Aristotle Poetics 11.4

Thomas Twining (Translator)

View: By Part
A DISCOVERY, as, indeed, the word implies, is a change from unknown to known, happening between those characters whose happiness, or unhappiness, forms the catastrophe of the drama, and terminating in friendship or enmity 1 .

Poetics. Aristotle. Thomas Twining (Translator). London, UK. 1789.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Current edition Experimental

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.

Editions (4)
Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) (Aristotle, Poetics. Immanuel Bekker, editor, Aristotelis Opera, volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1837.) — 11 focus
Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) Perseus (Aristotle, De arte poetica liber. Rudolf Kassel, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Reference edition for passage alignment.) — 11 focus
Poetics, Greek text (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's Greek text of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 11 focus
Poetics, Greek text (Franz Ritter, 1839) (OCR draft) Experimental (Franz Ritter's 1839 Greek edition, corrected against OCR of the represented copy and aligned to the conventional Perseus chapter-and-subchapter sequence.) — 11 focus
Translations (13)
Poetics (W. H. Fyfe) (OCR draft) Perseus (William Hamilton Fyfe's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, Loeb Classical Library, 1939 printing.) — 11 focus
Arabic Poetics (Badawī edition, 1953) (OCR draft) (The ancient Arabic translation of Aristotle's Poetics in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī's 1953 edition.) — 11 focus
Poetics (S. H. Butcher, 1911) (OCR draft) Experimental (S. H. Butcher's English translation from Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, fourth edition, 1911.) — 11 focus
Aristotle on the Art of Poetry (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 11 focus
The Poetic of Aristotle (Henry James Pye, revised 1792) (OCR draft) Experimental (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.) — 11.4 focus
as the name implies, is a transition from ignorance to knowledge, producing either friendship or hatred, between the characters as they are designed for happiness or distress.
The Poetic of Aristotle (Theodore Alois Buckley) (OCR draft) Experimental (Theodore Alois Buckley's English translation, first published in 1850 and represented from the Henry G. Bohn 1857 printing; corrected against a second OCR and aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 11.4 focus
as the name signifies, a change from ignorance to knowledge, or into the friendship or hatred of those who are destined to prosperous or adverse fortune.
Poetica Latine conversa (Franciscus Ritter, 1839) (OCR draft) Experimental (Franz Ritter's Latin translation, corrected against OCR of the represented copy and aligned to the conventional Perseus chapter-and-subchapter sequence.) — 11 focus
La poëtique d'Aristote (André Dacier, 1692) (OCR draft) Experimental (André Dacier's French translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1692.) — 11.4 focus
La reconnoiſſance eſt, comme ſon nom même le témoigne, un changement qui faiſant paſſer de l'ignorance à la connoiſſance, produit ou la haine ou l'amitié dans ceux que le Poëte a deſſein de rendre heureux ou malheureux.
Poetica d'Aristotile (Bernardo Segni, 1549) (OCR draft) Experimental (Bernardo Segni's 1549 Florentine Italian translation, aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 11 focus
De poetica (Antonio Riccobono, 1587) (OCR draft) Experimental (Antonio Riccobono's Latin translation, first published in 1587; text represented from Immanuel Bekker's 1831 edition.) — 11 focus
De arte poetica liber (William of Moerbeke, ca. 1277) (OCR draft) Experimental (William of Moerbeke's medieval Latin translation, represented by the 1953 Aristoteles Latinus edition.) — 11 focus
Arabic Poetics (Abū Bishr Mattā; Tkatsch edition) (OCR draft) Experimental (The Arabic translation attributed to Abū Bishr Mattā, edited by Jaroslaus Tkatsch in 1928 and aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 11 focus
Arabic Poetics (Abū Bishr Mattā; Tkatsch edition, unaligned) (OCR draft) Experimental (Tkatsch's edition of the medieval Arabic translation in its original, unaligned segmentation.) — 11 focus

Notes on the current edition

Poetics

1. Such is the discovery of Joseph, by his brethren, Gen. xlv. the most beautiful and affecting example that can be given.

Commentary

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

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-397

Λυγκεῖ: the Lynceus of Theodectes; comp. 18, 1455 b 29 and Nauck, TGF. p. 801. It is clear from Aristotle's account that it must have been a play with a 'double plot' ( v. 13, 1453 a 30 ).

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-398

τὸν μὲν συνέβη κτέ. The construction is changed in order to show that the new situation was the result of something that had gone before it, some incident in a preceding scene ( συνέβη ἐκ τῶν πεπραγμένων).

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-399

τῶν πεπραγμένων: comp. 10, 1452 a 19
ὥστε ἐκ τῶν προγεγενημένων συμβαίνειν κτέ.
, and 18, 1455 b 30
δέσις μὲν τά τε προπεπραγμένα καὶ ἡ τοῦ παιδίου λῆψις
.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-400

ἀναγνώρισις. Aristotle has already laid it down in 10, 1452 a 18-20 that the Discovery should arise ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συστάσεως τοῦ μύθου, and he does not repeat his rule in the present chapter. He assumes that in a 37 ( ἡ μάλιστα τοῦ μύθου), and also later on, in chap. 16, which is a sort of appendix to this discussion (see esp. 16, 1455 a 16 ).

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-401

πρὸς εὐτυχίαν ... ὡρισμένων: comp. Eurip. fr. 218 ed. Nauck ( TGF. p. 424) φεῦ φεῦ, τὸ δοῦλον ὡς ἁπανταχῇ γένος πρὸς τὴν ἐλάσσω μοῖραν ὥρισεν θεός.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-402

περιπέτειαι. The plural is used, just as in 6, 1450 a 34 , 18, 1456 a 19 , 24, 1459 b 10 , to denote the concrete instances of περιπέτεια, as actual incidents in plays. The formal incongruity of number in the juxtaposition of ἀναγνώρισις and περιπέτειαι in the present passage is certainly not greater than that in 9, 1451 a 3
μετὰ μέτρου ἢ ἄνευ μέτρων
, or Thuc. 2. 4. 2
λίθοις τε καὶ κεράμῳ βαλλόντων
. See also the instances quoted on 19, 1456 b 1 ( μέγεθος καὶ μικρότητα).

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-403

οἵαν. Bon. Ind. 507 b 26 would restore οἵαν for οἷον in Magna mor.2. 8, 1207 b 18 .
οἷον ( i. e. e.g.), it becomes necessary to understand περιπέτειαν after ἔχει.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-404

ἡ ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι, scil. ἀναγνώρισις.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-405

πρὸς ἄψυχα καὶ τὰ τυχόντα. The καί here means 'even', not 'and', as is often assumed by the interpreters. Aristotle distinguishes between three possible forms of Discovery, according as it relates to (1) persons, (2) things, or (3) acts or deeds. In dealing with the second form he adds that the things recognized may be even of a very casual kind, καὶ τὰ τυχόντα—thinking perhaps of objects like certain of the σημεῖα mentioned in 16, 1454 b 21 sqq.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-406

ἔστιν ὡς ὅπερ εἴρηται συμβαίνει. If we adopt Vahlen's suggestion, ἔστιν, ὅσ᾽ ὥσπερ εἴρηται συμβαίνει, we have to dissever τὰ τυχόντα from ἄψυχα, and take ὅσ' ὥσπερ εἴρηται συμβαίνει as an explanation of it. It is not easy to see how τὰ τυχόντα, i.e. concrete things of some sort or other, can be said to 'happen' or 'come about' ( συμβαίνει) in a particular way. Spengel's reading ὅπερ εἴρηται aptly recalls the idea of ἀναγνώρισις as defined at the beginning of this paragraph, ἐξ ἀγνοίας εἰς γνῶσιν μεταβολή, ἢ εἰς φιλίαν ἢ εἰς ἔχθραν. As this recognition of 'things' however is not a μεταβολὴ εἰς φιλίαν ἢ εἰς ἔχθραν, but at best only a means to that, Aristotle throws in the qualifying ἔστιν ὡς ('in a way', 'in a sense')—an expression that always implies some reserve or limitation; comp. Phys.2. 5, 197 a 10
ἔστιν ὡς οὐδὲν ἀπὸ τύχης δόξειεν ἂν γίγνεσθαι
.— De anima3. 2, 425 b 22
καὶ τὸ ὁρῶν ἔστιν ὡς κεχρωμάτισται
.— De mem.1. 450 a 20
ἢ ἔστιν ὡς ἐνδέχεται καὶ συμβαίνει τοῦτο
?— Eth. N.5. 12, 1136 b 30
καὶ ἔστιν ὡς τὰ ἄψυχα κτείνει
.
The construction πρὸς ἄψυχα συμβαίνει is sufficiently assured by the parallel in Pol.7. 17, 1336 a 31
συμβαίνει δὲ ταὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ πρὸς τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὁμιλίας καὶ πρὸς τὰς τῶν πραγμάτων
—where ταὐτὸ τοῦτο recalls a previous statement just in the same way as the ὅπερ εἴρηται in the amended text of the present passage ( comp. J. of Phil. 14 p. 45).

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-407

πέπραγε is transitive, as often in Aristotle, if our existing texts are to be trusted ( comp. Bon. Ind. 632 a 17).

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-408

ἀναγνωρίσαι: see on b 5 .

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-409

μάλιστα τοῦ μύθου: comp. 10, 1452 a 18
γίνεσθαι ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συστάσεως τοῦ μύθου
. As the relationship between the parties is presupposed, the discovery of it in the course of the play is a very natural kind of incident.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-410

μάλιστα τῆς πράξεως is explained by what follows, ἡ γὰρ τοιαύτη ἀναγνώρισις κτέ.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-411

ἢ ἔλεον ἕξει ἢ φόβον. The grammatical subject is ἀναγνώρισις, καὶ περιπέτεια being overlooked (see on 26, 1462 a 16 ). The Discovery will produce pity, when it synchronizes with the πάθος or anguish of the hero, as it does in the O. T.; but may also only suggest the coming of evil, in which case it will arouse fear. It is to be remembered that pity arises through the spectacle of suffering actually present and before us; whereas fear is apprehension of evil still to come (see on 13, 1453 a 2 ).
1452b2

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-412

1452b ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀτυχεῖν καὶ τὸ εὐτυχεῖν κτέ. is a further reason for saying that the discovery of relationships is ἡ μάλιστα τῆς πράξεως ( a 37 ). If the play has a happy ending, like the Lynceus ( a 27 ) or the Iphigenia in Tauris for instance, such a Discovery will be a very natural way of bringing that about; and it is equally natural in the O. T. and other plays with an unhappy ending.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-413

τινῶν ἐστιν ἀναγνώρισις. For the emphatic position of the indefinite pronoun comp. Soph. el.13, 173 b 3
ἥ τε ὄρεξις τινὸς ὄρεξις καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία τινὸς ἐπιθυμία καὶ τὸ διπλάσιον τινὸς διπλάσιον
.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-414

ἀναγνωρίσαι, scil. τίνες εἰσίν (to be supplied from the preceding δῆλος ἅτερος τίς ἐστιν), 'to reveal who they are', 'to make themselves known'—not as Tyrwhitt renders it, ' se invicem agnoscere'. The simple verb γνωρίζειν has (just like our English 'discover') two meanings, that of 'to learn' (= γιγνώσκειν) and that of 'to make known' (= γνώριμον ποιεῖν ἢ δηλοῦν). The first sense reappears in certain of the compounds ( προγνωρίζειν, συγγνωρίζειν), and the second in others ( διαγνωρίζειν, ἐπιγνωρίζειν). ἀναγνωρίζειν recalls both senses of γνωρίζειν, sometimes meaning 'to recognize', and sometimes 'to reveal'. (1) It means to 'recognize' in 14, 1453 b 31
ἀναγνωρίσαι τὴν φιλίαν
, and (with φιλίαν or some such word understood) in 14, 1453 b 35; 1454 a 3, 6, 8 . This is the sense of ἀναγνωριοῦντος also in 16, 1455 a 15 —where τὸ τόξον is understood, as the context ( τὸ τόξον γνώσεσθαι) will show; and of ἀναγνωρίσαι in 11, 1452 a 35
εἰ πέπραγέ τις ἢ μὴ πέπραγεν ἀναγνωρίσαι
, ' utrum fecerit aliquis an non fecerit agnoscere' ( Ritter). Another instance is in the passive, ἀνεγνωρίσθη ὑπὸ τῆς τροφοῦ, in 16, 1454 b 27 .
(2) On the other hand the word must mean 'reveal' in 16, 1454 b 32
ἀνεγνώρισεν ὅτι Ὀρέστης
, ' manifestum fecit se esse Orestem' ( Ritter), and in the parallel in 17, 1455 a 9 , where ὅτι Ὀρέστης or some equivalent has to be understood after ἀνεγνώρισεν ( comp. 17, 1455 b 21 ). The same sense is found in the passive in the present context (b 6), τῷ Ὀρέστῃ ἀνεγνωρίσθη, which means 'was revealed to Orestes', rather than 'was recognized' by him; and also (if I am not mistaken) in ἀνεγνωρίσθησαν in 16, 1455 a 3 . A third sense has been found for ἀναγνωρίσας in 17, 1455 b 21 , on which see note.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-415

Ἰφιγένεια: comp. 16, 1454 b 32 . The reference is to Eurip. Iph. Taur. 727 sqq.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-416

τῷ Ὀρέστῃ is probably not a dative of the agent but equivalent to πρὸς τὸν Ὀρέστην.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-417

ἐκείνου is to be taken as a genitive after the ἀναγνωρίσεως that follows in b 8 ( comp. τινῶν b 3 , and θατέρου a 4 ). For a genitive depending on a following genitive compare ἑκάστου in 18, 1456 a 6 ( v. ad loc.), and Plato Rep.534 B
λόγον ἑκάστου τῆς οὐσίας
[ comp. Campbell, Rep. of Plato 2 p. 185].

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-418

περὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐστί. There is no reason to delete the preposition. The μύθος being a μίμησις πράξεως ( comp. esp. 10, 1452 a 13 ), two parts of the μύθος (the περιπέτεια and ἀναγνώρισις) are said to relate to certain portions of the πρᾶξις, i. e. to the kind of incidents already considered in the preceding statement ( 10, 1452 a 12-11, 1452 b 8 ). The μύθος in fact has a περιπέτεια and ἀναγνώρισις because the πρᾶξις which it represents is conceived as having them. It will be observed that the 'simple plot' of 10, 1452 a 12 is now tacitly set aside, no doubt on account of its inferior dramatic value ( v. 13, 1452 b 31 ).

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-419

εἴρηται, 'has been already described, or explained'; comp. 25, 1460 b 24
τὸ γὰρ τέλος εἴρηται
.— De anima2. 8, 420 b 21
τὸ δ᾽ αἴτιον ἐν ἑτέροις εἴρησεται
.— Eth. N.4. 7, 1127 a 18
οἱ μὲν πρὸς ἡδονὴν καὶ λύπην ὁμιλοῦντες εἴρηνται
.
πάθος δέ ἐστὶ πρᾶξις κτέ. The term πάθος requires definition because of the variety of senses attaching to it. In ordinary language it often involves the idea of great suffering, and has the concrete sense of a great trouble or affliction of body or mind: Metaph.Δ 21, 1022 b 19
πάθος λέγεται ... αἱ βλαβεραὶ ἀλλοιώσεις καὶ κινήσεις, καὶ μάλιστα αἱ λυπηραὶ βλάβαι
. ἔτι τὰ μεγέθη τῶν συμφορῶν καὶ λυπηρῶν πάθη λέγεται ( comp. Bon. Ind. 557 a 26).
The sense the present definition gives the word was probably one already established in theatrical usage (see on 6, 1450 a 34 ). The πάθος is, just like the ἀναγνώρισις and the περιπέτεια, one of the incidents of the play and as such part of the πρᾶξις or action. Aristotle defines it accordingly as a πρᾶξις of a certain kind, a πρᾶξις φθαρτικὴ ἢ ὀδυνηρά. Apart from the theatre the terms πάθος and πρᾶξις are natural opposites ( comp. 1, 1447 a 28 and Eth. N.5. 7, 1132 a 9 ).
1452b11

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

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-269

11.3 Et comme dans la Lyncée de Theodecte.) 1

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-270

11.4 La reconnoiſſance est, comme ſon nom même le témoigne, un changement qui faiſant paſſer de l'ignorance à la connoiſſance, produit, ou la haine ou l'amitié dans ceux que le Poete a deſſein de rendre heureux ou malheureux.] 2

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-271

11.5 La plus belle de toutes les reconnoiffances est celle qui ſe trouve avec la péripetie, comme dans l'Edipe.] 3

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-272

11.6 Il y a pluſieurs autres ſortes de reconnoiſſances; car il arrive ſouvent qu'on reconnoît des choſes inanimées, & ce qu'il y a de plus commun.] 4

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-273

11.6 On reconnoît, par exemple, ce qu'une perſonne a fait, ou ce qu'elle n'a pas fait.] 5

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-274

11.7 Mais celle dont je viens de parler eſt la plus propre à la REMARQUES. fable & à l'action.] 6

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-275

11.7 Car cette reconnoiſſance accompagnée de la péripetie produira immanquablement, ou la compaſſion ou la terreur, dont la Tragedie eſt l'imitation, &c.] 7

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-276

11.8 La ſimple eſt, quand une perſonne eſt reconnuë par une autre qu'elle connoît.) 8

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-277

11.8 Et la double, quand il faut que deux perſonnes qui ne ſe connoiſſent point, viennent à ſe reconnoître, comme dans l'Iphigenie d'Euripide.] 9

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-278

11.9 Outre ces deux parties de la fable, qui regardent le ſujet, il y en a encore une troisième que j'appelle la paſſion.] 10

Commentary on the Poetics (Thomas Twining, 1789) (OCR draft) (Thomas Twining's notes on Aristotle's Poetics, aligned to the Kassel reference edition.) focus

85. mvp-aristotle-comment-85

NOTE 85. P. 86.

11.9 THESE THEN ARE TWO PARTS OF THE FABLE- REVOLUTION AND DISCOVERY.
Δυο μεν οὖν του μυθου μερη ΠΕΡΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ ἐστι, περιπέτεια και ἀναγνωρισις.
"Circa hæc." About what? What are we to understand by
ταυτα
? — Victorius says,
τα πραττομενα
; and Dacier, after him, "Qui regardent le sujet." I cannot be satisfied with this.
Τα πραττομενα
, the subject, the action, are sufficiently expressed by the word
μυθου
. Would Aristotle have said, "These are two parts of the fable relative to the fable?" I have, therefore, neglected the word
περι
in my translation, in conformity to the probable conjecture of Madius. Every reader sees how easily it might get into the text from the word
περιπετεια
which presently follows. I rather think, however, that, retaining
περι
, we should read,
περι Τ' ΑΥΤΑ
: "circa easdem res;"—to point out the close connection of these two parts of the fable, as things of the same kind, and counterparts, as it were, to each other, co-operating to the same effect—the production of terror, pity, surprise, &c. And thus they are afterwards mentioned together, as constituting one species of Tragedy:
ἡ μεν γαρ, πεπλεγμενη, ἧς το όλον ἐστι ΠΕΡΙΠΕΤΕΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΓΝΩΡΙΣΙΣ.
[ cap. xviii. Transl. Part II. Sect. 19.] The same mode of expression occurs in the Ethics ad Nicom. lib. iv. cap. 13.
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΑ ΑΥΤΑ δε σχεδον ΕΣΤΙ και ἡ ἀλαζονειας μεσότης
: "in iisdem vertitur." That is, as appears from the context, the virtue, of which he is there speaking, was of the same kind, or class, with that, which was the subject of the foregoing chapter. Both were among the
ἀρεται ὁμιλητικαι
. So, in the conclusion of the subsequent chapter—
τρεις οὖν αἱ εἴρημεναι ἐν τῷ βιῳ μεσοτητες ΕΙΣΙ δε πασαι ΠΕΡΙ λογων τινων και πραξεων κοινωνιαν.

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

11.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-31 11.4

THE DISCOVERY, AS THE NAME IMPLIES, IS A TRANSITION FROM IGNORANCE TO KNOWLEDGE.

THIS species of dramatic incident, [A] which, like the foregoing, and for the fame reason, is, among us, confined to tragedy with a happy [A] For further observations on the discovery, see note IV, chap. XIV, and notes on chap. XVI. paffim. catastrophe =
catastrophe and comedy, was a great favorite with our earlier writers, but is seldom used by modern poets; probably from the difficulty of continuing the disguise with probability as to the other persons of the drama; or in regard to the audience, without keeping a principal character, (for of such only can an interesting discovery confift,) too long in obscurity, and facrificing too much to a single surprising situation, which will lofe much of its effect after the first representation. Can any thing be more absolutely improbable than that a daughter should be disguised from her father, and a woman from her lover, by being in men's cloaths? [B] and yet this is the case of Rofalind in As You Like It, where, from Orlando's fictitious courtship of Rofalind, though in difguise, and from the likeness being observed, both by him [c] and the duke, the improbability is still rendered more striking. As to the disguising the principal character from the audience, it appears a useless refinement, and was seldom practised by the ancients. In Shakespear also, Rosalind, Imogen, Viola, Julia, the Duke in [B] There must have been a peculiar improbability attending this kind of disguise, on which fo many of the plays of Shakespear, and Beaumont and Fletcher turn, from all the female characters being performed by men, an offence against probability when in a female habit; but for a man, in his own cloaths, to act a beautiful princess (Imogen, for instance) is perfectly inconsistent with the least shadow of it. See note Iv.. chap. XIII. [C] DUKE SEN. ' I do remember in this shepherd boy • Some lively touches of my daughter's favour. ORLA. • My lord, the first time that I ever saw him, ، Methought he was a brother to your daughter.. • But, my good lord, this boy is foreft born.' Meafure
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. Measure for Measure, are all known to the spectators. Massei and Voltaire have chosen to conceal Eghistus from the theatre, as well as from his mother, in Merope; but in this they have not only deviated from the tragedy of Euripides [D] but destroyed the striking effect described by Plutarch, which was plainly derived from their relation to each other being known to the spectators. One of the best instances I know, of a principal character being concealed to the audience through the whole of the action, and yet taking his proper share in it, is in the Bondman of Maffinger. There is a very good instance of it also in the comedy of Seduction, by Mr. Holcroft.

11.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-32 11.5

THE DISCOVERY IS MOST BEAUTIFUL WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY THE PERIPETÍA.

DACIER has laid it down as a rule, that a discovery cannot be made the principal fubject of a drama; which is strongly combated by Metaftafio. Of this fanciful opinion of Dacier, which he derives from a passage in the preceding chapter, that very passage compared with this, is, in my idea, the clearest confutation; at least, as far as the fentence of Aristotle is decisive. He there says, the tranfition of fortune;' (ἡ μεθάβασις) that is, the change from happiness to misery, or the contrary, which must be the principal object, or the catastrophe of the fable, ⚫ in complicated actions, is effected by the means of peripetía, or disco- [D] See note IV. chap. XIV. very,
، very, or both; and he here says, that is preferable which is effected by the union of both; where the catastrophe arifes from the peripetía, caused by a discovery. In the Merope of Massei and Voltaire, the discovery is not accompanied by the peripetía. On the contrary, the distress is confiderably encreased by it: I doubt much if such was the arrangement of the Crefphontes of Euripides.

11.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-33 11.9

THE PATHOS, IS THAT PART OF THE ACTION WHICH IS EITHER FATAL OR PAINFUL; SUCH AS DEATHS EXHIBITED ON THE STAGE, OR TORTURES, OR WOUNDS, OR OTHER THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

FROM this definition of the pathos, it is manifest that the rule, fo much infifted on by the French critics, never to stain the theatre with blood, (de ne pas enfanglanter le theatre,) is neither derived from the school of Ariftotle, nor the practice of the Greek tragedians. It seems to have arifen from a precept of Horace, as I think, ill understood, [E] • Nec pueros coram populo Medea trucidet.' It is to the improbability, not the cruelty, that Horace objects. [F] 'INCREDULUS odi.' [E] 'Nor let Medea, in the people's fight, < Her infants murder.'- [F] Almost every tranflator gives this as the sense, 'It is both incredible and disgusting, but the literal meaning is, 'It disgusts because it is incredible.' Not, I hate to fee, and never can believe.' But, 'Not believing, I deteft to fee.' RoscoM. I do
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. I do not conceive 'coram populo' to allude to the spectators, but the chorus. This will be illustrated by comparing the management of Euripides with that of Seneca in this identical instance. In Euripides, Medea kills her children behind the scenes, and the chief person of the chorus naturally exclaims, [G] The house I'll enter, and attempt to save • The children from destruction.' In [H] Seneca, Medea kills one of her children in the prefence of the chorus, without their making any observations on it; and on the entry of Jason she snatches the other up into her chariot, and deliberately [1] [G] Παρέλθω δόμους, αρῆξαι φόνον Δοκει μὸι τέχνοις. murders [H] As Seneca was subsequent to Horace, it could not be his play that Horace means to censure: but, probably, Seneca borrowed his arrangement of the catastrophe from fome other Greek tragedy, or from the Medea of Ennius. [1] Perhaps from the perpetration of this shocking crime, the strongest possible proof may be drawn of the force of custom over the most powerful feelings of nature. The deftruction of children, by their parents was so common at Athens, that, if we may judge of Menander, by Terence, even on the comic stage, the question, whether a child shall be reared or expofed, was treated as a common domestic confideration. An author, well acquainted with human life, though not inclinable to fee it on the faireft fide, has fome just observations on the commiffion of this crime in modern times, which he imputes to the fear of shame and disgrace, and their inevitable attendant, ruin and want, overcoming natural affection. (Fable of the Bees, Remark C.) How far, in a state of civil fociety, it is justifiable to place a person in the cruel alternative, of chusing either a shameful death or a life of infamy, I shall not attempt to determine. But of this cruel alternative, the makers of law can have no idea. The father and mother, whose happiness depends on a favourite child, and who watch over its fafety with an anxiety hardly to be conceived, cannot enter into the fenfations of a wretch, who knows her new-born infant is her greatest enemy, the destroyer Dd of
murders it in the face of the chorus and all the surviving persons of the drama. Of such an arrangement, the critic may well fay, ، Quodcunque oftendis mihi SIC incredulus odi.' The Bishop of Worcester, in his note on this verse, is of the same opinion as to the impropriety with which Seneca has conducted his play, and quotes a passage from Quintilian, to shew that the Medea of Ovid • had fome of the vices here charged on Seneca.' • The Medea of Ovid," he says, ' feems to me, to shew how much that writer could have excel- • led, if he had chosen rather to moderate his genius than indulge it [к]." It must be observed, that though Quintilian MAY mean to speak of the inequality of this tragedy, it appears more likely, that he compares this tragedy with his other works. For if he only speaks of the fertility of his genius, and his intemperance in the general indulgence of it, while particular parts shew his power of regulating it, it is equally applicable to all his works. Apply the passage to Dryden, and let the exception be his ode on Cecilia's day, and observe if there would be any impropriety in using the exact words of Quintilian. of all her hopes, the author of her utter ruin. The same woman who, in this situation, may have acted the part of Medea, might be capable, in a happier situation, to have facrificed her life to save her infant. Justice, perhaps, however, must punish deliberate acts of this kind when, like other crimes, clearly proved; but to make a defire to escape shame, a proof of murder, is a law that would have disgraced the code of Draco. See 21 Jac. I. ch. 27. which makes the concealment of the child's death almost conclusive evidence of its being murdered by the mother. [K] Ovidii Medea, videtur mihi oftendere, quantum vir ille præftare potuit, si ingenio • suo temperare quam indulgere, maluiffet.' It
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. It is curious to observe, as a proof of candid criticism, how an ingenious man will contrive to bend an ancient writer to support his own hypothesis. Bossu, in his Essay on the Epopee, L. II. page 258. says, • Horace orders, even in tragedy, that incidents, too marvellous, such • as the change of Progne into a bird, or Cadmus into a ferpent, should • be kept from the view of the spectators.' Not mentioning a word of Medea, and even omitting the line in question, in a quotation of the passage at the bottom of the page. But in the fame book of his work, page 282, he says, ' certain actions are unfit for representation, either • from being too horrible, as a mother who kills her own children, or • the change of a human creature into a bird or a ferpent.' And here he quotes the passage of Horace entire. How little the Grecian stage was accustomed to this delicacy of the French, a perusal of its tragedies will fufficiently shew [L]. The exhibition of a dead body appears to have been a favorite spectacle with the Athenians. The death of Ajax has always been confidered as an instance of a character killing himself on the stage. But this has been lately combated by the Abbé Barthelemi in his Travels of the younger Anacharfis [M]. Several modern critics,' he says, 'have imagined, that in the tragedy • of Sophocles, Ajax kills himself with his sword, in the prefence of the spectators. They bring the authority of the scholiaft, who observes, [L] And these are now open to the English reader, through the elegant and liberal, yet accurate translations, of Mr. Potter and Mr. Francklin. [M] See his note, chap. LXXI, ' fur le lieu de la scene ou Ajax se tuoit,' Dd 2 ' that
書 ​A COMMENTARY ON THE ⚫ that the characters seldom kill themselves on the stage (N). I think ' that the rule has not been violated in the present instance. To fatisfy ، ، ، ، ، us of this, it is only neceffary to follow the thread of the action. ، The chorus being informed that Ajax was not in his tent [o] go out on both fides of the theatre to feek him, and bring him back [P]. The • hero appears again on the stage, and, after an affecting soliloquy, he throws himself on the point of a sword, whose hilt he had previously fixed in the ground [2]. The chorus return [R], and while they are complaining of the ill success of their search, they hear the cries of Tecmessa, who had found the body of her husband [s], and they advance to see the dreadful spectacle (T). It is not therefore on the stage that Ajax kills himself.' I do not know if I am influenced by a partiality to my own opinion, but I think the circumftances mentioned by M. Barthelemi, as the support of his hypothefis, are a confirmation of mine. And that Sophocles, meaning to exhibit the death of Ajax on the fstage, was obliged to violate a fundamental rule of the Grecian drama, and send off the chorus merely to avoid the improbability of such an act being performed, coram populo;' before the people of Salamis, who formed the chorus. To obviate, however, the charge of prejudice, either in favor of my own opinion or the custom of the British theatre, whose blood and blank [N] Schol. Sophoc. in Ajac. v. 826.' [o] Ajac. Soph. v. 805.' [P] Ibid. v. 824.' [Q] 'Ibid. v. 826.' [R] Ibid. v. 877. [s] Ibid. v. 900.' [T] 'Ibid. v. 924, 1022. verse
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. verse has been proverbially censured by some delicate critics, I shall appeal to the judgement of a writer who must be impartial, Metaftafio; a poet in a species of the drama, whose delicacy is even more faftidious in this than the French, and which does not allow the unhappy catastrophe. Though he does not himself approve the introduction of fuch spectacles, he cannot shut his eyes to their appearance on the Greek theatre. Among many other examples of their not adhering to the imaginary rule, 'di non infanguinar la scena,' he cites the incident before us. • Is not the stage stained with blood, when Ajax throws him- • self on a drawn sword, with the hilt fixed in the ground for that pur- ، pose? Let the critics torment themselves as much as they please, to prove that Ajax does not kill himself in the fight of the audience, they can never absolutely deny that long scenes pass, after the blow, round • his body, transfixed and visible, fince his wife Tecmessa, his brother Teucer, and all the chorus, lament over it, cover it, uncover it, and ' lift it from the ground, to which it had, in a manner, been nailed, and ' from which place it could not have before been moved, and the visible ، place of representation always continues the fame.' If Ajax does not kill himself on the stage, he must be supposed to speak his dying foliloquy behind the scene. But a confideration of the form of the ancient theatre will, I think, reconcile every apparent contradiction. We are told by Julius Pollux, that the entrance of the principal character was always from the front of the stage, which, in tragedy, [u] was the portico of a palace, while the inferior characters entered or went [u] See note v, chap. vi. out
out on the fides, not, I prefume, at right angles with the front scene as on the modern theatre, but diagonally. For in comedy, where the scene represented streets, characters frequently are produced as seen by the spectators, though not by each other (x). A thing often attempted on the modern stage, but always, from the shape of our theatre, attended with some degree of improbability. Now Ajax had fixed his sword, we will suppose, under the portico, nearly at the bottom of the stage; and, after his last speech, threw himself on it in full view of the audience; the chorus returning from each fide could not fee either the body, or Tecmessa, who, entering from the front, must necessarily find the body, round which, all the circumstances mentioned by Metastasio take place in view of the audience; or, otherwife, all must pass behind the scene, that is faid by Teucer, Tecmessa, and the chorus, from the falling on the sword, ver. 876, till the entrance of Menelaus, v. 1066, who forbids their moving the body, just, it seems, as they are going to take it up; and, particularly, orders them to let it remain as it is [v]. Whether this practice of killing on the stage, which was carried to such excess by our old writers, but which is now used with greater moderation, is really a beauty or a fault, is another question. The fud- [x] Mr. Saunders, in his Treatise on Theatres, page 70, speaking of the theatre at Imola, proposes a plan for obviating this disadvantage on the modern stage. It would be injustice to mention this work without acknowledging the information, as well as amusement, I have received from the perusal of it. [1] Οῦτος σὲ φωνῶ τόνδε τὸν νεκρὸν χεροῖν Μὴ συνκομιζεῖν, αλλ' ΕΑΝ ΟΠΩΣ ΕΧΕΙ. den,
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. den, and sometimes, unexpected blow, as when Othello kills himself, or as when Euphrasia stabs Dionyfius in the Grecian Daughter, has, certainly, a very fine theatrical effect; and the dying agonies of a Siddons, or a Garrick, were truly affecting. But a stage, heaped with dead bodies, panting from the exertion of the preceding scene, is likely to excite other emotions than those of pity and terror. I should imagine the general stabbing scene, in [z] Titus Andronicus, if represented, would hardly be less risible than the catastrophe of Tom Thumb. [z] It has often been a subject of wonder, how this monftrous farce has held its place in all the editions of Shakespear. I cannot think he wrote a line in it, though if, as Theobald fuggefts, it appeared before Shakespear wrote for the stage, two verses in it pleased him so well, that he has twice closely imitated them. • She is a woman, therefore may be woo'd; • She is a woman, therefore may be won.' T. ANDRON. • She's beautiful, and therefore to be woo'd; She is a woman, therefore to be won.' Ift Part HEN. VI. ، Was ever woman in this humour woo'd? Was ever woman in this humour won?" RICHARD III. CHAP.

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

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-78

Ritter, cap. 11 § 1

Quid sit περιπέτεια et quid ἀναγνώρισις definitur, ac simul quaedam agnitionis species enumerantur. καθάπερ εἴρηται: haec verba non ita intelligenda sunt, quasi haec peripetiae definitio iam ante prolata sit, sed pertinent ad sola ἡ εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον τῶν πραττομένων μεταβολή. nam rerum in tragoedia agendarum duplicem esse posse conversionem significatum erat capite 7 extr. - καὶ τοῦτο δέ, ὥσπερ λέγομεν, κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἢ ἀναγκαῖον: repetit quae (c. 10, 3) et de peripetia et de agnitione monuerat. itaque verba καθάπερ εἴρηται ad remotiorem locum, ὥσπερ λέγομεν ad proximum provocant. ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι - τουναντίον ἐποίησεν: respicit Sophoclis Oedipum regem v. 924-1185. quod omisit poetae nomen et hic et §. 2., sane mirum videatur, cum et Aeschylus et Euripides et alii eo nomine tragoedias conscripserint. ponit Sophoclis nomen c. 15, 7., ubi eandem fabulam commemorat. mira dominatur per totum hoc caput consuetudo, ut cum quater tragoedia quaedam memoretur, ne semel quidem eius auctor nominetur. pugnat hoc utique contra rationem quam Aristoteles in commemorandis poetarum operibus cum in ceteris suis disputationibus tum in Rhetoricis secutus est. itaque haec explicatio aut ab epitomatore quodam insigniter contracta est et decurtata aut exempla ab aliena manu h. 1. adscripta sunt. certe exemplis istis lectores Graeci Aristotelis aetate haud aegre caruerint. equidem de operis particula huic capiti (§.1-5) assignata sic statuo: is qui toti libro miram illam formam partim resecando partim interpolando concinnavit, pleniorem Aristotelis de περιπετείᾳ et ἀναγνωρίσει disputationem ita in compendium redegit, ut ex generali explicatione nonnisi summa eius fastigia retineret et pro ceteris exempla quaedam reponeret. καὶ ἐν τῷ Λυγκεῖ ὁ μὲν ἀγόμενος ὡς ἀποθανούμενος, ὁ δὲ Δαναὸς ἀκολουθῶν ὡς ἀποκτενῶν: Lynceus infra c. 18, 1. Theodectis fabula appellatur a personato Aristotele. quae de tragoediae huius argumento utroque loco afferuntur, inde nihil certi elici potest, quo ipso auctor horum exemplorum suspectus fit. id quidem dubitationi haud obnoxium videtur, verba ὁ μὲν ἀγόμενος ὡς ἀποθανούμενος de ipso Lynceo accipienda esse, non de Aegypto eius patre vel alio quo. nam hoc si ita se haberet, statim nomen Δαναὺς omittendum et post ὁ μὲν nihil nisi ὁ δὲ ponendum erat. quis sit puer, cuius captio c. 18, 1. commemoratur, non constat. quae Tyrwhittus de fabulae argumento coniecit, ea admodum incerta sunt ¹). ἐκ τῶν πεπραγμένων est ex iis quae in iudicio acta sunt.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-79

Ritter, cap. 11 § 2

εἰς φιλίαν ἢ ἔχθραν: in amicitiam aut odium, h. e. ut aut amicitia aut odium inter personas agentes oriatur. τῶν πρὸς εὐτυχίαν ἢ δυστυχίαν ώρισμένων: agnitio tragica talis est, ut inde aut amicitia aut odium personarum agentium fiat. ὡρισμένων h. e. eorum qui a poeta ad felicitatem aut infelicitatem destinati sunt. quippe poeta tragoediam scribens pro arbitrio quodammodo decernit, qui felices et qui infelices fiant.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-80

Ritter, cap. 11 § 3

ἔστιν ὅτε, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, συμβαίνει: additur ὥσπερ εἴρηται ad definienda verba ἔστιν ὅτε συμβαίνει, est cum evenit, ut dictum, adversus ea quae anima carent, nempe ut fiat pro ignoratione cognitio, sive ἐξ ἀγνοίας εἰς γνῶσιν μεταβολή, et quidem talis mutatio, qua homines ad fortunam aut infortunium destinati se amare aut aversari incipiant. nimirum interdum ex fortuitis rebus homines suam aliorumque condicionem et sortem ita intelligunt, ut inde amicitia aut odium exsistat, ceterum loci lectio dubia est. nam ὅτε deest libris AcBcNa et Momnibus et GPQ. in nonnullis codicibus, ut in GP et M XIV est συμβαίνειν, quod grammatico deberi videtur sustentandae structurae studioso, postquam ὅτε a subsequente ὥσπερ absorptum erat. fortasse ἔστιν ex versu continuo sequente huc temere tractum est, ut Aristoteles scripserit καὶ γὰρ πρὸς ἄψυχα καὶ τὰ τυχόντα, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, συμβαίνει. – καὶ εἰ πέπραγέ τις ἢ μὴ 1) "Ex mera verborum vi coniiceremus ipsum Lyncea ad mortem duci etc. sed infra c. 18, 1. (si modo ad eandem tragoediam respicit, quod satis probabile est) non Lynceus, sed puer aliquis in capitis discrimen videtur venisse. hic autem puer Abas forte erat Lyncei filius. modum quidem quo periit Danaus, nemo veterum (qui scilicet hodie extant) tradidit; sed Hyginus, cuius fabulae ex tragicis saepissime derivatae sunt, mortem eius ab Abante parentibus nuntiatam bis commemoravit, fab. 170 et 273" 1 yrwhittus. πέπραγεν, ἔστιν ἀναγνωρίσαι : agnoscere aliquis potest, utrum actionem iam odiosam aut optandam omiserit aut susceperit.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-81

Ritter, cap. 11 § 4

ἢ ἔλεον ἕξει ἢ φόβον, h. e. sive in alios miserationem sive de ipsis timorem in nobis excitabit. οἵων πράξεων, h. e. φοβερῶν καὶ ἐλεεινῶν, actiones quibus miseratio ac timor excitatur.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-82

Ritter, cap. 11 § 5

αἱ μὲν θατέρου πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον μόνον: talis agnitio inest in Aeschyli Choephoris: Orestes enim sororem Electram noverat, ipse autem se Electrae et verbis et signis quibusdam agnoscendum praebet. - οἷον ἡ μὲν Ἰφιγένεια τῷ Ὀρέστῃ ἀνεγνωρίσθη ἐκ τῆς πέμψεως τῆς ἐπιστολῆς: ex missa epistola agnoscitur Iphigenia a fratre Oresta in Euripidis Iphigenia Tauricensi v. 759-792. mirum rursus est Euripidis nomen reticeri, cum et Aeschylus et Sophocles Iphigeniam (Aulidensem) scripserint, et Polyidus Tauricensem ediderit. conferantur quae ad §. 1. huius capitis a nobis dicta sunt. accedit quod ἐκ τῆς πέμψεως τῆς ἐπιστολῆς non vere dictum est: Iphigenia enim illas litteras non mittit sed ipsa tradit. ἐκείνῳ δὲ πρὸς τὴν Ἰφιγένειαν ἄλλης ἔδει ἀναγνωρίσεως. conf. Iphigen. Tauricens. v. 811-826.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-83

Ritter, cap. 11 § 6

δύο μὲν οὖν τοῦ μύθου μέρη περὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐστί, περιπέτεια καὶ ἀναγνώρισις, τρίτον δὲ πάθος: iam in loca duo admodum spinosa incurrimus (dico hanc §. 6 et totum c. 12), quae si ab Aristotele sunt, ille qui adhuc de poesi optima quaeque docuit, idem falsissima et inutilia puerili explicatione protulit, sed veniamus ad singula. duae fabulae partes circa haec sunt, tertia autem perpessio. quid hoc ? num vere peripetia et agnitio fabulae ( τοῦ μύθου) partes esse possunt, cum modo expositum sit peripetiam et agnitionem uni fabulae implexae competere, iisque ipsis differre a simplice implexam? dicat quispiam, at Aristoteles τὸν μύθον dixit eam fabulam de qua proxime disputavit, h. e. implexam. si id vel invita lingua concederemus, quid inde sequetur? scilicet τὸ πάθος esse uniusimplexae fabulae partem, quod falsissimum est, sed vide quaeso quomodo novum illud prioribus adiungatur, τρίτον δὲ πάθος. id ita explicari potest, ut hoc tertium περὶ ταῦτ᾽ εἶναι dicatur (eo verba ducunt), aut ut idem pro tertia mythi parte venditetur. si prius admittis, absurdum est dicere πάθος circa id versari circa quod agnitio et peripetia, si alterum, non minus falsum est docere tres fabulae partes esse peripetiam agnitionem perpessionem, cum duae priores a multis fabulis plane abesse possint, perpessio autem ne pro parte quidem fabulae haberi possit. considera quae sequuntur, τούτων δὲ περιπέτεια μὲν καὶ ἀναγνώρισις εἴρηται: scribere debuit τούτων δὲ περιπέτεια μὲν καὶ ἀναγνώρισις τί ἐστι, εἴρηται vel τούτων δὲ περὶ περιπετείας μὲν καὶ ἀναγνωρί σεως εἴρηται. hoc, περιπέτεια εἴρηται, nihil est nisi peripetiae nomen ante positum est. denique haec πάθους definitio utique caret omni philosophi sagacitate et accuratione elocutionis. restat aliud indicium quo haec admodum suspecta fiant, idque mox afferre placet. accedimus enim ad alterum illum locum Aristotelis gravitate et nomine non minus indignum.