Thomas Twining Poetics 133

Table of Contents

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

Poetics. Thomas Twining. London. 1789.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by National Endowment for the Humanities.

Current edition Experimental

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.

Commentary

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

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-594

οἷον τὸ ἐν τῷ Σοφοκλέους Οἰδίποδι: comp. 15, 1454 b 7
οἷον τὸ ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι
 where a certain incident in the story of the O. T. is said to be ἄλογον, just as here another is said to be εἰκός. That the Discovery in the O. T. is probable was shown in 11, 1453 a 26 ( δηλώσας ὃς ἦν). τῇ Ιφιγενείᾳ : Iph. Taur. 582 .

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-595

19 ἐπιθεῖναι γράμματα is 'dare epistolam' (comp. Iph. Taur. 770
ἐπιστέλλει
), not as Bon. Ind. 281 a 44 says, 'addere epistolam'. The dative of the person to whom is omitted, for reasons which a reader of the play will easily understand. It is omitted also for the sake of brevity in Herod. 3. 43
γράψας δὲ ἐς Αἴγυπτον ἐπέθηκε
 (scil. τὸ βυβλίον), which Valckenaer explains as meaning
'tradidit epistolam in Aegyptum perferendam'
.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-596

αἱ γὰρ τοιαῦται μόναι κτέ.: The difficulty in this clause is obvious, and it has long been recognized. Vahlen's explanation is as follows:
'haec planissima sunt quamquam a Spengelio prave intellecta. neque enim hoc voluit illas agnitiones unicas esse quae careant indiciis et monilibus, sed hoc dicit: hae ἀναγνωρίσεις per se solae sunt (constant) sine illis extrinsecus adminiculis ascitis. et haec quidem sic universe significantur verbis τῶν πεποιημένων σημείων καὶ περιδεραίων, quoniam ea nunc non attinebat singillatim per suas species referre.'
The real crux of the passage, however, is in σημείων; as used at the beginning of the chapter, in the account of the first species of Discovery ( ἡ διὰ τῶν σημείων ἀναγνώρισις, 1454 b 21 ), the term denotes a visible mark or token; but the absence of a σημεῖον of that description is obviously not peculiar to this fifth and best Discovery — ἡ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν πραγμάτων. Twining plausibly suggests that Aristotle may be using σημείων in a more general sense, and that it denotes here — as it might very well do — anything that serves as a 'sign' in the less artistic forms of Discovery. Thus in the second of these the statement of Orestes is a sort of σημεῖον ; in Euripides it is actually described as a τεκμήριον (see on 1454 b 34 ). The same may be said of the tears ( ἔκλαυσεν, ἐδάκρυσεν) in the third species of Discovery. As for the fourth ( ἡ ἐκ συλλογισμοῦ), to judge from the instances, it may depend on a sign (comp. τεκμήριον, Aesch. Choeph. 205 ), or it may result from a reflexion overheard, which thus serves as a sign. In comparison however with that in the O. T. or Iphigenia, all these forms of Discovery are in Aristotle's judgment more or less artificial (comp. πεποιημένων), and thus of inferior artistic value.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-597

δεραίων: comp. Eurip. Ion 1431
δέραια παιδὶ νεογόνῳ φέρειν
. — Menander ( Lefebvre, Fragments d'un MS. de M.) Ἐπιτρέποντες 28
κἀκκείμενον παιδάριον εὗρον νήπιον ἔχον δέραια καὶ τοιουτονί τινα κόσμον.
 — Menander ( Lefebvre, Fragments d'un MS. de M.) Ἐπιτρέποντες 86
δός μοι, γύναι, τὰ δέραια καὶ γνωρίσματα.
 — Alciphron Ep. 3. 63M
μετὰ τῶν σπαργάνων δέραιά τινα καὶ γνωρίσματα περιθεῖσαι.

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

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-409

16.11 La plus belle de toutes les reconnoiſſances eft celle qui naît des Incidens mêmes, & qui produit une tres grande ſurpriſe par des moyens vray-ſemblables, comme dans l'Œdipe de Sophocle, & dans l' Iphigenie d'Euripide.] 1

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-410

16.11 Car il est tres vray-ſemblable & tres naturel qu'Œdipe ſoit curieux.] 2

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-411

16.11 Et ces fortes de reconnoiſſances font les ſeules qui ſe font ſans le ſecours des ſignes, ou inventez ou étrangers.] 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

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
; 1 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. 2 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.

Commentary on the Poetics (Henry James Pye, 1792) (OCR draft) (Henry James Pye's 1792 English commentary, aligned to the Kassel reference edition.) focus

16.5. mvp-aristotle-comment-62 16.11

THERE IS ALSO A COMPOUND (1) SPECIES OF DISCOVERY ARISING FROM A FALSE REASONING OF THE SPECTATORS.

THE precise meaning of the paragraph of which this sentence is a part, and especially the example included in it, baffles all conjecture. The only rational meaning that can be supposed is, that besides these modes of discovery where the reasoning is just, there may be a mode in which, from the combination of various circumstances, the spectator may be induced to think there is sufficient proof to infer the reality of the person discovered, and yet on examination such an inference will not logically follow from the premises. A's to the tragedy produced as an example, all seems utter obscurity. I will however mention a conjecture on the subject communicated to me by a learned and ingenious friend, which is at least very plausible. He supposes the tragedy in question to be taken from the discovery of Ulyffes to Penelope in the twenty-third book of the Odyssey, and in [1] Ariftotle calls this mode of discovery ΣΥΝΘΕΤΟΣ ἐκ παραλογισμᾶ τῷ θεάτρα. Synthesis by combining simple terms produces a truth' (or a falfhood if the premises or reasoning are false ἐκ παραλογισμέ). Hermes, Book 1. Chap. I. page 3, and then in a note. Περὶ γὰρ σύνθεσιν καὶ διάιρεσιν ἔςι τὸ ψευδός τε καὶ τὸ ἀληθές.. « True and false are seen • in composition and division.' Zz which
which he is disguised as a messenger instead of a beggar; a change certainly very consonant with the dignity of tragic representation when compared with epic description. And he proposes, that instead of τόξον we should read τοιχον [κ]. This conceded, the whole answers my notion of the sense of the passage. Penelope who is neither satisfied of the identity of Ulyffes, by the testimony of Telemachus and Euryclea, nor by a miracle wrought in favour of her husband by his restoration to the youth and figure he possessed on his leaving her twenty years before, is at last convinced by his description of her nuptial bed, which he had framed himself, and which no one else had seen but a faithful flave named Actoris. < The fecrets of the bridal bed are known To thee, to me, to Actoris alone, (My father's present in the spousal hour, • The fole attendant on our genial bower,). • Since what no eye has seen thy tongue reveal'd, • Hard and distrustful as I am, I yield.'... POPE'S Odyssey, L. XXIII. v. 241. Original, v. 225. [K] The words are so alike as to be easily confounded by a careless or a conceited transcriber, who recollecting how much depends on a bow at the conclusion of the Odyssey, might be tempted to change them on purpose, as the article τὸ which marks the gender, Mr. Win- The word τοιχος seems particularly applied to a bridal stanley observes is omitted in one Ms. chamber in Canticles, Chap. 11. ver. 9. Ἰδοὺ ἦτος ἔςηκεν ὁπίσω τῷ τοίχε ἡμῶν Παρακύπλων διὰ τῶν θυρίδων. I know the interpreters render this WALL, but it does not seem to agree with the context; and the Hebrew word כתל which occurs only in this place, seems derived from the fame word in Arabic, which as a verb signifies, to unite, COEGIT IN UNUM, and as a substantive, union, ADUNATIO, CUM QUID SIMUL COGITUR. This
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. This certainly was not a fufficient proof of the identity of Ulyffes [L], because there was a poffibility of Actoris having betrayed the secret; therefore whatever may have been the cafe with the spectators of the Ulyffes Pfeudangelus, the readers of the Odyssey if they suppose the difcovery of Ulyffes to Penelope compleatly confirmed by this circumstance are guilty of a paralogism, they draw a false conclufion from the premises. I must add, that in real life we often find persons raifing objections where no difficulty occurs, objecting to arguments that ought to convince them, and being fatisfied at last by a reason that ought not to convince them [м]. There is an objection however to this solution which it is necessary to notice. The discovery of Orestes to Iphigenia mentioned in Note 11. on this Chapter, is exactly liable to the fame observation. The fpear and embroidery might as well have been known to other eyes befides those of Orestes, as the bridal chamber of Penelope might to others, befides Ulysses and Actoris. The force of this objection will depend much on [L] See Pope's Note on v. 183, of the twenty-third book of his tranflation of the Odyssey. Granting One part of which in particular is so very appofite to this passage that I shall cite it. ' that the perfon before her [Penelope ] was a real man, and that no man but Ulyffes was acquainted • with the nuptial bed, it follows that this man is the real Ulyffes.' But neither of these premises can be granted. For the perfon, as suggested by Euftathius, might have been a god, or Actoris might have betrayed the secret to a man.. [M] Though the bed-chambers of the Grecian ladies were so much more fecluded from general observation, than those of the beauties of modern Europe, yet perhaps it would not have been out of character in Penelope, confidering her extreme incredulity, to have faid, on this laft proof with Pofthumus in Cymbeline, This is a thing • Which you might from relation likewise reap,
Zz2. the
the usual accuracy or inaccuracy of Aristotle's examples, and the observation of the reader, whether he finds them comprehending every circumstance of resemblance, or only pointing in one particular instance to the object he wishes to illustrate. There is a passage in the [N] twenty-fourth chapter of the Poetic where Ariftotle is speaking of the epopee, obviously alluding to the same subject, and equally obfcure. Had either been clear it might have illuftrated the other; perhaps some happier critic may be able to strike out a spark of light from their mutual opacity.

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

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-117

Ritter, cap. 16 § 8

πασῶν δὲ βελτίστη ἐπιθεῖναι γράμματα: haec hausta sunt et inepte repetita ex c. 11. post οἷον ἐν τῷ Σοφοκλέους Οἰδίποδι cum succedat καὶ τῇ Ἰφιγενείᾳ, unusquisque legentium haec verba sola respiciens Sophoclis Iphigeniam intelligere debet (ab eo tragoediam hoc nomine editam esse constat), sed si ad consequentia animum adverterit, non Sophoclis Iphigeniam (Aulidensem), sed Euripidis Tauricensem significari comperimus, quae negligentia eo magis vituperanda est, cum praeter Sophoclem etiam Aeschylus Iphigeniam (Aulidensem) scripserit, et Tauricensem Iphigeniam praeter Euripidem etiam Polyidus sophista docuerit. Sed iam haec omnia et obscure et hiulco sermone et negligenter scripta esse, id satis, credo, constabit, quae qui Aristoteli tribuit, summi viri laudibus et ingenio insignem iniuriam fecerit.17. §. 1. 203 :