discretionem factam

esse aliqualiter hiis ; hoc quidem enim non idioticale faciet neque humile, puta lingua et metafora et ornatus et alie dicte species, quod autem proprium planiciem. —

Non minimam autem partem confert ad planum locutionis et non idioticale superextensiones et apocope et exallage nominum; per aliter quidem enim habere quam ut proprium, preter consuetum factum, quod non idioticale faciet, per communicare autem consueto quod planum erit.

Quare non recte vituperant qui increpant talem modum loquele et diakomodizantes poetam, velut Euclides antiquus, tamquam facile facere, si quid dabit extendens ad quantumcumque vult, iambopoetizans in ipsa locutione: « petebat gratiam videns Marathonem ambulantem », et « non utique illius elleborum ».

Apparere quidem igitur aliqualiter utentem isto modo risile. —

Metrum autem commune est omnium partium, et enim metaforis et linguis et aliis speciebus utens indecenter et idonee ad risilia idem utique operabitur ;

quod autem congruum quantum differt in versibus consideretur impositis nominibus in metrum. —

Et in lingua autem et in metaforis et in aliis speciebus transponens utique quis propria nomina cognoscet quod vera dicimus; puta idem iambiale poetizante Eschylo et Euripede, unum autem solum nomen transponente, pro proprio consueto linguam, hoc quidem videtur pulerum hoc autem vile. Eschylus quidem enim in Filoktete poetizavit «infirmitas lupus que mei carnem esthiei pedis»; hic autem pro 'esthiein' (idest comedere) 'thoinate' (idest epulatur) transposuit. Et «nunc autem me ens parvus et nullo dignus et deformis», si quis dicit propria transponens, « nunc autem me ens parvusque et debilis et deformis ». Et « currum ineptum componens modicamque mensam», et quod «Iones vocant» aut «Iones clamant».

Adhuc autem Arifrades tragodicos komodizabat, quod que nullus utique diceret in loquela hiis utuntur, puta «domatibus ab» sed non 'ab domatibus' et quod « sethen » (idest ex te) et quod « ego autem nin » (idest ipsum) et «Achille de» sed non 'de Achille', et quecumque alia talia.

Propter non esse enim in propriis faciunt non idioticale in locutione omnia talia; ille autem hoc ignorabat. —

Est autem magnum quidem unoquoque dictorum decenter uti, et duplis nominibus et linguis, multo autem maius metaforicum esse.

Solum enim hoc neque ab alio est accipere, estque signum eufye; nam bene metaforizare est simile considerare. —

Nominum autem dupla quidem maxime congruunt dithyrambis, lingue autem eroicis, metafore autem iambialibus.

Et in eroicis quidem omnia opportuna que dicta, in iambialibus autem propter quam maxime locutionem imitari hec congruunt nominum, quibuscumque et in quibuscumque sermonibus aliquid utetur ; sunt autem talia quod proprium et metafora et ornatus. —

De tragodia quidem igitur et de ea que in agere imitatione, sint nobis sufficientia que dicta sunt.

‏واما فصله المقولة فهى ان تكون مشهورة ناقصة

‏الا ان ان المشهورة فهى التى تستعد وتهيا من اسما حقيقة ويحبر بها من هذه والمثال على ذلك بمنزلة شعر قلاوفون وشعر اسثانلس

‏واما العفيفة والمختلفة فمن قبل ان تقال المسكين هى مختلفة وتستعمل اشيا غريبة وعظيمة واعنى بالغربة اللسان والنقلة والتادى من خير الى خير والامتداد من الصغاير الى العظايم وكل ما هو من الحقيقى

‏الا ان يكون الانسان يجعل جميع هذه التى حالها هذه الحال ان يكون تركيبه بهذه الحال اما الغاز وامثال واما مٮٮل ٮرٮوٮا وان كان من الانتٯال والتادية فالرموز والالغاز والامثال ومن كان من اللسان فمـ**ل ٮراٮوٮا

‏وصورة الرمز فهو ان يقال ان التى هى موجودة لا يمكن ان يوصلها واما بحسب الاسما الاخر فلا يمكن ان يفعل هذا واما بحسب التادية والانتقال فقد يمكن مثل انه الصق الصاقا طاهرا النحاس بالنار والنحاس نفسه بالرجل

‏وامثال هذه هى من اللسان واما مٮٮل ٮرٮوٮا

‏ان كانت هذه تمتزج واما الا يعمل اسم ناقص ولا ايضا مسكن فذلك بمنزلة اللسان والتادية والانتقال والزينة وهذه الاشيا الاخر التى وضعت

‏وليس انما ينظم فى اتضاح المقولة جزوا يسيرا هذه الاشيا وهى هل اسم ما يكون بالنقصانات والتقطيعات وتبديلات الاسما وا*ـا من حيث هى حالها حال مختلفة او بان يكون حقيقى خارج عما جرت به العادة فيلزمه الا يعمل ناقص واما فمن حيث انه مشاركلبعاد فيكون مشهورا

‏حتى يلزم ان ما يجرى من الهجا والٮلٮ [من الجرى] على هذا الضرب من الجدل ليس يجرى عل الاستقامة وعند يهزون بالشاعر بمنزلة اوقليدس ذلك الاول على انه قد كان يسهل عليه ان نفعل اعطا انسان هكذى كان يمد ما كان [يجد] يحب ويريد مده وكان يقصر حيث يريد وان يعمل الشعر المسمى ايانبوا بهذا اللفظ وهو قوله الذى زعم فيه اننى رايت ماراثون من حيث ٮسمى بالنعمة ولا ايضا كاكٮٮ اعٮدت ذاك

‏اما ان يرى كيف كان يستعمل هذا الضرب فهو مما يضحك منه واما المقدار والوزن فهما امر عام لجميع الاجزا

‏وذلك انه عند ما كان يستعمل التاديات والانتقال والالسن وانواع على ما يليق وفى باب الٮعرف فى الاشيا هى ضحكة قد كان يفعل هذا الفعل بعينه

‏واما ما هو موافق لمقدار كل ما كانت تكون مختلفة فهذه ترى افى من حيث يوضع الاسما بالوزن

‏والمقدار والتاديات وبانواع اخر فانه ان غير الاسما الحقيقية وقف على ان ما قلناه من ذلك حق مثل ان اوريفيدس واسخولس عند ما عملا الشعر المسمى ايانبوس فعلى هذا الفعل نفسه الا انه اذا ما نقل بدل الحقيقى من قبل انه قد اعتيد فى اللسان اما ذاك ***ا جيد شريف واما هذا فيرا مهين واسخولس عمل شعر فى فيلوقطيطس قال فيه ان السا* **لٮ لحومى ومششت رجلى فان فى هذا الكلام استعمل ووضع قوله مششت بدلا ***وله فاما الان انا من حيث على جهة الصغر والصغيرة بلا ان يصح يقول انسان من حيث **ر ڡدلك الحقيقة واما الان ڡلى انا من حيث اٮٮ صغيرا وٮسمى الضعيف والذى بلا منظر هذا الكلام ووصف المجلس دايما قاليون وقوله انه وضع بيدى انا الشفى مايدة صغيرة من حيث استعمل قوله ان انبا اليونانيين مايدة الصغيرة [صغير] بدل من اليونانين يسمون مايدة صغيرة

‏وايضا كان يسمى المفسرين الحقيقيين ذوى المديح من حيث كان **بهم وزعم انهم كذلك لانهم يستعملون اشيا لا لم يقولها قط من الجدليين فى الجدل بمنزلة ما فى المجلس الذى من النحو لا امن الٮحلاٮ وبمنزلة القول القايل ان منك انت *ايضا قد كنت شى ما وبمنزلة القول القايل ان اخيلوس هو من اجل لا هو من اجل اخيلوس واشيا كثيرة من امثال هذه كم كانت

‏وذلك انه من قبل ان هذه الا** [*]هى فى الحقيقى لذلك ما عمل تركيب ليس حاله فى اللفظ بدون ما هذه حاله واما ذاك فما كان يعرف من هذه شيا

‏فاما الكبير فهو ان يستعمل كل واحد واحد من هذه التى وصفت على مجرى الاليق والاشبه وان يستعمل اسما مضعفة والالسن وان يكون من ما يتادا وينتقل هو عظيم كبير

‏غير ان هذا ليس يوجد من اخر من **ل انه دليل على الحذق والمهارة واو ذلك انه ان يكون التادى تاديا حسنا الى ما هو شبيه هو ان يعلم علما حسنا

‏والاسما انفسها منها مركبة وهذه تصلح لوزن الشعر المسمى دياثورانبو واما الالسن فتصلح للاوزان المعروفة ٮاين واٮڡاق هو الٮـ**يد واما التى تتادا فتصلح الاوزان الشعر المعروف بايانبو

‏وهى اليق واصلح فى اثرواٮٯو هو النشيد من جميع ما وصف واما فى ايانبو فمن قبل انها تتشبه باللفظ وهذه الاسما تصلح وتليق بمقدار ما يستعمل بها الانسان على طريق وهذه هى الحقيقى المتادى والمسمى بالسرٮانية صڡٮاٮٮا ماخوذ من الاتمام

‏والعناية الى ما فى صناعة المديح والتشبيه و*كاية الحديث ففيما قلناه من ذلك كفاية

‏واما فصله المقولة فهى ان تكون مشهورة ناقصة

‏الا ان ان المشهورة فهى التى تستعد وتهيا من اسما حقيقة ويحبر بها من هذه والمثال على ذلك بمنزلة شعر قلاوفون وشعر اسثانلس

‏واما العفيفة والمختلفة فمن قبل ان تقال المسكين هى مختلفة وتستعمل اشيا غريبة وعظيمة

‏واعنى بالغربة اللسان والنقلة والتادى من خير الى خير والامتداد من الصغاير الى العظايم وكل ما هو من الحقيقى

‏الا ان يكون الانسان يجعل جميع هذه التى حالها هذه الحال ان يكون تركيبه بهذه الحال اما الغاز وامثال واما مٮٮل ٮرٮوٮا

‏وان كان من الانتٯال والتادية فالرموز والالغاز والامثال ومن كان من اللسان فمـ**ل ٮراٮوٮا

‏وصورة الرمز فهو ان يقال ان التى هى موجودة لا يمكن ان يوصلها

‏واما بحسب الاسما الاخر فلا يمكن ان يفعل هذا واما بحسب التادية والانتقال فقد يمكن مثل انه الصق الصاقا طاهرا النحاس بالنار والنحاس نفسه بالرجل

‏وامثال هذه هى من اللسان واما مٮٮل ٮرٮوٮا

‏ان كانت هذه تمتزج واما الا يعمل اسم ناقص ولا ايضا مسكن فذلك بمنزلة اللسان والتادية والانتقال والزينة وهذه الاشيا الاخر التى وضعت

‏وليس انما ينظم فى اتضاح المقولة جزوا يسيرا هذه الاشيا وهى هل اسم ما يكون بالنقصانات والتقطيعات وتبديلات الاسما وا*ـا من حيث هى حالها حال مختلفة او بان يكون حقيقى خارج عما جرت به العادة فيلزمه الا يعمل ناقص واما فمن حيث انه مشاركلبعاد فيكون مشهورا

‏حتى يلزم ان ما يجرى من الهجا والٮلٮ [من الجرى] على هذا الضرب من الجدل ليس يجرى عل الاستقامة وعند يهزون بالشاعر بمنزلة اوقليدس ذلك الاول على انه قد كان يسهل عليه ان نفعل اعطا انسان هكذى كان يمد ما كان [يجد] يحب ويريد مده وكان يقصر حيث يريد وان يعمل الشعر المسمى ايانبوا بهذا اللفظ وهو قوله الذى زعم فيه اننى رايت ماراثون من حيث ٮسمى بالنعمة ولا ايضا كاكٮٮ اعٮدت ذاك

‏اما ان يرى كيف كان يستعمل هذا الضرب فهو مما يضحك منه واما المقدار والوزن فهما امر عام لجميع الاجزا وذلك انه عند ما كان يستعمل التاديات والانتقال والالسن وانواع على ما يليق وفى باب الٮعرف فى الاشيا هى ضحكة قد كان يفعل هذا الفعل بعينه

‏واما ما هو موافق لمقدار كل ما كانت تكون مختلفة فهذه ترى افى من حيث يوضع الاسما بالوزن

‏والمقدار والتاديات وبانواع اخر فانه ان غير الاسما الحقيقية وقف على ان ما قلناه من ذلك حق مثل ان اوريفيدس واسخولس عند ما عملا الشعر المسمى ايانبوس فعلى هذا الفعل نفسه الا انه اذا ما نقل بدل الحقيقى من قبل انه قد اعتيد فى اللسان اما ذاك ***ا جيد شريف واما هذا فيرا مهين

‏واسخولس عمل شعر فى فيلوقطيطس قال فيه ان السا* **لٮ لحومى ومششت رجلى فان فى هذا الكلام استعمل ووضع قوله مششت بدلا ***وله فاما

‏الان انا من حيث على جهة الصغر والصغيرة بلا ان يصح يقول انسان من حيث **ر ڡدلك الحقيقة واما الان ڡلى انا من حيث اٮٮ صغيرا وٮسمى الضعيف والذى بلا منظر

‏هذا الكلام ووصف المجلس دايما قاليون

‏وقوله انه وضع بيدى انا الشفى مايدة صغيرة من حيث استعمل قوله ان انبا اليونانيين مايدة الصغيرة [صغير] بدل من اليونانين يسمون مايدة صغيرة

—

‏وايضا كان يسمى المفسرين الحقيقيين ذوى المديح من حيث كان **بهم وزعم انهم كذلك لانهم يستعملون اشيا لا لم يقولها قط من الجدليين فى الجدل بمنزلة ما فى المجلس الذى من النحو لا امن الٮحلاٮ وبمنزلة القول القايل ان منك انت *ايضا قد كنت شى ما وبمنزلة القول القايل ان اخيلوس هو من اجل لا هو من اجل اخيلوس واشيا كثيرة من امثال هذه كم كانت

‏وذلك انه من قبل ان هذه الا** [*]هى فى الحقيقى لذلك ما عمل تركيب ليس حاله فى اللفظ بدون ما هذه حاله واما ذاك فما كان يعرف من هذه شيا

‏فاما الكبير فهو ان يستعمل كل واحد واحد من هذه التى وصفت على مجرى الاليق والاشبه وان يستعمل اسما مضعفة والالسن وان يكون من ما يتادا وينتقل هو عظيم كبير

‏غير ان هذا ليس يوجد من اخر من **ل انه دليل على الحذق والمهارة واو ذلك انه ان يكون التادى تاديا حسنا الى ما هو شبيه هو ان يعلم علما حسنا

‏والاسما انفسها منها مركبة وهذه تصلح لوزن الشعر المسمى دياثورانبو واما الالسن فتصلح للاوزان المعروفة ٮاين واٮڡاق هو الٮـ**يد واما التى تتادا فتصلح الاوزان الشعر المعروف بايانبو

‏وهى اليق واصلح فى اثرواٮٯو هو النشيد من جميع ما وصف واما فى ايانبو فمن قبل انها تتشبه باللفظ وهذه الاسما تصلح وتليق بمقدار ما يستعمل بها الانسان على طريق وهذه هى الحقيقى المتادى والمسمى بالسرٮانية صڡٮاٮٮا ماخوذ من الاتمام

‏والعناية الى ما فى صناعة المديح والتشبيه و*كاية الحديث ففيما قلناه من ذلك كفاية