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.
19.
mvp-aristotle-comment-863
λέξιν μιμεῖσθαι.
Instead of its usual sense of diction or language,
λέξις in this passage must mean (like
διάλεκτος in 1458b32) the spoken as distinct from the literary language. The present statement, therefore, is in harmony with that in
Rhet. 3. 1, 1404a 33
, where Tragedy is said to have learnt to reject words outside the ordinary spoken language (
ὅσα παρὰ τὴν διάλεκτόν ἐστιν). With this use of
λέξις we may compare that of
λέξις,
λεκτικὸν μέτρον, and
λεκτικὴ ἁρμονία in
4, 1449a 23–8
; and also that of
λόγος in
Rhet. 3. 1, 1404a 30
ἐκ τῶν τετραμέτρων εἰς τὸ ἰαμβεῖον μετέβησαν διὰ τὸ τῷ λόγῳ τοῦτο τῶν μέτρων ὁμοιότατον εἶναι τῶν ἄλλων.
Goulston renders
λέξις here by
vulgaris sermo;
Bonitz (
Ind. 427b 31
) by
sermo pedestris, on the assumption that it stands for
ψιλὴ λέξις, as it no doubt sometimes does. In
4, 1449a 23
λέξις is the opposite of 'song'.
19.
mvp-aristotle-comment-864
13
ἐν λόγοις
has been taken to mean 'in common speech, or conversation' ('in familiari colloquio',
Goulston), 'in prose' ('oratio pedestris',
Bon.
Ind. 433 b 20), and 'in speeches' ('in orationibus',
Tyrwhitt). Though it is not always possible to determine the exact meaning of a word like
λόγος (v. on 4, 1449a 17), the balance of probability is rather in favour of
Tyrwhitt's 'in orationibus'.
Aristotle's meaning would seem to be this, that the tragic dialogue (ἐν ἰαμβείοις) is limited to the same species of words as oratory (ἐν λόγοις)—those found in the language of common life (
λέξις), viz. the
κύριον, the
μεταφορά, and the
κόσμος. The appropriateness of the
κύριον and
μεταφορά for oratory is distinctly affirmed in the
Rhetoric, and for the same reason, that they are in common use:
Rhet. 3. 2, 1404b 31
τὸ δὲ κύριον καὶ τὸ οἰκεῖον καὶ μεταφορὰ μόναι χρήσιμοι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ψιλῶν λόγων λέξιν· σημεῖον δέ, ὅτι τούτοις μόνοις πάντες χρῶνται, πάντες γὰρ μεταφοραῖς διαλέγονται καὶ τοῖς οἰκείοις καὶ τοῖς κυρίοις (comp.
Isocrates 190 E
). The reference in the text to the language of 'speeches' may serve to remind us of the fact that even in
Aristotle's time the theory of literary prose was still studied mainly in connexion with oratory, and as part of the art of Rhetoric. According to the canon here laid down by
Aristotle, the highly-coloured diction of
Aeschylus would be inappropriate in Tragedy; and he tells us elsewhere that it was eschewed by the dramatists of his time:
Rhet. 3. 1, 1404a 33
τῶν ὀνομάτων ἀφείκασιν [i. e. the tragedians] ὅσα παρὰ τὴν διάλεκτόν ἐστιν, οἷς δ᾽ οἱ πρῶτον ἐκόσμουν ... ἀφείκασιν. From the days of
Euripides in fact (comp.
Aristoph.
Ran. 939
) the language of Tragedy had been approximating to that of ordinary life; and in
Aristotle's age there was probably no very serious difference between it and that of the Comedy of the period.
19.
mvp-aristotle-comment-865
14
κόσμος:
see on
21, 1457b2
. The parallel in the
Rhetoric (3. 2, 1404 b 31, quoted above) ignores the
κόσμος.
20.
mvp-aristotle-comment-530
209.
mvp-aristotle-comment-209
NOTE 209.
22.19
P. 113. BUT TO IAMBIC VERSE, WHICH, AS MUCH AS MAY BE, AN IMITATION OF COMMON SPEECH—.
This, as I have already observed, is the only passage in these three chapters concerning the diction, that strictly relates to the subject—the diction of Tragedy, as distinguished from that of the Epic, and other species.
1
It is a hint only; but a pregnant hint, and one that might furnish matter for a dissertation of some length. How frequently, even in the best Tragedies, do we see the Poet, as it were, through the actor; hear him indulging himself in his own language, instead of imitating that of his characters; substituting declamation for passion, describing when he should express; and, in the unrestrained and epic elevation of his diction, losing all sight of that natural language, of which, undoubtedly, the language of Tragedy should be, according to the precept here implied by Aristotle, only an improved imitation. This improvement, indeed, admits of more or less; but should, at least, bear always the same proportion to what we conceive would be the natural language
2
of the persons who speak, in the situation, whatever it may be, of the scene before us. For this last circumstance makes a great difference. Tragedy has its
ἀργὰ μέρη, its comparatively
"idle parts," as well as the Epic Poem;
3
and, considering how rare the talent is of true poetic fancy, and poetic expression, the critic, who would rigorously exclude them from every part of Tragedy, must be an Ariphrades, or a Euclid. The first speech of
Caractacus, in Mr. Mason's exquisite drama, is highly poetical. Possibly, a severe critic might wish it somewhat less so;—but we have so little of such Poetry! No Poet, however, knows better than Mr. Mason, when the simpler tone of nature and passion should take place. When
Caractacus is exhorted by the Druids to
"bethink him"—
—if ought on this vain earth Still holds too firm an union with his soul, Estranging it from peace— —he answers,
I had a Queen:— Bear with my weakness, Druid!—This tough breast Must heave a sigh—for she is unreveng'd. And can I taste true peace, she unreveng'd? —So chaste, so lov'd a queen!—ah, Evelina, Hang not thus weeping on the feeble arm That could not save thy mother.—
The reader will find some excellent observations on this subject in
Dr. Beattie's Essay on Poetry, &c. Part II. chap. i. Sect. 1, p. 224, &c.
and
Sect. 3, p. 267, 268
, where a charming example of simple Tragic language is given from
Othello. In his note, Dr. Beattie has
"translated it into the finical style." But we see plainly, that he is by much too good a Poet to succeed well in spoiling good Poetry.
With respect to the Greek Tragedy, its earliest language appears to have been of a low and burlesque kind—the
λέξις γελοἰα of its satyric origin, conveyed in the suitable vehicle of the dancing tetrameters.
4
When it was reformed and dignified, (
ἀπεσεμνώθη,) Homer was the model; and ÆSCHYLUS, with a conception naturally sublime, and the
Iliad before him, raised the tone of Tragedy above its proper pitch, not only to the pomp of the Epic, but even, frequently, to the wild, and tumid, and dark audacity of the Dithyrambic: so that, sometimes, as extremes will meet, the
λέξις γελοἰα, which he took so much pains to avoid, came round and met him, in the shape of bombast, at the very moment when he thought himself at the greatest distance from it. There could not well be any thing in the theatrical cart of Thespis more laughable, than to call smoke
"the brother of fire," and dust, the
"brother of mud."
5
SOPHOCLES reduced the general language of his dialogue to a more equable and sober dignity, but still, Homer, we know, was his great model;
6
and of his diction it may, perhaps, be said, that it is often Epic, though his measure is Iambic. Most modern readers, however, will, I believe, think it, (as we are told many antient readers did,) more adapted to the genius of Tragedy than that of EURIPIDES;
7
who seems to have been regarded by the antients as the first who brought down the language of Tragedy into unison with the measure, so that the one bore the same degree of resemblance to common speech in its expressions, as the other did in its rhythm. At least, this appears to have been Aristotle's opinion, from a passage in his
Rhetoric
, where, after having explained the difference between the diction of Oratory and that of Poetry, and the foundation of that difference, he observes, that such a degree of embellishment as forces on the hearer the idea of art, and labour, and preparation, is to be avoided, not only by the Orator, but even by the Poet, if he would be natural and affecting: and he compares such evidently artificial language to the voices of the generality of actors, as opposed to the voice of Theodorus, which always appeared to be the real voice of the character he personated; whereas their voices were evidently feigned.
8
He then adds
"The best way to conceal artifice, and make your language appear easy and natural, is, by forming it, chiefly, of the words and phrases of customary speech, properly selected; as EURIPIDES does, who first set the example."
9
A passage, that precedes this, deserves to be given entire, from its close connection with the subject of this part of the treatise on Poetry, and the curious, though short, sketch it contains of the history of Tragic diction.
"As the Poets appeared to owe their reputation to their language, which never failed to be admired, however foolish and absurd the matter it conveyed; on this account, even prose diction was, at first, poetical, like that of Gorgias. And even now, they, who use such language, are looked upon, by illiterate people, as the finest speakers; which is far from being true; for oratorical diction, and poetical diction, are different things. And as a proof of this, we see what has actually happened: for now, even among the Poets themselves, those who write Tragedy no longer make use of that sort of language; but, as they had exchanged the Trochaic verse for the Iambic, because this, of all metres, approaches the nearest to common speech; so now, they have also discarded all those words and phrases, so remote from common speech, with which the earlier Tragic Poets used to embellish their diction, and which are still employed by those who write Hexameters. It would be ridiculous, therefore, to imitate the Poets in a language, which they themselves have abandoned as improper."
10
The Abbé Batteux, by understanding
ἰαμβείοις here to mean Iambic, or satirical, Poems, has, unluckily, thrown away the only passage in these three chapters, that was strictly to Aristotle's purpose. He has, also, with Dacier, misrepresented his meaning, by rendering—
"ne peut recevoir que ce qui est employé dans la conversation." We are, undoubtedly, to understand,
ΜΑΛΙΣΤΑ ἁρμόττει, as before: for that Aristotle did not mean absolutely to exclude the other Poetic words—the double, the foreign, &c. from every part of the Tragic dialogue, is plain from his allowing the occasional use of them even in prose.
Rhet. III. 2, p. 585, C.
7, p. 590, E.
591, A.
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-166
Ritter, cap. 22 § 8
ἔτι δὲ ᾿Αρειφράδης - ἐκεῖνος δὲ τοῦτο 2) Bene Ammonius de Differentia affin. vocab.
τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὀλίγον ἐπ᾿ ἀριθμοῦ τὸ δὲ μικρὸν ἐπὶ μεγέθους τάσσεται,
ἠγνόει: quid attinebat obscurissimi hominis ineptissimam reprehensionem ex secreto secessu excitare? nihil nisi ut curiosi ineptique grammatici doctrina ostentaretur. nam quid ineptius excogitari potest quam tragicis poetis vitio dari (ex. gr. anastropham praepositionum) id quod omnium poetarum commune et ne a vulgari quidem locutione alienum est ? advertas etiam velim quam perturbate exempla afferantur: primum enim ponitur anastropha praepositionis
δομάτων ἄπο, tum tamquam singularia
σέθεν et viv, deinde quarto loco rursus anastrophae exemplum recurrit. advertas putidam diligentiam
δομάτων ἄπο ἀλλὰ μὴ ἀπὸ δομάτων, et rursus
᾿Αχιλλέως πέρι ἀλλὰ μὴ περὶ ᾿Αχιλλέως. tertium exemplum (viv) mire ita producitur, ut particula versus Sophoclei (Oed. Colon. 987) afferatur, sic
ἐγὼ δένιν ἄκων ἔγημα φθέγγομαί τ' ἄκων τάδε. quod equidem defendere nolim exemplo illo simili c. 21, 10.
μία γίνεται ἀμφοτέρων ὄψ. vide etiam quanto cum fastu doctus magistellus sententiam suam concludat:
ἐκεῖνος δὲ τοῦτο ἠγνόει. restat aliud. tragoediarum scriptores iste appellat
τραγῳδούς, sua sibi loquendi consuetudine, non Aristotelia. serioris aetatis scriptores minus accurate loquentes interdum haec nomina commiscent, ut Athenaeus qui II. p. 35 D. Chaeremonem tragicum poetam
τραγῳδὸν appellavit. -
᾿Αρειφράδης quis tandem sit nescimus. Aristophanes pluribus locis (Equit. 1281 sqq. Vesp. 1280 sqq. cf. Suidas s. v.)
᾿Αριφράδην Arignoti fratrem citharoedum insectatur, quippe qui nefandam linguam infandis locis turpiter admoverit, sed hic potius obscurus quidam grammaticus intelligitur. neque vero id diligentem lectorem effugiet, veram et dignam Aristotele disputationem his illatis non solum non iuvari sed importune interrumpi.