Poetics. Aristotle. Thomas Twining (Translator). London, UK. 1789.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
Poetics (Thomas Twining, 1789) (OCR draft) (English) (Thomas Twining's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1789 and aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.)
Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-36
1447b10
ὀνομάσαι κοινὸν
: scil.
ὄνομα; comp.
Meteor. 4. 9, 387 b 2
οὐ γὰρ κεῖται ὄνομα κοινόν. —
H. A. 4. 7, 531 b 22
οὐκ ἐπέζευκται κοινὸν ὄνομα οὐδέν.
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-37
1447b10
τοὺς Σώφρονος καὶ Ξενάρχου μίμους
. The surviving fragments (Kaibel, CGF. 1 pp. 152 and 182) show that the mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus were in prose (comp. Bernhardy, Gr. Litt. 2. 2 p. 533). And as their very name is suggestive of
μίμησις, Aristotle points to them as an indisputable example of prose-imitation,
μίμησις ἐν λόγῳ χωρὶς ἁρμονίας καὶ ῥυθμοῦ. A very similar view of them is implied in a fr. of the dialogue
περὶ ποιητῶν (72 Teubn.):
οὐκοῦν οὐδὲ ἐμμέτρους τοὺς καλουμένους Σώφρονος μίμους μὴ φῶμεν εἶναι λόγους καὶ μιμήσεις, ἢ τοὺς Ἀλεξαμενοῦ τοῦ Τηίου τοὺς πρώτους γραφέντας τῶν Σωκρατικῶν διαλόγων (v.
Bernays, Zwei Abhandl. p. 82
;
Kaibel l. c., p. 152
) . The fr. makes it clear that Aristotle saw a certain affinity between the Mime and the 'Socratic Conversations' of Alexamenus ; and with it before us, it is not difficult to divine the reason for the juxtaposition of the Mime and the
Σωκρατικὸς λόγος in the present passage of the Poetics ; the two things differed in name, but at the same time they had an essential element in common, that of being prose-imitations,
μιμήσεις ἐν λόγῳ, and not (like poetry)
ἐν μέτρῳ.
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-38
1447b11
τοὺς Σωκρατικοὺς λόγους
As used here and in
Rhet. 3. 16, 1417 a 20
, the term
Σωκρατικοὶ λόγοι must be taken to cover the ground of the whole of this species of literature, the 'Socratic Conversations' not only of Alexamenus, but also of Plato, Aeschines and the rest (comp.
Joel, Archiv f. Gesch. der Phil. 8, 468
). A certain resemblance between the Platonic Dialogue and the Mime is presupposed in the story (
Duris fr. 45 in Müller, FHG. 2 p. 480
) of Plato having been a zealous student and imitator of Sophron. It is difficult, therefore, to agree with Teichmüller's view, that Aristotle's intention was to contrast the Mime and the Dialogue, and insist on the difference between them.
οὐδὲ εἰ
:
De interpr. 11, 20 b 25
οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡ ἐρώτησις μία οὐδ᾽ ἐὰν ἀληθής. —
14, 24 a 3
οὐδὲν διοίσει οὐδ᾽ ἂν καθόλου τιθῶμεν τὴν κατάφασιν. —
Soph. el. 11, 171 b 12
τὰ γὰρ ψευδογραφήματα οὐκ ἐριστικά . . . οὐδέ γ εἴ τί ἐστι ψευδογράφημα περὶ ἀληθές. At this point Aristotle runs off into a digression (comp.
9, 1451 b 1
) in order to minimize the importance of the element of metre in the imitative forms of literature. Even if a mime and a dialogue were both written in verse, either in some one (b11-12) or in several kinds of metre (b 20), they would still be without a common name connoting the
μίμησις in them, which is their essential point of agreement. The writer of such a versified mime or dialogue might no doubt be described in ordinary parlance as an
ἐποποιός or
ἐλεγειοποιός, or by some similar name indicating the kind of verse in which his work happens to be written. Names of this kind, however, are misleading, since they imply that the verse rather than the
μίμησις embodied in it is the essence of the literary form of imitation. Metre, in Aristotle's view, is only one of the accidents of poetry.
1447b14
24.
mvp-aristotle-comment-24
1.8
Je donne au mot épopée une fignification fort étendüe, car autrement nous n'aurions pas de mot general qui comprit, &c.
1
25.
mvp-aristotle-comment-25
26.
mvp-aristotle-comment-26
27.
mvp-aristotle-comment-27
28.
mvp-aristotle-comment-28
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-6
NOTE 6.
1.8
P. 3. THE MIMES OF SOPHRON AND XENARCHUS, AND THE SOCRATIC DIALOGUES.
HAD Aristotle proposed only to extend the term
Εποποἰία to all imitations of the NARRATIVE kind, whether in verse or prose, whether serious or comic, this, to a reader who should enter thoroughly into his ideas of Poetry, would not, perhaps, appear extraordinary. It would be only classing the different forms of Poetry, as one might expect him to class them, according to what he himself conceived to be the chief and most characteristic difference of their imitations. But here, we find the name applied to compositions of a character strikingly different—to Mimes, and Dialogues; for it is indeed, as Dacier says, a very obvious question, and one which cannot but have occurred to every reader—
"les Dialogues ne ressemblent-ils pas plutot au Poeme Dramatique, qu' au Poeme Epique?"—An embarrassing question, and which, being at all events to be answered, he answers immediately, and roundly—
"Non, sans doute." And why? Because, says he,
"the drama imitates by words and music, the Epic Poem, by words only." But, to apply the expression of the philosopher to this critic—
πλεξας ἐυ, λυει κακως.
1
This is much the same thing as if one should deny, that two men, of form and features strikingly similar, resembled each other, merely because their coats were of different colours; or, to come still nearer to the case, if one should assert that one of these men bore a greater resemblance to a third, with whom he chanced to agree in the single circumstance of not wearing a wig. Is it probable, that Aristotle, in classing and denominating a principal species of Poetry, should be guided by such a circumstance as the mere absence of music? when even metre he regards as not essential, and speaks of it as one of the
ἡδυσματα of Poetic language.
2
He allows, indeed, that music is the most pleasurable of the
ἡδυσματα, or seasonings, of Tragedy;
3
but, that he regarded it as less essential than metre, is evident from the place which he assigns it in his arrangement of the six parts of Tragedy according to the order of their importance;
4
for he there places it next before the
Oψις, or Decoration, which he pronounces to be, of all the parts,
"the most foreign to the Poet's art :"
ήκιστα δικειον της ποιητικης.
5
On the other hand, the circumstance of Narration in the person of the Poet he every where seems to make an essential mark of distinction between the Epic and the Dramatic Poem:
6
so that, in order to avoid making him absolutely inconsistent with himself, we must be obliged to suppose, with the commentators, that he uses the word
Ἑποποϊία in two senses, here, in its general and etymological sense, that of imitating, or making, by words, and every where else in the common and limited sense of narrative imitation.
7
The first of these must be considered as a mere proposal: we must understand Aristotle to say no more than this—that some common term, to include all compositions imitating by words only, was wanted, and that the term, Epopæia, was best adapted to that purpose. In the rest of his treatise he conforms to the established ideas and language.
8
This, however, is by no means satisfactory.
It still remains, I confess, no inconsiderable difficulty with me, to conceive, that Aristotle should, by applying the term
Εποποἰα to all imitative writing, whether of a narrative or dramatic form, without music, give it an extension inconsistent, as it seems, with his own principles, and confounding those distinctions, which, in his own view, were the most essential. If he had meant so to apply the term in the passage before us, he would, surely, have been more explicit, and, where, after this passage, he first mentioned the Epopæia in the usual sense, would have added some words of limitation and distinction to prevent confusion. But this he has not done. Though evidently speaking of the heroic and narrative Epic, he calls it only,
ἡ Εποποιία; as if no other application of the word had been mentioned.
Of the MIMES of SOPHRON we can acquire but a very imperfect idea, either from what is said of them in ancient authors, or from the fragments that are preserved in Athenæus, Demetrius, and others. It has even been long disputed among the learned, whether they were prose or verse; and, at last, it seems to be settled, that they were neither; a kind of compromise comfortable enough to the disputants on both sides; for if the fragments are something between verse and prose, they, who assert them to be either, are something between right and wrong. I shall not enter into this discussion; but refer the reader to the remarks of the learned
Valckenaer on the argument of the
Αδωνιαζεσαι of Theocritus
; where he will find some curious and uncommon information upon this subject.
9
That these compositions, however, were either a species of the drama, or, at least, dialogues in the dramatic form, there seems to be no doubt.
10
Dacier, indeed, asserts, that they were, like the Epic Poem,
"une imitation composée de narration et d'action." But he produces no proof of this, nor do I know of any. I must farther observe, that, supposing what is related, of the fondness of Plato for the Mimes of Sophron, and of their having been his model in the
μιμησις προσωπων of his own dialogues, to be true, it may reasonably be inferred, that we ought by no means to confound them with the Roman Mimes, or to apply to them, as is too often done, all that is said of the latter by Diomedes, and other writers of that age. Such licentious and obscene trash would not, surely, have been found under the pillow of the moral and reforming Plato; and that,
όλοῳ ἐπι γηρα ἐδῳ, and, as some assert, even in the hour of death.
11
In saying this, however, I do not forget, that delicacy is not to be sought for even in the strictest morality of ancient times. For the best idea that can now be formed of the manner of this famous mimographer, we must have recourse, I believe, to the
fifteenth Idyl of Theocritus
12
, which, as we are informed in the MS. argument found by Ruhnkenius in the royal library at Paris, is an imitation of a Mime of Sophron upon a similar subject.
13
A more exact piece of natural delineation cannot be imagined. It is not, indeed,
la belle nature; it is the nature of common and simple, or, as some affect to call it, of low, life; but copied with so close and faithful a pencil, that, to every reader accustomed, in any degree, to observe the manners of mankind in general, and whose taste is not perverted by affectation, or fettered by rule, the truth and reality of the imitation will, I believe, amply compensate for the want of dignity in the thing imitated. To those who receive no pleasure from this source, I would rather recommend the
belle nature of Pope's Pastorals, or the still finer nature of Fontenelle's. I would only observe farther, that this imitation of Sophron is in the strict dramatic form and that it contains nothing in the least degree indecent, or disgusting.
Of the
ΛΟΓΟΙ ΣΩΚΡΑΤΙΚΟΙ, by which, undoubtedly, Aristotle meant chiefly, if not solely, the DIALOGUES of PLATO, I shall only observe, that they have all, in a high degree, the dramatic and imitative spirit, and that by far the greater part of them are in the unmixed dramatic form, so as to admit of representation;
14
and it, accordingly, appears from Plutarch, that those of the lighter cast among them were sometimes performed by boys, as an entertainment, at the Symposia of the Romans in his time.
15
7.
mvp-aristotle-comment-7
Ritter, cap. 1 § 7
οὐδὲν γὰρ ἂν ἔχοιμεν κτλ. excusatur nova
ἐποποιίας significatio huic nomini modo concessa: non enim communi nomine comprehendere possemus Sophronis Xenarchique mimos et Socraticos sermones, omnemque imitationem quae peragitur iis poesis generibus quibus neque concentus neque saltatio adiuncta est. concentu et saltatione caret poesis elegiaca et iambica, ac propterea hae species commemorantur illis
εἴ τις διὰ τριμέτρων ἢ ἐλεγείων ποιοῖτο τὴν μίμησιν. enuntiatio condicionalis mente supplenda talis fuerit, nisi hoc nomen (
ἐποποιία) novo intellectu ponere- De Sophrone Euripidis aequali mimisque ab ipso filioque Xenarcho Dorica Siculorum dialecto scriptis cum diligentissime a Valckenario ad Theocriti Adoniazusas p. 188 sqq. expositum sit, ego de eodem argumento pauca quaedam, mus.quae ad hunc Aristotelis locum recte intelligendum et a vanis dubitationibus vindicandum faciant, libasse contentus ero. mimi illi morum notationes fuere ac descriptiones hominum quos offert vita vulgaris magna cum accuratione expressae. prosa oratione compositos fuisse non solum Suidas (s. v.
Σώφρων) atque cius pedisequa Eudocia testatur, sed idem liquet ex hoc quem tractamus loco ac praecipue ex alio, quem Athenaeus ex Aristotelis
περὶ Ποιητῶν opere nobis perdito protulit XI.
ρ. 505 C.
οὐκοῦν οὐδὲ 3)
ἐμμέτρους τοὺς καλουμένους Σώφρονος μίμους μὴ φῶμεν εἶναι λόγους καὶ μιμήσεις ἢ τοὺς ᾿Αλεξαμενοῦ τοῦ Τηΐου τοὺς πρώτους γραφέντας τῶν Σωκρατικῶν διαλόγων, h. e. itaque ne metricos quidem (qui ne numeris quidem adstricti sunt) Sophronis quos vocant mimos, eos ne dicamus esse sermones et imitationes (sermones imitativos), vel quos Alexamenus Teius primus scripsit Socraticos dialogos. Aristoteles hisce verbis falsam quandam aliorum sententiam coarguit: ipse enim non negaturus erat Sophronis mimos esse
λόγους καὶ μιμήσεις, h. e.
λόγους μιμητικούς. mirum Tyrwhitti errorem (ille Sophronem metris usum esse sibi Buhlioque persuasit) Hermannus confutavit, idemque apte monuit, ne hunc Xenarchum Sophronis Syracusii filium confundamus cum Xenarcho Attico mediae comoediae poeta, de quo nostra memoria breviter disputavit vir egregie doctus, Meinekius in Quaestionum scen. specim. III. p. 61. Socraticos sermones (
Σωκρ.
λόγους) eos esse quos primus Alexamenus Teius Socratis disputandi morem secutus edidit, post Tyrwhittum credidit Hermannus : sed nihil est causae cur hic obscurum illum scriptorem potius quam illustrissimum imitationis exemplar, Platonem dico, in primis significari credamus, quamquam neque Alexamenus excluditur nec si quis alius Socraticos sermones ita conscripsit ut simul
τὸ μιμητικὸν consectaretur. prope abest a vero Augustus Matthiae in diurnis Ienens. a. 1805. n. 223. 3)
Οὐδὲ hoc loco est ne quidem, ut in Poetica c. 8 extr.
οὐδὲ μόριον τοῦ ὅλου ἐστίν.
πλὴν οἱ ἄνθρωποί γε κτλ, communem loquendi usum in nomine
ἐποποιίας recedere a suo concedens ab illo metrum spectari monet, non rei veritatem.
ἐλεγειοποιούς τοὺς δὲ ἐποποιοὺς ὀνομάζουσιν : haec nomina composita ita accepit quam si posuisset
ἐλεγείων (distichorum)
ποιητὰς atque
ἐπῶν (hexametrorum)
ποιητάς 4). per
ἐλεγεῖα et
ἔπη quamvis et versuum species et ipsa carmina significentur, hoc tamen loco nonnisi prior significatio obtinet. de hac
ἐλεγείων potestate cum nemo dubitare possit, propter alterum illud nomen (
έπη) satis sit provocasse ad Rhetorica III, 16. p. 1417 a 14.
παράδειγμα ὁ ᾿Αλκίνου ἀπόλογος,
ὅτι πρὸς τὴν Πηνελόπην ἐν ἑξήκοντα ἔπεσι (sexaginta hexametris)
πεποίηται. conf. Pseudo - Aristoteles in Poetica
ε. 26, 5.
εἴ τις τὸν Οἰδίπουν θείη τὸν Σοφοκλέους ἐν ἔπεσιν ὅσοις ἡ Ἰλιάς. Sine iusta causa editores fere omnes (non Bekkerus) codicibus adversantibus legunt
τοὺς μὲν ἐλεγειοποιοὺς τοὺς δὲ ἐποποιοὺς ὀν.,. ut sententia evadat haec, poetarum genus unis verbis imitantium aut
ἐλεγειοποιούς aut
ἐποποιοὺς vocari: sed id non verum est, cum etiam
ἰαμβοποιοὶ nonnisi verbis imitentur. itaque ex pluribus nominibus duo ponuntur.
οὐχ ὡς τοὺς κατὰ μίμησιν ποιητάς-προσα χορεύοντες: Tyrwhitto iudice articulus
τοὺς elegantius abesset, sed is elegantiae loci neque addere quidquam potest neque detrahere. Hermannus scripsit
οὐχ ὡς κατὰ τὴν μίμησιν π., aliis alia excogitantibus. nimirum vulgo interpretantur poetas non tam propter imitationem sed communiter propter metrum appellantes. ac sane articulus expungendus foret, si ea esset loci sententia. sed quod codices offerunt, bonam id sententiam facilemque structuram praebet, dummodo intelligamus
τοὺς pertinere quidem ad
ποιητάς, sed 4) Simile illud est in c. 4, 10.
οἱ μὲν ἀντὶ τῶν ἰάμβων κωμωδοποιοὶ (h. e.
κωμῳδιῶν ποιηταί)
ἐγένοντο,
κτλ. conf. quae monita sunt ad illum locum.hoc ipsum nomen tamquam bis positum accipiendum esse, ut plenius scripserit Aristoteles
οὐχ ὡς τοὺς κατὰ μίμησιν ποιητὰς “
ποιητὰς”
προσαγορεύοντες. secundum imitationem poetae (
οἱ κατὰ μίμησιν ποιηταί') illi sunt qui suo iure poetae nomine ornantur sive qui re vera poetae sunt, homines igitur non eos qui imitantur secundum id ipsum poetas appellant, sed qui eodem metro utuntur, eos communi nomine vocare solent,