Poetics. Thomas Twining. London. 1789.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
Funding provided by National Endowment for the Humanities.
Commentary on the Poetics (Thomas Twining, 1789) (OCR draft) (English) (Thomas Twining's notes on Aristotle's Poetics, aligned to the Kassel reference edition.)
Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.
11.
mvp-aristotle-comment-551
ἐπεὶ δὲ κτἑ.
At this point Aristotle returns to the subject of the
ἤθη, which according to his theory (1454 a 17-26) should be at once χρηστά, ἁρμόττοντα, ὅμοια, and ὁμαλά, in order to meet any doubt that may arise as to the possibility of an
ἦθος being at once χρηστόν and ὅμοιον. He shows that the corresponding difficulty has been solved in a sister art, that of the portrait-painter, who without sacrificing the likeness makes a man look handsomer than he is (
ὁμοίους ποιοῦντες καλλίους γράφουσιν); so that, if the painter can do this, there is no reason why the literary artist also should not be able to represent a tragic personage truthfully, with any infirmities of character which form part of the received idea of him (
ὀργίλους καὶ ῥᾳθύμους καὶ τάλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν b12), and at the same time as a good man (ἐπιεικεῖς b13).
11.
mvp-aristotle-comment-552
1454b8_2
βελτιόνων:
see
2, 1448 4
,
11
,
18
.
11.
mvp-aristotle-comment-553
1454b9
ἡμᾶς,
232 COMMENTARY 1454 b 9 'we poets', as is shown by what follows in οὕτω καὶ τὸν ποιητήν. Aristotle speaks as though his hearers were poets, and studying the art of poetry for practical purposes. The
Poetics in fact, whatever else they may be, are a practical treatise on Poetry; and the assumption throughout is that one is to learn from them how to write a good poem. Similarly in
Rhet. 1. 8, 1366 a 12
ἡμᾶς means 'we orators' (
δέοι ἂν τὰ ἤθη τῶν πολιτειῶν ἑκάστης ἔχειν ἡμᾶς).
11.
mvp-aristotle-comment-554
1454b10
καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι.
Aristotle might no doubt have said ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι. Vahlen illustrates the construction from
Soph. el. 16, 175 a 27
συμβαίνει δέ ποτε καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς διαγράμμασιν· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ ἀναλύσαντες ἐνίοτε συνθεῖναι πάλιν ἀδυνατοῦμεν· οὕτω καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐλέγχοις εἰδότες παρ᾿ ὃ ὁ λόγος συμβαίνει συνεῖραι διαλύσαι τὸν λόγον ἀποροῦμεν, and other parallels in Aristotle (v.
Bon. Ind. 546
).
11.
mvp-aristotle-comment-555
1454b12
ὀργίλους καὶ ῥᾳθύμους,
'too quick or too slow to anger'; the contrast is like that between ὀξύς and ῥάθυμος in
Eth. E. 8. 5, 1240 a 1
ἀνομοίοις χαίρουσιν, οἷον αὐστηροὶ εὐτραπέλοις καὶ ὀξεῖς ῥᾳθύμις.
11.
mvp-aristotle-comment-556
1454b12_2
καὶ τἆλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας
is added in order to include all similar defects of character, i. e. defects which are not incompatible with a general goodness of disposition.
11.
mvp-aristotle-comment-557
1454b14
παράδειγμα σκληρότητος.
For the reason for bracketing the two words see
J. of Phil. 14 p. 47
. If they are not an ordinary 'adscript', they may possibly represent a marginal note by Aristotle himself to indicate that a second instance, one of
σκληρότης [obstinacy?], was to be added. According to Galen (t. 18. 2 p. 879-80 K.) notes of a very similar description were to be found embedded in the text of Hippocrates.
1454b14_2
11.
mvp-aristotle-comment-558
Ἀγάθων:
perhaps, as Tyrwhitt suggests, in his Telephus (
Nauck, TGF. p. 764
).
1454b15
23.
mvp-aristotle-comment-383
15.11
Puisque la Tragedie est une imitation de ce qu'il y a de plus excellent parmy les hommes, nous devons imiter les bons Peintres, qui en donnant à chacun ſa veritable forme, & en les faiſant ſemblables, les reprefentent toûjours plus beaux.]
1
24.
mvp-aristotle-comment-384
15.11
Il faut tout de mème qu'un Poète qui veut imiter un homme colére & emporté, ou quelqu'autre caractère ſemblable, ſe remette bien plus devant les yeux ce que la colére doit faire vray-ſemblablement, que ce qu'elle a fait.]
2
25.
mvp-aristotle-comment-385
117.
mvp-aristotle-comment-117
NOTE 117. P. 95.
15.11
OR OF INDOLENT—.
Ραθυμους: — indolent —
nonchalant.
Hesychius explains
Ραθυμα, ΜΗ ΠΟΝΗΤΙΚΟΣ ἀλλ᾿ ΕΚΛΥΤΟΣ. It is improperly rendered, "
timide," by
M. Batteux, and "
mansueto," by the Italian translators.
118.
mvp-aristotle-comment-118
NOTE 118. P. 95.
15.11
SHOULD DRAW AN EXAMPLE APPROACHING RATHER TO A GOOD, THAN TO A HARD AND FEROCIOUS, CHARACTER.
The original is —
Ουτω και τον ποιητην, μιμουμενον και ὀργιλους και ῥαθυμους, και τ'αλλα τα τοιαυτα ἐχοντας ἐπι των ἠθων, ἐπιεικειας ποιειν παραδειγμα η σκληροτητα δει: οἷον τον Αχίλλεα Αγαθων και Όμηρος. — A passage that has much perplexed and divided the commentators. Of all the explanations which this perplexity has produced, that of
Dacier is the most improbable and ill-founded. He forces
ῥαθυμους into the sense of,
emporté, furieux, and makes it
"encherir sur ὀργιλος."
Επιεικεια, he wrenches from the obvious and proper sense in which it is continually used by
Aristotle, into that of probability. And the result of this violent operation upon the passage, is the following strange version: —
"Il faut tout de même, qu’un Poete qui veut imiter un homme colere et emporté, ou quelqu’ autre caractere semblable, se remette bien plus devant les yeux ce que la colere doit faire vraisemblablement (i. e.
&c. ἐπιεικειας) que ce qu’elle a fait (i. e.
σκληροτητα!) et c’est ainsi,"
I may venture to leave all this to the learned reader’s rejection, without any farther comment. I shall only just observe, that the expression,
ΚΑΙ ὀργ. ΚΑΙ ῥαθ. evidently marks different characters; not, as
Dacier makes it, different degrees only of the same character.
Heinsius first suggested, that the phrase
ἐπιεικειας η σκληροτητα, was elliptical, and
μαλλον to be understood. But in spite of the "
Attica venustas," I am much more inclined to suspect an omission of the word.
Aristotle would hardly have used a mode of expression so unavoidably ambiguous — or rather, that would, almost unavoidably, lead to a wrong sense; for, the fact is, that all the commentators, before
Heinsius, understood the
η, as indeed every reader, I believe, would at first naturally understand it, in the disjunctive sense of,
or. Besides this, I doubt whether any example of this elliptic phrase occurs in
Aristotle’s works. That it may, I will not take upon me to deny; but it seems, at least, very unusual. An instance of it I have not found; but the reader may find many instances of the full phrase,
μαλλον η, even in this treatise.
1
However, one, or the other, of these suppositions, it seems necessary to adopt. The passage will then, without forcing the words
ἐπιεικεια and
σκληροτης from their usual and proper signification, afford a clear and consistent meaning.
Επιεικεια is used, I think, here, as it is in
cap. xiii.
in the general sense of
good.
2
Σκληροτης plainly relates only to his first instance, of the
ὀργιλος, the angry character, of which it seems to express the extreme degree. In the
Ethics ad Nicom. we have —
ΑΓΡΙΟΙ και ΣΚΛΗΡΟΙ, as synonymous, or very nearly so. A passage of
Plato may serve to illustrate and confirm this sense of the word.
3
Speaking of the
θυμοειδες, or irascible nature, he says, it may produce the
ἀγριον: —
και όρθως μεν τραφεν, ἀνδρειον ἂν ειη ΜΑΛΛΟΝ Δ' ΕΠΙΤΑΘΕΝ ΤΟΥ ΔΕΟΝΤΟΣ, ΣΚΛΗΡΟΤΕΡΟΝ τε και χαλεπον γεγνοιτ' ἀν, ὡς το εικος. — And just before —
ΑΓΡΙΟΤΗΤΟΣ τε και ΣΚΛΗΡΟΤΗΤΟΣ, και αὖ μαλακιας τε και ἡμεροτητος.
4
The sense of the passage, then, will be, that, in order to reconcile the first precept, of the
χρηστον, with the third, of the
ὁμοιον, the character should be brought as near to a good one, as is consistent with the circumstance of likeness. Thus, if such a character as that of
Achilles is to be drawn, its striking features are to be preserved, but, at the same time, to be rather improved and softened, than exaggerated. For the expression must be observed.
Aristotle does not say absolutely, according to the sense of
Heinsius, that
Achilles ought to be drawn, or was drawn,
παραδειγμα ἐπιεικειας, but rather so than otherwise; —
ΜΑΛΛΟΝ η σκληροτητα.
M. Batteux has very well expressed the spirit of the rule, though he has generalized it, and made it refer to all that precedes
και ὀργιλους, και ῥαθυμους, &c. — whereas it appears plainly, from what has been said of the force of
σκληροτης, that the words,
ἐπιεικειας ποιειν παραδ. η σκληρ. can be applied only to the
ὀργιλοι; for as to the
ῥαθυμους, such a character may, indeed, be flattered into the
ἐπιεικης, but cannot well, by any distortion, be made to appear
σκληρος.
"Loin de charger encore le defaut, il le rapprochera de la vertu"
Still, however, what every one, I believe, naturally expects at the first reading of this passage, as it now stands, is, that after having mentioned two instances of faulty characters, the
ὀργιλοι, and the
ῥαθυμοι,
Aristotle should mention two corresponding instances of good qualities bordering upon, or connected with, each, and of which the Poet might avail himself, to give to each a favour- able turn. But, instead of this, we have a good, and a bad quality, (
ἐπιεικεια, and
σκληροτης,) both of which, as we have seen, can be made to relate only to his first instance, the
ὀργιλος; so that all the rest, between the words
ὀργιλους, and
ἐπιεικειας, must be parenthetical. The harshness and embarrassment of such a construction, led me formerly to suspect an error in one of the words,
ἐπιεικειας, or
σκληροτητα; and a conjecture was suggested to me by a passage in the
Rhetoric, which, I hope, will at least be thought plausible enough to excuse my laying it before the reader. The suspicion seemed to fall upon
σκληροτητα; for the
ἐπιεικεια would answer well enough as a softening, or improvement, of
ῥαθυμια; as an indolent man, who concerns himself about nothing, and cares only for his own ease, is often spoken of as a quiet, good kind of man. Instead of
σκληροτητα, then, I thought it not improbable, that
Aristotle might have written
ἁπλοτητα. The passage of
Aristotle himself which suggested this to me, is in the
first book of his Rhetoric, cap. ix.
where, delivering the usual precepts relative to the art of encomiastic misrepresentation, he says,
Ληπτεον δε-----ἑκαστον, ἐκ των παρακολουθουντων αει, κατα το ΒΕΛΤΙΣΤΟΝ· οἷον, ΤΟΝ ΟΡΓΙΛΟΝ και τον μανικον, ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΝ και τον αυθαδη, μεγαλοπρεπη και σεμνον· κ. τ. αλλ. The whole passage is much to the purpose of this place; and is, plainly, not more applicable to the Rhetorician, with respect to the hero of his oration, than it is to the Poet, with respect to the hero of his poem. A passage of
Euripides will add, perhaps, some probability to this conjecture. In the
Iphigenia at Aulis,
Achilles thus draws his own character:
Iphigenia at Aulis, v. 926.
Εγω δ’ ἐν ἀνδρως εὐσεβεστάτου τραφεις, Χειρωνος, ἔμαθον τους τροπους ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΣ ἔχειν. Και τοις Ατρείδαις, ἢν μεν ἡγωνται καλως, Πεισομεθ᾽. — ὅταν δε μη καλως, οὐ πεισομεθ'. Where the meaning of
τροπες άπλες, is very well fixed by the two subsequent lines, and by the expression,
ἐλευθεραν φυσιν, in the verse that follows them.
Plato, also, in the
Hippias, talks much of the simplicity, truth, and sincerity, of
Achilles; as if, in his view, they were the pro- minent features of what was good in the Homeric character of that hero. When
Socrates asks
Hippias, whether
Achilles is not represented by
Homer as an artful, designing character,
Hippias answers —
Ἥκιστά γε, ὦ Σωκρατες, ἀλλ᾿ ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΣΤΑΤΟΣ. And, again,
ὡς ὁ μεν Αχιλλευς εἴη ἀληθης τε και ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΣ· ὁ δε Οδυσσευς πολυτροπος τε και ψευδης.
5
And the following lines are there quoted, in which
Homer has made
Achilles strongly mark this feature of his own character:
Il. ix. 308.
Διογένες Λαερτιάδη, πολυμηχαν᾿ Οδυσσευ, Χρη μεν δη τον μυθον ἀπηλεγεως ἀποειπειν, Ἧι περ δη φρονεω τε, και ὡς τετελεσμενον ἐσται· Εχθρα γαρ μοι κεινος ὁμως ἀΐδαο πυλησιν, Ὡς χ᾿ ἑτερον μεν κευθει ἐνι φρεσιν, ἀλλο δε βαζει.
The sense, then, of the passage before us, according to this conjecture, would be this: — If the Poet choose for the subject of his imitation a passionate, or an indolent man, he should give to the former the cast of plain sincerity, and honest frankness; and to the other, (the
ῥαθυμος) that of moderation, gentleness,
6
good-nature, and what the French, by an expressive word which our language wants, term,
bonhommie. But I dwell too long upon a mere conjecture. The evident propriety of the word
σκληροτης, as applicable to the unsoftened and unflattered character of
Achilles, may justly, perhaps, protect it from suspicion; though, on the other hand, the passages I have adduced, added to the improbability of the ellipse supposed by
Heinsius, the embarrassment of the parenthesis, and the advantage of leaving the
η to its most obvious, disjunctive, sense, prevent me from a total rejection of this idea.
The word
παραδειγμα, here, is taken by most of the commentators
7
to mean a perfect ideal model — "
summum exemplar." Of this I see no reason. I take it to be used here, as it is generally, I believe, if not always, used by
Aristotle, merely for an example. Of this the reader may easily satisfy himself by consulting the useful index to
Mr. Winstanley’s edition.
119.
mvp-aristotle-comment-119
NOTE 119. P. 95.
15.11
AS ACHILLES IS DRAWN BY AGATHO AND BY HOMER.
PLATO, in the third book of his
Republic, gives a very different view of the Homeric
Achilles. He makes him a mere compound of extreme pride and extreme meanness:
ὡστε ἔχειν ἐν αυτῳ νοσηματα δυο ἐναντιω ἀλληλοιν, ἀνελευθερίαν μετα φιλοχρηματίας, και αὖ ὑπερηφανιαν θεων τε και ἀνθρωπων.
8
To which we may add, as a companion,
Dr. Jortin’s portrait of
Achilles:
"A boisterous, rapacious, mercenary, cruel, and unrelenting brute; and the reader pities none of his calamities, and is pleased with none of his successes!"
9
This is far enough from the
παραδειγμα ἐπιεικειας. But for a juster account of this matter, and for the best illustration of this passage of
Aristotle that can be given, I refer the reader to
Dr. Beattie’s analysis of the character of this hero, as drawn by
Homer;
10
15.8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-57
15.11
THESE RULES OUGHT TO BE OBSERVED; AND NOT ONLY THESE, BUT SUCH ALSO AS REGARD THOSE OBJECTS OF THE OTHER SENSES THAT NECESSARILY ACCOMPANY DRAMATIC POETRY.
BY this I imagine Aristotle means the theatrical apparatus, such as the dress, and masks of the actors, on the proper adapting of which to various characters, much of the effect of dramatic representation must have depended. In the article of dress both the ancient and modern theatre were much in the fame circumstance; but as to the masks, the ancients, at least in comedy, as we may gather from Julius Pollux, were mechanically exact in adapting them to particular characters, which cannot be the cafe as to the modern stage where the actors appear without such monstrous difguises. However the manners, both as to the dress and the figure of the actors may be divided in the fame way as in the compofition of the drama itself.. For first as to goodness. It is obvious that the dress of the characters not only in tragedy, but in comedy and even farce, must be above the level of real life, as is evident in the theatrical representation of shepherds and beggars. As to the perfon of the performer the fame holds in a more essential degree especially in actresses. In real life we know Yy from
from every day's experience, that very plain women are capable of exciting very violent attachment; and if we look among our acquaintance for those who have formed imprudent connections with the sex, we shall not always find the objects remarkable for their personal charms. But a person who does not feel this particular attachment, or if he does, contemplates it in another person, can only conceive beauty as the natural object of love. [G] A Romeo therefore fighing to an ugly Juliet, and apparently turned of forty, will not only excite ridicule but disgust. The theatre is much more delicate in this refpect than it was formerly. I have seen Mr. Havard and Mrs. Pritchard perform Constant and Lady Brute, when the progress of age and decay was marked not only by their figure but by the tremulous modulation of their voice. This however never appeared in Garrick; he acted even young Hamlet and Archer with propriety till he quitted the stage. One of the most beautiful and elegant women living either on or off the stage will, I hope, forgive me for citing her as an example of an impropriety exactly of an opposite nature; I mean in the character of Mrs. Oakley. I will not pretend to determine how far a most lovely and accomplished woman might, in real life, contrive to render herself disagreeable and troublesome to a husband, by conftant and unreasonable jealousy; but every general spectator will be rather inclined to think the man, whom Miss Farren, from suspicious fondness, cannot bear to have out of her company a moment, an object of envy rather than pity or ridicule. The requifite of goodness alfo on the modern theatre applies to the scenery, as in chambers and cottages; indeed this is also sometimes defective [G] See Hill's Actor, paffim. from
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. from being too good. There is no poffibility of representing the inside of Bobadil's' convenient cabin,' on a London theatre. Secondly, The dress and persons of the performers should be in character, and the scenery likewife. A foldier should not be dressed like a senator or acted by an old or feeble man; neither should the scene represent a room when the dialogue shews the action is in a wood. The third requisite differs from this only as particular characters do from general ones. Prince Henry should not be as fat as Falstaff. Firelocks should not be introduced at the battle of Philippi; nor should the scene represent St. James's Park when Richard falls by the hand of his competitor in Bofworth field. A breach of the fourth requisite consistency was fully exemplified by the practice of the old theatre taken notice of in Note v. on Chap. vI. when one or two characters only were dressed in the habit of the time or place of the drama, and the rest in the fashionable dress of the day. Yy 2 CHAP.
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-108
Ritter, cap. 15 § 8
quarta lege in moribus fingendis observanda absoluta et contrariis exemplis illustrata, iam ad mores revertitur, ut nonnulla quae partim ex primo praecepto partim ex fine tragoediae proposito consequuntur adiungeret.
οὕτω καὶ τὸν ποιητήν - ᾿Αγάθων καὶ Ὅμηρος:tragicus poeta quamquam iracundos et socordes et aliis morum vitiis infectos describit, hos tamen meliores ostendere (h. e.
ἐπιεικεῖς ποιεῖν) debet quam vulgo esse solent, qualem Achillem alioquin iracundum finxit Agatho in Telepho tragoedia et Homerus in postrema Iliadis rhapsodia. hanc explicationem sumpsi non ex fallaci editionum scriptura sed ex codicum lectione glossematis repurgata. codices enim tantum non omnes. (AcBcNa et Momnes et P, alii) haec exhibent :
τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν τοιούτους ὄντας ἐπιεικεῖς ποιεῖν παράδειγμα σκληρότητος,
οἷον κτλ., quae sana sunt et dilucida, si duo interpretamenta avelluntur. nam
τοιούτους ὄντας est explicatio verborum
τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν, itemque
παράδειγμα σκληρότητος nota est marginalis, ab eo adscripta qui Achillis nomine excitatus hunc fuisse durum virum et obstinatum lectores admonere voluit. Agathonis Telephum ab Athenaeo X.. p. 454 D. commemoratum respici acute coniecit Tyrwhittus. Homerus Achillem Priamo mitem ac plane
ἐπιεικῆ in postremo Iliadis libro descripsit. verisimile est eundem Achillem multis Telephi precibus fatigatum sub exitum tragoediae illius ab Agathone evulgatae mitem et placidum prodisse. vulgo. codicibus invitis Aldum auctorem secuti legunt:
τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν,
ἐπιεικείας ποιεῖν παράδειγμα,
ἢ σκληρότητος δεῖ,
οἷον ατλ. sed. vide quam incerto fundamento haec nitantur. particulam
ἢ et verbum
δεῖ nulli codici inest,
ἐπιεικείας ex uno Leidensi affertur. alii suspectum illud
ἢ pro aut alii pro potius quam accipiunt, sed illi sententiam hanc non aptam procudunt, quasi duritiae exemplar tragoediae praecipue conveniat, hi Aristoteli loquendi genus ei incognitum offerunt: quamvis enim interdum ante
ἢ notio potius a Graecis suppleatur, eiusmodi tamen loci ita conformati sunt, ut omnis significationis dubitatio exclusa sit. 1) Verba
τοιούτους ὄντας quamquam ex Mediceis non afferuntur, inesse tamen admodum verisimile est. etiam Victorius illa invenit in "calamo exaratis libris,16.